• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death of British 'troll' sparks debate over Internet bile

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
London (AFP) - The death of a British woman accused of a vicious campaign of online abuse against the parents of missing girl Madeleine McCann has ignited debate over the growing scourge of Internet "trolls".

snip

It is a trend that has been replicated the world over against high-profile figures.

snip

The media lawyer said he had seen "a significant upswing" in online bullying cases.
But criminal prosecution, said Stephens, should be reserved for the most extreme cases.

snip

However, new research confirms what many victims already know, that online trolls can be a sinister bunch.
A study by Canadian researchers cited in Psychology Today linked trolling to sadism.
"Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun... and the Internet is their playground!" it said.

http://news.yahoo.com/death-british-troll-sparks-debate-over-internet-bile-133700371.html;_ylt=AwrBEiRa9TtU40oAoEnQtDMD
Click to expand...

Interesting article. And although it is speaking of what laws against extreme serial trolling can be brought up is the crux of the article, which is a debate on free speech vs criminal bullying, I think that some things talked about concerning trolling, and the people that do it are a relevant discussion to have today.

I am trying to not break the rules here so I won't mention anyone, but we all know who the bullies are on this site, and how sadistic they seem to be, so my question for the thread, is two fold.

1. What is wrong with these people that they feel the need to come in and **** all over the sites they go on?

2. Do you think that this kind of thing should be against the law? Should people be jailed for it? Thought crime?
 
j-mac said:
1. What is wrong with these people that they feel the need to come in and **** all over the sites they go on?
Click to expand...

They have no actual life. It makes them feel important even though everybody knows it's sad.

2. Do you think that this kind of thing should be against the law? Should people be jailed for it? Thought crime?
Click to expand...

I think the punishment is just as it is. Public ostracizing. No laws are needed.
 
Several British trolls have been tried and jailed. This alleged one died, possibly from overdose, after being confronted by a TV crew from News International's Fox equivalent cable channel.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Several British trolls have been tried and jailed. This alleged one died, possibly from overdose, after being confronted by a TV crew from News International's Fox equivalent cable channel.
Click to expand...

So are you saying he shouldn't have been confronted?
 
rocket88 said:
They have no actual life. It makes them feel important even though everybody knows it's sad.



I think the punishment is just as it is. Public ostracizing. No laws are needed.
Click to expand...

Just playing devils advocate here, but what of those that take it to the extreme, that brings harm to others?
 
It's the result of an intersection of a few different aspects that come together to create a fairly tough problem.

Millions, billions? of people are able to connect to the internet and communicate. A small but potent percentage of these people are sadistic beasts looking for opportunities to hurt others any way they can.

Anonymity or semi-anonymity is usually possible.

Repercussions are usually slim to none.

The only way to stop something like this from a technological perspective is either the abusee needs to close the door and walk away, limiting their options of interacting on the internet... OR invasive identity measures to track, monitor, and deny some people from communicating are necessary. The second one will never ever happen and I wouldn't support anything of the sort anyway, so we're stuck with #1.

The third (secret) option is to form a counter troll task force to hunt down these perpetrators and troll them until they commit suicide. If anyone is interested PM for details.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Don't you read your own links? It's there in the OP.
Click to expand...

I know that, and I am aware. What I am questioning, is why you felt the need to bring up that part? Do you think his suicide was the responsibility of the news outlet questioning him? Shouldn't he have been questioned on it? He did after all bully relentlessly that family.
 
j-mac said:
Interesting article. And although it is speaking of what laws against extreme serial trolling can be brought up is the crux of the article, which is a debate on free speech vs criminal bullying, I think that some things talked about concerning trolling, and the people that do it are a relevant discussion to have today.

I am trying to not break the rules here so I won't mention anyone, but we all know who the bullies are on this site, and how sadistic they seem to be, so my question for the thread, is two fold.

1. What is wrong with these people that they feel the need to come in and **** all over the sites they go on?

2. Do you think that this kind of thing should be against the law? Should people be jailed for it? Thought crime?
Click to expand...

There is no need for additional laws to deal with trolling. Perjury laws and such can and should be used to stop people from spreading lies about others online, though it is difficult. On sites like this one, there are rules, the enforcement of which is generally pretty good and effective. In terms of online bullying, well, free speech, like every other right, can be used in negative ways. That is not a reason nor a justification to limit rights.
 
Round them up, make them live under bridges.
 
Redress said:
There is no need for additional laws to deal with trolling. Perjury laws and such can and should be used to stop people from spreading lies about others online, though it is difficult. On sites like this one, there are rules, the enforcement of which is generally pretty good and effective. In terms of online bullying, well, free speech, like every other right, can be used in negative ways. That is not a reason nor a justification to limit rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you got this one about right red.
 
j-mac said:
Interesting article. And although it is speaking of what laws against extreme serial trolling can be brought up is the crux of the article, which is a debate on free speech vs criminal bullying, I think that some things talked about concerning trolling, and the people that do it are a relevant discussion to have today.

I am trying to not break the rules here so I won't mention anyone, but we all know who the bullies are on this site, and how sadistic they seem to be, so my question for the thread, is two fold.

1. What is wrong with these people that they feel the need to come in and **** all over the sites they go on?

2. Do you think that this kind of thing should be against the law? Should people be jailed for it? Thought crime?
Click to expand...


When I was young, “bullying”, by definition, involved actual physical violence or threats of same.

I am amazed at how cowardly and weak we have become, in more recent generations, that mere speech can now be construed as “bullying”. When I was young, the motto was, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” I guess modern generations have become so weak that even names can hurt them. It seems modern generations are at least as easily hurt at least as badly, by mere speech, as it took actual violence to harm members of my generation.
 
j-mac said:
Interesting article. And although it is speaking of what laws against extreme serial trolling can be brought up is the crux of the article, which is a debate on free speech vs criminal bullying, I think that some things talked about concerning trolling, and the people that do it are a relevant discussion to have today.

I am trying to not break the rules here so I won't mention anyone, but we all know who the bullies are on this site, and how sadistic they seem to be, so my question for the thread, is two fold.

1. What is wrong with these people that they feel the need to come in and **** all over the sites they go on?

2. Do you think that this kind of thing should be against the law? Should people be jailed for it? Thought crime?
Click to expand...

How did she die?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
When I was young, “bullying”, by definition, involved actual physical violence or threats of same.

I am amazed at how cowardly and weak we have become, in more recent generations, that mere speech can now be construed as “bullying”. When I was young, the motto was, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” I guess modern generations have become so weak that even names can hurt them. It seems modern generations are at least as easily hurt at least as badly, by mere speech, as it took actual violence to harm members of my generation.
Click to expand...

I agree, however I also know that from our day's, bullying has gone way further....
 
Bob Blaylock said:
When I was young, “bullying”, by definition, involved actual physical violence or threats of same.

I am amazed at how cowardly and weak we have become, in more recent generations, that mere speech can now be construed as “bullying”. When I was young, the motto was, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” I guess modern generations have become so weak that even names can hurt them. It seems modern generations are at least as easily hurt at least as badly, by mere speech, as it took actual violence to harm members of my generation.
Click to expand...

It's not "cowardly and weak" to be sensitive, which is really what we've become. Can we be to sensitive, sure, and I think the thin skin cab cause some jabs to go deeper than they would of some years ago. However, that doesn't mean that a more sensitive society is a "weaker one". For one thing, we are far more tolerant as a society than "back in the day". We're also more open to new ideas. These are two things I'll take every day over the thick skin of yesteryear.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
When I was young, “bullying”, by definition, involved actual physical violence or threats of same.

I am amazed at how cowardly and weak we have become, in more recent generations, that mere speech can now be construed as “bullying”. When I was young, the motto was, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” I guess modern generations have become so weak that even names can hurt them. It seems modern generations are at least as easily hurt at least as badly, by mere speech, as it took actual violence to harm members of my generation.
Click to expand...

Ohyeah, you are one of the last of the real men, modern young men can't deal with stuff that just rolled off the backs of real men like you. Society will never see your like again and so can never regain the golden age you represent.
 
Gathomas88 said:
How did she die?
Click to expand...

Greetings, Gathomas88. :2wave:

No one has officially stated that she is dead - they never found her or her abductor, so I guess she's still considered "missing." :shock: Very sad case.... and a beautiful child.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, I think you got this one about right red.
Click to expand...

I apologize in advance for getting up on my soapbox and addressing a tangential point in your thread, but I think it needs to be said:

I have stated before and firmly beleive that our rights are in the most danger when it seems most reasonable to limit those rights. People on the internet say some despicable things. It seems reasonable to limit the speech of groups like the Aryan Nation or Westboro Baptist Church. They are bad people. But if you limit their rights, you limit every one's rights. And sometimes out of sources we do not like, wonderful things are said.

Lindsey Graham is not some one I would generally be a fan of, and I am not. He tends to be divisive and say some spectacularly bad things. The world would probably be a better place if he would never speak publicly again. But if that happened, I would have missed out on a quote that I think is one of the great comments in modern American politics, one that helped me reform how I view the country and politicians. He said "we became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers". I think that is a pretty powerful comment, and very true, and very important. If putting up with some trolls is the cost of every one having the right to say what they think, and we get a few comments like that, I think the cost is well worth it.
 
j-mac said:
I know that, and I am aware. What I am questioning, is why you felt the need to bring up that part? Do you think his suicide was the responsibility of the news outlet questioning him? Shouldn't he have been questioned on it? He did after all bully relentlessly that family.
Click to expand...

"He" was a woman.
 
Redress said:
I apologize in advance for getting up on my soapbox and addressing a tangential point in your thread, but I think it needs to be said:

I have stated before and firmly beleive that our rights are in the most danger when it seems most reasonable to limit those rights. People on the internet say some despicable things. It seems reasonable to limit the speech of groups like the Aryan Nation or Westboro Baptist Church. They are bad people. But if you limit their rights, you limit every one's rights. And sometimes out of sources we do not like, wonderful things are said.

Lindsey Graham is not some one I would generally be a fan of, and I am not. He tends to be divisive and say some spectacularly bad things. The world would probably be a better place if he would never speak publicly again. But if that happened, I would have missed out on a quote that I think is one of the great comments in modern American politics, one that helped me reform how I view the country and politicians. He said "we became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers". I think that is a pretty powerful comment, and very true, and very important. If putting up with some trolls is the cost of every one having the right to say what they think, and we get a few comments like that, I think the cost is well worth it.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom