Trolling: Illegal?

[DeletedUser31931]

So trolling is going to be made illegal in Arizona (I know this is old news but I was thinking about it last night). Now I know this is Arizona and so most of you will declare it unimportant but think about the consequences. Arizona takes the first step and the rest of the world begins to follow. So my question to you is:

When does Trolling stop becoming light harmless fun and turn into a form of cyberbullying? What is the difference and what steps would you take to stop it without eradicating freedom of speech? How do you define Trolling and other troll related questions. Most importanty though: What are your veiws on the Arizona law.

Los Angles News - Trolling, a criminal offence in Arizona?
Times - Trolling to become illegal in Arizona

EDIT: Articles give more info so I'd recommend reading them.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

This is bad, bad news. If trolling becomes illegal- what will be next?

 

[DeletedUser31931]

So you believe that trolling should not become illegal? Can you please explain why? I'm curious.

 

[DeletedUser]

so the end has come then....

 

[DeletedUser34315]

So you believe that trolling should not become illegal? Can you please explain why? I'm curious.

.. .ever heard of freedom of speech? It's a classic slippery slop.... First trolling is banned.. then being mean.. then saying anything against the government... etc.

 

[DeletedUser1121]

Gandalf is right.

And who is going to determine if I troll or not?
Freedom of speech is more important then peoples feelings getting hurt.

 

[DeletedUser31931]

You both make a good point, and I suppose that the title of the article is misleading, they won't make all trolling illegal, just the part where trolling turns into Cyber-bullying, or at least that is my understanding of it. However, yes it is a slippery slope and that's how we fall down it.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

True but people are also using the "Freedom of Speech" line to justify and subsequently defend their "right" to spreading offensive and or inflammatory material.
For example Abu Quatada (I've probably spelt that wrong) and the Westboro Baptist Church.
I am against the whole government censorship thing but the sort of things that those two are spreading shouldn't be allowed as it can and has caused serious problems. Sometimes I think we need Mr T to just turn up and slap somebody before telling them to "Shut up and stop being a fool"

 

[DeletedUser34315]

True but people are also using the "Freedom of Speech" line to justify and subsequently defend their "right" to spreading offensive and or inflammatory material.
For example Abu Quatada (I've probably spelt that wrong) and the Westboro Baptist Church.
I am against the whole government censorship thing but the sort of things that those two are spreading shouldn't be allowed as it can and has caused serious problems. Sometimes I think we need Mr T to just turn up and slap somebody before telling them to "Shut up and stop being a fool"

But if you ban one hate group, where will it stop? Giving up a freedom for some comfort never ends well.

 

[DeletedUser]

The point of freedom of speech has been distorted to mean, "I can say whatever the hell I want, regardless of the harm it causes to others."

The argument is then likewise distorted to focus on freedom of speech as a "right" to harm others with words.

The focus should be, "do no harm."

We impose laws to discourage others from doing harm. Assault, the act of threatening to impose harm without actually making physical contact, is a crime in every U.S. State and in many other countries. Words, in the context of threatening to impose harm, are a violation of existing laws (felony example here). So if you want to argue about slippery slope, then you should start there, because it's been in the books for centuries and that slope never slipped.

To argue now that "trolling," which sometimes can take the form of internet bullying (and is the only form of trolling Arizona poses as a crime) will result in a slippery slope is in contra to historical evidence.

I agree with an earlier poster that the article is misleading. What better means to rile trolls than to throw their coveted title out as criminal? But that is not what the Arizona law was addressing, and therefore it's just yet one more irresponsible article, one intent on feeding our fabled trolls.

 

[DeletedUser31931]

So then HS, how would you deal with the trolls? (this is just out of interest, to see your solution)

 

[DeletedUser1121]

So then HS, how would you deal with the trolls? (this is just out of interest, to see your solution)

I know how HS handles trolls

The point of freedom of speech has been distorted to mean, "I can say whatever the hell I want, regardless of the harm it causes to others."

The argument is then likewise distorted to focus on freedom of speech as a "right" to harm others with words.

The focus should be, "do no harm."

We impose laws to discourage others from doing harm. Assault, the act of threatening to impose harm without actually making physical contact, is a crime in every U.S. State and in many other countries. Words, in the context of threatening to impose harm, are a violation of existing laws (felony example here). So if you want to argue about slippery slope, then you should start there, because it's been in the books for centuries and that slope never slipped.

I agree to some extend, but there is a whole grey area between doing harm and making people feel offended (which is what trolling is about to some extend imho).

There has been a big trial in the Netherlands this year (or last, can't really remember). Actually it was the first fully broadcasted trial in the Netherlands ever. It was because some parties filed a complaint against a right winged politician. They said he offended muslims. While in fact all he ever said was that he thought that the Islam was an idiotic religion. Without getting into a religious debate here (please don't) the judge ordered that calling the Islam an idiotic religions is not the same as saying muslims are idiots. So this guy made muslims feel offended because he bashed their religion, but in this case, voicing your opinion on a religion was more important then offending the people who support that religion.

So I could state that moderating a forum is a idiotic hobby without being responsible for saying moderators are idiots. Which I may still imply.


Another thing I would like to add is that this law is not going to stand against 99% of the internet. Because they are not in Arizona. What are they going to do if I troll (or even bully) someone from Arizona? Sent a SWAT team to my house? Because what I did is not illegal in the place where I did it. And I doubt it will stand in a court. How was I supposed to know I was talking with someone from Arizona anyway?

And that is the major problem for most laws concerning the internet. The internet is a worldwide used network while laws are still bounded to certain areas.

 

[DeletedUser31931]

You may know, but I don't and would his method work on a large scale?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Just another article intended to whip up reaction imo. It isnt a law nor will be imo there is already threatening behaviour laws and it includes written, if it crosses the line sue. Offending someone is a thin line as it is and encroaches on freedom of speech far too often anyway we don't need more of that but there will always be sections of society that claim for instance calling a belief idiotic and a persons opinion that it is, can be called offensive to others that follow it.

Get some thicker skin, grow a backbone and stop trying to manipulate the law into restricting freedom of speech just because someone dosnt like what someone else says. Theres a big difference between harm and a difference of opinion.

 

[DeletedUser]

Theres a big difference between harm and a difference of opinion.

Actually, harm and difference of opinion are not on different points on a scale. I can pose a bunch of nasty things about you. I claim they're my opinion. However, if those nasty things cause you harm, then we're dealing with possible defamation or public disclosure of private facts which, while I may argue them as my opinion, the court doesn't care if they're opinion or not because harm was committed.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Actually, harm and difference of opinion are not on different points on a scale. I can pose a bunch of nasty things about you. I claim they're my opinion. However, if those nasty things cause you harm, then we're dealing with possible defamation or public disclosure of private facts which, while I may argue them as my opinion, the court doesn't care if they're opinion or not because harm was committed.

Agreed but then you get into what constitutes harm which is a pretty grey area in itself. Is losing revenue actually "harm" id say not its just money, is losing reputation or or opinion of another actual "harm" perhaps but id personally still say its not actual harm. Where it begins and ends is only societies perception, the area is totally grey and it shifts to suit. Once you start making laws against calling me an idiot there is no end to it and id be the last person to run to authority because i didnt like something someone said about me. I don't even like some guidelines here but they are there so ill follow them.

Yes that includes sexist remarks or even racial of which ive had both, so what, i get over and deal with it, lifes full of idiots and you either ignore it or hit them back but you still move on, if you don't your indeed the idiot.

Its a general opinion and there are points where things over step the mark but im pretty much sick of the world mothering people to the point of they become dependent and cry foul all the time when they come up against something said that they don't like and run to a lawyer..

 

[DeletedUser]

That's why you pose something as a crime, so the people committing those actions can be charged for a crime and then the a "jury of your peers" can determine if that grey area was crossed. If you don't pose it as a crime, you have nothing to arrest them on.

Ultimately, the laws exist for the "people" to deliberate over on a case by case basis. This fear of laws dictating government policy and thus a removal of fundamental rights falls flat when you take into consideration the judicial process, in which a person can choose to be judged by a single judge (an appointed or voted-in judge that may be a stickler to the letter of the law, or the intent of the law) or by a jury of citizens that are vetted by the prosecution and the defense.

In other words, chill.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

That's why you pose something as a crime, so the people committing those actions can be charged for a crime and then the a "jury of your peers" can determine if that grey area was crossed. If you don't pose it as a crime, you have nothing to arrest them on.

Ultimately, the laws exist for the "people" to deliberate over on a case by case basis. This fear of laws dictating government policy and thus a removal of fundamental rights falls flat when you take into consideration the judicial process, in which a person can choose to be judged by a single judge (an appointed or voted-in judge that may be a stickler to the letter of the law, or the intent of the law) or by a jury of citizens that are vetted by the prosecution and the defense.

In other words, chill.

Hehe and that would depend on where your at and what the Judge is like I expect. anyway its moot its not gonna go through and as the world hasnt ended i guess its time to go collect the family for the festive feasting ...

happy holidays

 

[DeletedUser31931]

I'm surprised, I set this thread up to rick-roll people. I ended up watching a very good discussion unfold.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hehe, I only clicked the first link.