allan michaud Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 That is a very slippery slope. How do they plan on defining a troll? Protesters complaining about corporations or governments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABCer Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Mudcrab, you are obviously one of the gents here on TV who require "sarcasm" label after each and every word. The reason is obvious - you yourself cannot figure it out. Well, I refuse to do this. I reserve the right for humor when and where it's warranted. I am not objecting to you calling me a Troll or a Fairy - take your pick but be careful! You might get a reputation of an "intellectually challenged" member. Next time try addressing the issue not picking words or your nose. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Showbags Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Who needs the sarcasm label ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangon04 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Thats because people are overusing the term. People troll. It's just other folks who think everything that conflicts with themselves is the work of trolling. Cyber bullying is certainly different. and the BBC should know better than to mangle the definition - but they are never slow to over hype a news story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emilymat Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 The story says "trolls" but the story reads cyber-bullies (online assault). If you did that online here you and your posts would probably not last long enough for you to be charged. Your first sentence, yes. And people who don't know the difference certainly should not have any trust at all to make laws about it. I don't understand. That is one of the US Supreme Courts most famous sayings when discussing freedom of speech. "The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:" "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." --Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. LINK And additionally "clear and present danger" has been very, very closely and strictly defined. There are virtually no convictions under this definition. None of the examples of the silly law-pusher of the OP are anything close to "clear and present danger", which is why actual free-speech laws (US) should never be compared with the British censorship laws and dangerous enemies of free speech like the extremely silly Mr Gralying. I shouldn't get too hung up about this British politician. Clearly you appear to be from the USA and I would point out that the UK has just started a six month General Election campaign, with a very nervous incumbent government who are looking for headlines. (Not that I don't think some control needs to be exercised) Whilst posting, and this is a serious enquiry, is it not a federal offence in the USA to threaten the life of the President, whether as a joke or seriously.? If it is, then clearly the USA feels it needs to have some control over what the public say. If I'm wrong - apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaamBaht Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Cuff me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABCer Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 In countries with the most freedom of speech, there are limits. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. You can't threaten someone or there will be criminal or civil penalties. A person might have a right to defend himself against threats in a way you don't want. As a matter of humanity, no one should have to accept threats of bodily harm or rape, etc. NeverSure, it is true what you say. You are talking extremes - 'fire', bodily harm, rape, etc. Who would argue? Not me... On the other hand - let me bring an example. Names? - no names - it is for small minds only. Events? - no events - it is for average (mediocre) minds only. Ideas? - yes, very often expression of ideas in very polite, reserved way using decent language, - lands you in a 'Troll land'. AND THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Not in UK famous for its openness and free discussions of Ideas great and small. From Papal infallibility to Darwinism to Marx. This is why I believe the new UK laws are dangerous and a disgrace for UK. Not because I do not fancy porridge for breakfast. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisb Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 So that means half this forum are having porridge for breakfast. The story says "trolls" but the story reads cyber-bullies (online assault). If you did that online here you and your posts would probably not last long enough for you to be charged. Could always screen shot the trolling right? I would like to hear your definition of trolling and cyber bullying. Very fine line. Trolls enjoy taking and pushing it to the limit of out right bullying. Clearly this is visible on tvf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkcanuck8 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 So that means half this forum are having porridge for breakfast. The story says "trolls" but the story reads cyber-bullies (online assault). If you did that online here you and your posts would probably not last long enough for you to be charged. Could always screen shot the trolling right? I would like to hear your definition of trolling and cyber bullying. Very fine line. Trolls enjoy taking and pushing it to the limit of out right bullying. Clearly this is visible on tvf. Trolling can be as simple as posting things that are provocative to illicit a response, or responding to a message. Cyber-bullying is threatening, prolonged harassing (i.e. more than just responding to a post or reply - but going on the offensive against someone to cause emotional distress) - i.e. intent, posting of private information (to induce others to threaten or harass - or cause fear of stocking), trespassing after someone has told you they are no longer allowed to visit a site owned/managed by that individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkcanuck8 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Basically there is a difference of provocative and argumentative posts and cyberbullying... I don't see it as that fine a line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonmarleesco Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 It took the online abuse of a TV personality - albeit a little-known one - to lead to such penalties. Just one past suicide, as a result of these cowards' postings, should have been sufficient motivation for the government to have long changed the law.But presumably, they then need to find these trolls? So why not go the whole hog and add financial penalties for posting such comments anonymously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheyCallmeScooter Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 The world when we can press 'delete' and those who live their fantasies in the 'ether' no longer exist is at very least a way off. In the current world some of those who practice on the internet eventually work up the courage to join this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims et al Deal with those issues before dis-ease turns into disease. I can't help but notice you failed to connect "mean words" with serial killers. I understand that's what you were trying to do, I just don't see that you've done it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Ah the Internet . . . The great equalizer for the p's, the weak and the picked on in the world. Is it possible that eventually hackers and the nutty will make it such a PIA that it will no longer be useful commercially or privately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I shouldn't get too hung up about this British politician. Clearly you appear to be from the USA and I would point out that the UK has just started a six month General Election campaign, with a very nervous incumbent government who are looking for headlines. (Not that I don't think some control needs to be exercised) Whilst posting, and this is a serious enquiry, is it not a federal offence in the USA to threaten the life of the President, whether as a joke or seriously.? If it is, then clearly the USA feels it needs to have some control over what the public say. If I'm wrong - apologies. Of course it is a federal crime to threaten the President. It is also an offense to threaten anyone else although not as serious unless done in person and possessing the ability to cause immediate serious harm. The US gives a Constitutional right to the freedom of speech. The founders intended that to be in particular political speech or other speech that might be disagreeable to others. But one can't shout outside at midnight and keep the neighborhood awake. That's disturbing the peace and the speech isn't all that's being done. So yes there is a very narrow band of exceptions but they really don't have anything to do with just expressing opinions. That you can do all day long with your voice, in print, or by carrying a sign or wearing a printed t-shirt. If one didn't have the freedom to say something that was politically or PC objectionable to someone else, he really wouldn't have freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Thai Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Why is it acceptable for Miss Madeley's mother to be able to say that a rape victims suffering was non Violent and caused no bodily harm But unacceptable for anyone to take exception to these comments and Miss Madeley's defense of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkcanuck8 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Why is it acceptable for Miss Madeley's mother to be able to say that a rape victims suffering was non Violent and caused no bodily harm But unacceptable for anyone to take exception to these comments and Miss Madeley's defense of them That is equivalent to saying that because they said rape was non violent and caused no bodily harm (not it did not say no mental harm) that it is then ok to rape them.... threats are illegal, rape is illegal. No one said you can't take exception to her comments. Edited October 20, 2014 by bkkcanuck8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigjules007 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Im not nervous, ill just go and hide back under my bridge and wait for the all clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now