Anti 'trolling' law?

spoffle · 19 Oct 2014 at 08:21

Meridian said:
As is usually the case, the devil is in the detail. Yes, "hurt feelings" are probably not likely to fall within this law. But issuing direct threats is illegal if you do it face to face, and in writing. However it gets more complicated on the interweb because of the whole "It was just a joke" thing. Sheer volume of this **** also means that police almost never bother to investigate - which is unlikely to change with a new law.

However...

"It was just a joke" has been the defence of bullies for centuries, and has always been a stupid defence. Firstly, because it never was a joke. Secondly, because it's not the joker who gets to decide if it's a joke or not, but the victim.

As for the whole "I'm a hard man and I can take threats of rape" thing, then well done you. I hope you and your killer keyboard get on just fine. But to point out the -ing obvious, threats of rape to man and threats of rape to women are largely different things. Because by and large men can be pretty sure that a person won't track them down and rape them, but women do always have that fear. Because men do. The figures for rape are complicated, but it's likely that at least a quarter of women have been raped at some time. Women have the fear of rape all their life, so it's not a joke - or an idle threat - when some proposes to do it to them. If you have to worry about being raped, and realistically at that, every time you are with a man, then such threats are extremely stressful.

You say the devil is in the detail, then go on to list scenarios that just aren't trolling at all. I think you've missed the detail part yourself.

OhEsEcks · 19 Oct 2014 at 08:23

I liked the "killer keyboard" comment. If you even so much as hint at not taking ****, or letting **** get to you, you're a keyboard warrior. It's kinda like fobbing someone off with "you're a troll" when they say something you don't agree with.

cheesyboy · 19 Oct 2014 at 08:26

spoffle said:
You say the devil is in the detail, then go on to list scenarios that just aren't trolling at all. I think you've missed the detail part yourself.

Mate, we all know what trolling actually means, but the laws we're discussing are using 'trolling' with a different meaning; hence we're using that meaning for considering its merits

spoffle · 19 Oct 2014 at 08:32

cheesyboy said:
Mate, we all know what trolling actually means, but the laws we're discussing are using 'trolling' with a different meaning; hence we're using that meaning for considering its merits

Maybe you understand what trolling means, but not everyone does. It's common here for people to accuse others of trolling just because they don't like something that has been said.

The laws that are being discussed here aren't using trolling with a different meaning, they are misappropriating the word to mean something is doesn't.

spoffle · 19 Oct 2014 at 08:34

OhEsEcks said:
I liked the "killer keyboard" comment. If you even so much as hint at not taking ****, or letting **** get to you, you're a keyboard warrior. It's kinda like fobbing someone off with "you're a troll" when they say something you don't agree with.

And unfortunately, around here people call people trolls all too often for saying something they disagree with.

[FnG]magnolia · 19 Oct 2014 at 08:34

I can't tell if we're being meta or not.

cheesyboy · 19 Oct 2014 at 08:46

[FnG]magnolia;27076561 said:
I can't tell if we're being meta or not.

It's certainly 1-0 to the trolls in the thread.

Hyburnate · 19 Oct 2014 at 08:48

OhEsEcks said:
Been online gaming since the 90s and the amount of times I was apparently going to be found and killed by kids whose balls hadn't dropped yet is ridiculous. And raped too. And my mum was a whore. And my dad was a whore. And my sister was a whore (I don't have a sister). Apparently all my family are whores. I'm a whore. The number of penises I've smoked is equal to the amount of hot dinners I've had... it's just endless. Does it keep me awake at night? Not a bit. What annoys me more is not making top five on the leader board.

hahaha

I love it. Although I often swear at people if they're killing me constantly I definitely make sure not to put it into chat

Heck lately the only time I chat to the enemy is to congratulate them on an amazing kill xD

this_is_gav · 19 Oct 2014 at 09:01

My concern isn't the hurt feelings or whatever as much as why the hell is it deemed acceptable? In a game lobby is one thing, but the amount of vitriol spat in the likes of Youtube comments is incomprehensible. Why has it become the norm?

It's not about "think of the children!", it's about basic human nature. I couldn't give a damn about the lack of intent when someone says they're going to rape someone as an if it's merely an insult, but why has it become something we come to expect?

OhEsEcks · 19 Oct 2014 at 09:05

this_is_gav said:
Why has it become the norm?

Network effect.

spoffle · 19 Oct 2014 at 09:09

this_is_gav said:
My concern isn't the hurt feelings or whatever as much as why the hell is it deemed acceptable? In a game lobby is one thing, but the amount of vitriol spat in the likes of Youtube comments is incomprehensible. Why has it become the norm?

It's not about "think of the children!", it's about basic human nature. I couldn't give a damn about the lack of intent when someone says they're going to rape someone as an if it's merely an insult, but why has it become something we come to expect?

The masses are incredibly dumb, are you only just noticing?

Redz · 19 Oct 2014 at 09:27

TommyV · 19 Oct 2014 at 09:31

Meridian said:
As is usually the case, the devil is in the detail. Yes, "hurt feelings" are probably not likely to fall within this law. But issuing direct threats is illegal if you do it face to face, and in writing. However it gets more complicated on the interweb because of the whole "It was just a joke" thing. Sheer volume of this **** also means that police almost never bother to investigate - which is unlikely to change with a new law. I'm inclined to agree that what is needed is better enforcement of current laws, but we aren't getting that. Yes, any new law might get overwhelmed by trivial cases - although weeding them out is what the CPS is paid to do. But if this means that fewer misogynists gang up on any women who puts her head above the parapet, I'm for it.

However...

"It was just a joke" has been the defence of bullies for centuries, and has always been a stupid defence. Firstly, because it never was a joke. Secondly, because it's not the joker who gets to decide if it's a joke or not, but the victim.

As for the whole "I'm a hard man and I can take threats of rape" thing, then well done you. I hope you and your killer keyboard get on just fine. But to point out the -ing obvious, threats of rape to man and threats of rape to women are largely different things. Because by and large men can be pretty sure that a person won't track them down and rape them, but women do always have that fear. Because men do. The figures for rape are complicated, but it's likely that at least a quarter of women have been raped at some time. Women have the fear of rape all their life, so it's not a joke - or an idle threat - when some proposes to do it to them. If you have to worry about being raped, and realistically at that, every time you are with a man, then such threats are extremely stressful.

Men can be raped too.

Hyburnate · 19 Oct 2014 at 09:39

TommyV said:
Men can be raped too.

Only by other men or women with strap ons (in the eyes of the law) anything else is sexual assualt.

I_am_not_Carabia83 · 19 Oct 2014 at 09:48

spoffle said:
People around here can't even grasp what trolling means, it's descended into an almost generic response to behaviour someone doesn't like for whatever reason. Some people just love to talk about stuff they don't understand, but don't point that out, it's "trolling".

I'd agree that the term "trolling" is used to easily.

It's at the stage now where if someone posts a view which is different to someone else then they are "trolling"

I can guarantee if I for example went and posted in an iPhone 6 thread that I preferred an android device I'd be "trolling"

chroniclard · 19 Oct 2014 at 10:04

The media misappropriation of the term annoys me.

413x · 19 Oct 2014 at 10:08

chroniclard said:
The media misappropriation of the term annoys me.

Indeed it does

I personally find threats amusing. They aren't often creative and the people behind them.. Well they must have issues.

Nitefly · 19 Oct 2014 at 10:09

Burnsy gunna get ya.

OhEsEcks · 19 Oct 2014 at 10:14

chroniclard said:
The media misappropriation of the term annoys me.

Not nearly as bad as what they did to hacker. It was bad in the 80s. It was silly in the 90s. It went pants on head retarded in the 00s.

"Sacking websites". I'm not sure if the anchor stuttered when he meant to say "hacking websites" or he really did mean "sacking websites" so that John Doe all American hero can understand all the new fangled technobabble on the talky picture box, as "sacking" in American Football means taking down the QB and if there's one thing Americans know, it's football.

Kenai · 19 Oct 2014 at 10:14

CJ84 said:
I can guarantee if I for example went and posted in an iPhone 6 thread that I preferred an android device I'd be "trolling"

Well chances are you would be trolling, what other purpose is to there to finding an iPhone thread just to say you think Android is better?

It isn't contributing to a meaningful or useful discussion, it's just to get a rise out of people by posting something you know will annoy them and make them react, pretty much textbook trolling behaviour.