Trolling is a form of being annoying on the Internet. It’s a minor irritation that, frankly, is relatively simply managed – delete and ban, delete and ban. Those who remember the days of Usenet and more recently fora and blogs are all too familiar with the dysfunctional social inadequate who grows fat pounding the keys with his chubby fingers trying to get a rise out of his (and they are usually male) victims.
Ignore him and eventually he will tire of the game and go away. They always do eventually. Besides, if they hang around like the bad smell that they are, deletion is a simple matter.
The state of Arizona has other ideas.
A bill passed by the Arizona legislature and now sitting on the desk of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) would make it illegal to be annoying on the internet — at least in ways that are deemed “lewd” or “profane.” H.B 2549 has solicited outrage from free speech groups and Arizona bloggers alike, who rightly point out that the bill denies them their basic freedom of speech.
Well, yes, quite. Freedom of speech does include the freedom to make an arse of oneself, to expose to the world in general that one is an overweight, socially inadequate creep, sitting in his underpants in his mother’s basement who cannot conduct a rational conversation without resorting to ad hominum attacks or simply by being disruptive.
What the Arizona legislature seems to be forgetting here is that this is a matter for the website owners to manage. After all, fora and blogs are private property, so it is up to the owners of those properties to decide what is acceptable and what is annoying and what, if anything, to censor.
Here’s the killer quote:
It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use
a telephoneELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymoustelephone callsELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where thetelephone call or callsCOMMUNICATIONS were received.
As the article points out, this contravenes the US constitution. Quite apart from that, it is a steam hammer to crack what can best be described as a monkey nut and no more.
Much as I despise and possibly pity the kind of intellectual pygmy who disrupts conversations on blogs, fora and social networking sites, the use of the law to create a blanket ban on “being annoying” is way, way over the top. After all, the average blog post annoys someone, somewhere. It wouldn’t be worth doing otherwise…
H/T Dick Puddlecote
Well, if the slob in question annoys a certain Sherrif Arpaio I can see it all ending in tears.
How do you define what is or is not ‘annoying’? Who gets to decide?
OT, at work we are allowed to use the internet during tea and lunch breaks. The system does however have a nanny program. One of my colleagues regularly visits websites with content that sails dangerously close to being pornographic. For some strange reason Longrider has recently been declared off limits.
That would be due to ZB Block. I’ve been experimenting. Try it now.
Furthermore, the Arizona proposed “law” would instantly be used for political (anything left of David Cameron would be instantly banned as “commonist”) and even worse, religious “reasons” …….
Don’t go there!
Of course. Contrary views are de facto annoying, so would fall foul of the law.
The sticking point is that whilst everyone has (pretty much) the Right to Free Speech NO ONE is currently under any legal obligation to Listen. 😐