I’ve had my share of dealing with trolls this past few years. We had Dickie Doubleday – now masquerading as Rickie and claiming that he is not the same pathetic little troll from Norfolk who uses exactly the same syntax and makes exactly the same threats – no, of course not. It’s a coincidence that there are two people with the same delusions and who use exactly the same language and sentence construction.
Then we have Bane – a pathetic ned from the Dublin area who has been sounding off like a kid with Tourette’s threatening anyone who will give him a platform with a gang of trolls. A threat that has never materialised in the weeks that have passed since he started making it.
So what to do with these losers? Well, the state, that wonderful organ that is there to protect us from keyboard warriors is riding to the rescue.
Internet trolls could face up to two years in jail under new laws, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has said.
He told the Mail on Sunday quadrupling the current maximum six-month term showed his determination to “take a stand against a baying cyber-mob”.
The plan has been announced days after TV presenter Chloe Madeley suffered online abuse, which Mr Grayling described as “crude and degrading”.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. They wrote words on a screen. That’s it. Unpleasant words. Well, yeah, some people are unpleasant and say nasty things. But for crying out loud, two years inside? Are not our prisons full enough?
I detest the twitter mob. But it is fairly easily dealt with. Don’t look at it. I don’t. So anything people say about me on there – should they do so – doesn’t affect me. When trolls decided to disrupt this place, I used moderation to control it. Trolls are easily dealt with – site administrators have access to the delete key. So delete and ban. Eventually they tire of it. They always do. The trolls who came here never saw the light of day – no one can hear your shouts in the spam queue. They don’t bother me, because I dealt with them and it was a simple matter. While I treat them with contempt, I don’t want them gaoled, because writing rude things on the internet should never be a criminal offence.
Sticks and stones and all that.
Two fucking years inside for being twat. For crying out loud. The Conservatives really have lost all sight of the plot now.
I agree with you 100% a stupid waste of time energy and money, all people have to do is ignore it and unplug end of problem.
Surly our prisons should be used for holding real criminals.
Indeed. These folk should receive help not imprisonment. Sad, lonely pathetic figures they may be, but criminals, they are not. If not ignored, they should be treated with contempt and derision. Most are ill favoured and probably alienated from mainstream society. They sit in front of a computer screen and type and, bless em, they honestly think they are making some form of impact. Anonimity makes men, bold rash and stupid. Perhaps they will grow out of it, but I doubt it. They need to put down their laptops and meet girls. But as they lack the necessary social skills. this is not a viable option. Maybe all their anger and hate is simply a reflection of pent up sexual frustation. My advice: Go to Thailand.
Go to Thailand… Heh! 😀
Dear Mr Longrider
“He told the Mail on Sunday quadrupling the current maximum six-month term … “
The insanity is it’s already a custodial offence. Another repeal for UKIP.
DP
I wish we could have a law against talentless, vacuous “celebrities” like Chloe Madeley, whose single skill seems to be taking her clothes off and trading on her father’s c-list public status.
I’ve never been able to tell – as damning an indictment of the “education” system as it is possible to have – whether many of these trolls are actually children or adults.
The words, spelling, syntax, general petulance and childishness are perfectly consistent with stroppy teens and pre teens but are also perfectly consistent with a dismally “educated” adults who have been brought up to believe that they are entitled to “respec” and everythng else adults previously had to earn for themselves.
I’m almost tempted to say “bring it on” as it would be very interesting to see what the response would be if it was found to be a 12 year old. Would the law then be modified such that parents had to legally take responsibility for what their children did on the internet?
Just a thought!
In the spam queue, nobody can hear you scream…. 😈
Now, excuse my ignorance here, but can anyone define for me, (in simple words of no more than two syllables, please!) exactly what constitutes a “troll?” I know that in this day and age I should really know, but I’m over 40, so I excuse myself! Is a troll only someone who makes insulting/threatening comments online, or does someone who just won’t give up on a debate and keeps coming back, time and time again, parroting the same old arguments ad infinitum (which is boring and time-wasting, but hardly upsetting) also classify as one?
Okay, the media has been misusing the word. A troll, strictly speaking is someone who goes onto a forum or blog and is deliberately disruptive by posting inflammatory remarks designed to wind people up and start arguments and flame wars. However, the definition has become broadened to simply saying something the media luvvies don’t like – or in some cases downright nasty. It isn’t trolling, though.
Jax. You may find this list of assistance; Flame Warriors
On the other hand, you could just categorise all trolls as ‘sad losers without lives’ who try to inflame and insult from behind the safety of their keyboards. It helps to think of think of trolling like the childish game of knocking on doors and running away, then shouting insults from behind their mother’s skirts from the end of the street. Annoying, but hardly worth a custodial sentence.
Thank you, both LR and Bill S. And Bill – I love the “Flame Warriors” site. Very funny, including the cartoons. I found myself trying to spot my own style amongst the many there. Haven’t quite found “me” yet, but I’ll keep looking …
It’s a question of degree, I think. I don’t give a toss if some sad little fool chucks a few empty words of abuse at me on my blog. I just pity them and frankly don’t take it seriously.
However, if somebody makes serious threats on social media against a person, then something needs to be done. I’m thinking of Judy Finnegan’s daughter. Now, it’s one thing to call Judy Finnegan a cunt for her views and I think that most people would accept that as just expressing an opinion.
It is quite another to threaten her daughter with rape and murder and mean it. If I go out on the street and threaten somebody with physical bodily harm and mean it, then there is the offence of Threatening Behaviour. As this offence is already on the books as is the Communications Act which makes it illegal to threaten people over any means of communication – telephone and internet included – then I fail to see why there needs to be any change in the law.
Of course, it could just be a soundbite vote grabber – or am I just being cynical? Shurely not….
The problem is determining intent. Someone can say “I’ll kill you!” and you can tell it’s just hyperbole because verbal communication gives away much more than the written word. How many of those rape threats were actually intended? If not, they weren’t real threats and therefore should not be a criminal offence. Being an arsehole shouldn’t be, or our prisons will be overflowing.
As fas as the deluded fools who vandalise websites are concerned, my approach is to delete and ban, thereby starving them of what they want – attention.