Internet troll identities to be revealed

[manifold]

Did any of you tossers actually read the story linked in the OP?

It wasn't about two anonymous douchers exchanging insults on a messageboard. The 'troll(s)' in this story actually set up a fake facebook account using this woman's real name and photograph, and used the account to try to make her look like a pedophile and drug dealer. Do you really think that's ok?

 

[PredFan]

Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity? Irrespective of whether it's true? Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious? Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?

Damaging? In what way?

Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?

You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.

Try reading the OP.

I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.

Try reading your own OP.

 

[PredFan]

Who gets to decide what a troll is?

The Chief Justice, of course.

So it will be a troll tax.

Bada bing badaboom!

 

[manifold]

Damaging? In what way?

Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?

You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.

Try reading the OP.

I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.

Try reading your own OP.

Exactly.

There is nothing in the OP that addresses your post and there is nothing in your post relevant to the OP.

So why don't you pull your head out of your ass and go find the thread you're looking for.

 

[PredFan]

Not particularly. But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.

If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.

"Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it." Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.

One, come up with your own schtick.

Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?

every single last site I've seen has an ignore function. If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.

One, you're clearly very proud of your schtick, but don't let the fact that I quoted it go to your head.

Two, depends what they say, where they say it, and how it impacts you. Remember, I'm referring specifically to cases like the one mentioned in the OP, not the fatuous example Ravi brought up.

The fact that you have the ability to ignore a comment when it is made is irrelevant within that context.

If someone develops a fake Facebook page for you, takes your personal pictures in order add credibility to their attempts to deliberately misrepresent you, and then generates material specifically with the intent of giving anyone who sees the profile the impression that you (not your avatar, not your "screen name", you personally) are a vile human being, a pedophile and a drug dealer, victims should have the ability to defend their character in public and reveal that such posts were malicious and untrue. Furthermore they should have the ability to prosecute those who have put them in the position of having to defend themselves from this sort of behavior.

Everyone knows that social media profiling is now used by banks (to determine creditworthiness) and employers (to assess character), among other things. Are you seriously saying that the damage done to a person's character by attacks of this nature is something people just need to grow thicker skin about and that it has no real impact on their lives? Are you seriously saying that people should have the ability to behave like this and still have the right to expect that their privacy will be respected?

Yes, I am saying that. Prove I'm wrong. I am an employer, or more precisely, a person who hires. I don't bother with FaceBook or MySpace because unless you are friends with the person already, you cannot access their information. I am also smart enough, and have been on line long enough to know that just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's true.

Nothing on FaceBook is by itself, admissable in court. Nothing on Facebook by itself, is a firing offense. People need thicker skin. If they had thicker skin, people wouldn't waste their time making fake pages for them.

 

[PredFan]

Did any of you tossers actually read the story linked in the OP?

It wasn't about two anonymous douchers exchanging insults on a messageboard. The 'troll(s)' in this story actually set up a fake facebook account using this woman's real name and photograph, and used the account to try to make her look like a pedophile and drug dealer. Do you really think that's ok?

No, it's a stupid thing to do but it doesn't make her a pedophile or a drug user and it can't get her arrested, or fired, or anything else. if more people ignored this kind of stupidity it wouldn't happen. The huge shit storm that it has caused is exactly what the offender wanted.

 

[PredFan]

Try reading the OP.

I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.

Try reading your own OP.

Exactly.

There is nothing in the OP that addresses your post and there is nothing in your post relevant to the OP.

So why don't you pull your head out of your ass and go find the thread you're looking for.

Not my fault you have reading comprehension problems is it?

 

[koshergrl]

Who gets to decide what a troll is?

Quaking in your size 16s, ravtroll? Do you live in UK?

 

[manifold]

Did any of you tossers actually read the story linked in the OP?

It wasn't about two anonymous douchers exchanging insults on a messageboard. The 'troll(s)' in this story actually set up a fake facebook account using this woman's real name and photograph, and used the account to try to make her look like a pedophile and drug dealer. Do you really think that's ok?

No, it's a stupid thing to do but it doesn't make her a pedophile or a drug user and it can't get her arrested, or fired, or anything else. if more people ignored this kind of stupidity it wouldn't happen. The huge shit storm that it has caused is exactly what the offender wanted.

And if she was running for School Committee it probably wouldn't hurt her chances either.

 

[tigerbob]

One, come up with your own schtick.

Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?

every single last site I've seen has an ignore function. If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.

One, you're clearly very proud of your schtick, but don't let the fact that I quoted it go to your head.

Two, depends what they say, where they say it, and how it impacts you. Remember, I'm referring specifically to cases like the one mentioned in the OP, not the fatuous example Ravi brought up.

The fact that you have the ability to ignore a comment when it is made is irrelevant within that context.

If someone develops a fake Facebook page for you, takes your personal pictures in order add credibility to their attempts to deliberately misrepresent you, and then generates material specifically with the intent of giving anyone who sees the profile the impression that you (not your avatar, not your "screen name", you personally) are a vie human being, a pedophile and a drug dealer, victims should have the ability to defend their character in public and reveal that such posts were malicious and untrue. Furthermore they should have the ability to prosecute those who have put them in the position of having to defend themselves from this sort of behavior.

Everyone knows that social media profiling is now used by banks (to determine creditworthiness) and employers (to assess character), among other things. Are you seriously saying that the damage done to a person's character by attacks of this nature is something people just need to grow thicker skin about and that it has no real impact on their lives? Are you seriously saying that people should have the ability to behave like this and still have the right to expect that their privacy will be respected?

ok, now it seems you're talking about ID theft and slander.

That's not being a troll.

We could have avoided this if you'd read the OP properly.

 

[tigerbob]

Damaging? In what way?

Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?

You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.

Try reading the OP.

I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.

Try reading your own OP.

You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.

 

[daveman]

Well done Ms Brookes.

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph

Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.

How far the Empire has fallen.

Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

 

[Si modo]

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'
Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Well done Ms Brookes.

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph

"Defamatory" is a question of law, not someone's opinion.

Also, if the identity of the person getting trolled is unknown (like just a user name), how is it personally defamatory?

Folks can defame "Si modo" all they want. It's just a user name.

 

[tigerbob]

Random list from 60 seconds googling.

Three Lawyers Talk Online Profiling

How Your Social Media Profile Could Make Or Break Your Next Job Opportunity - Forbes

Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords

 

[NeoTemplar]

More bullshit that they can use to destroy the internet by taking your personal information and denying you the right to free speach, look out Sunni your names all over this.

 

[tigerbob]

Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.

How far the Empire has fallen.

Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

The court agrees with the Brit in question.

And if WWII is your best comparison than you may have escaped reality already.

 

[tigerbob]

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'
Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Well done Ms Brookes.

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph

"Defamatory" is a question of law, not someone's opinion.

Also, if the identity of the person getting trolled is unknown (like just a user name), how is it personally defamatory?

Folks can defame "Si modo" all they want. It's just a user name.

Which is what I've said on more than one occasion. And in the case I mentioned, the person getting trolled was a real person, using her real name, and real photos of her, and real personal information.

 

[tigerbob]

More bullshit that they can use to destroy the internet by taking your personal information and denying you the right to free speach, look out Sunni your names all over this.

How is your right to free speech denied by this ruling?

 

[tigerbob]

Let's say there is some dopey bitch on the internet.

Let's say her name is -- I dunno -- pick one -- Rawi.

Let's say some other person on the interwebs with a username of Fryability insults Rawi.

Can Rawi REALLY claim her reputation was damaged?

How? Nobody knows who the fuck Rawi is in the real world.

At most, her allegedly good name on one interwebz message board has been cast into SOME shadow of doubt.

The whining here is not just pathetic, it is absurd.

Rawi is a crybaby. Nener neener. Oh NO! What has I done? NOW my username could get all sued and shit!

Precisely the issue.

You aren't making sense. You answered my post as if I got the information wrong and liarbility's as if he got the information right.

Go figure.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, I see. Just a bad and misleading thread title.

Can I sue manifold for putting up a fact youtube video and attributing it to me?