What is an 'internet troll'?

[sadie]

I am just distressed by the fact that she was distressed.  I would have supported her had I known, even though I totally disagreed with her behaviour.  There are always things you can say or do when someone needs help.
I have never walked away from anyone, even when I was tarred with the same brush by association.  And believe me, I do know what I am talking about.

I am the same as you Eleanor.

We are alike in several ways.


I try and help people when they are in distress or even when they are in trouble if I think the authorities have got it wrong.


I am actually inclined to think that her decision to take her life was at least partially fuelled by friends and maybe family expressing their disgust at her trolling the family of a little missing girl ... and she locked herself away from the critisms pouring in.


But I dont know and neither does anyone unless closely involved.


Very very sad that she took her own life, but also very sad what she was saying to and about Kate and Gerry

[Alfred R Jones]

Can anyone explain to me why Spivey can be prosecuted for doing what he did to the Rigby family, but the police saw nothing amiss with any of the behaviour of the McCann "sceptics" who collectively have invented similar offeinsive and outrageous claims about the family of a missing child?  Is Spivey a troll?  If not, what is he?  I believe he has also had plenty to say about the McCanns - none of it good!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180080/Conspiracy-theorist-claimed-Lee-Rigby-s-murder-hoax-terrified-family-publishing-addresses-online.html#ixzz3hOssNVg0

[Brietta]

Can anyone explain to me why Spivey can be prosecuted for doing what he did to the Rigby family, but the police saw nothing amiss with any of the behaviour of the McCann "sceptics" who collectively have invented similar offeinsive and outrageous claims about the family of a missing child?  Is Spivey a troll?  If not, what is he?  I believe he has also had plenty to say about the McCanns - none of it good!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180080/Conspiracy-theorist-claimed-Lee-Rigby-s-murder-hoax-terrified-family-publishing-addresses-online.html#ixzz3hOssNVg0

" When he was later asked how he thought his posts would make the Rigby family feel, he said: 'They f****** deserve it. They don't have to read it. I have freedom of speech.'  " Quote: Chris Spivey

He does seems to meet the criteria of most internet trolls who value their freedom of speech but forget that with it comes responsibility.

Publishing home addresses on the internet is nothing short of despicable.

[Lyall]

Can anyone explain to me why Spivey can be prosecuted for doing what he did to the Rigby family, but the police saw nothing amiss with any of the behaviour of the McCann "sceptics" who collectively have invented similar offeinsive and outrageous claims about the family of a missing child?  Is Spivey a troll?  If not, what is he?  I believe he has also had plenty to say about the McCanns - none of it good!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180080/Conspiracy-theorist-claimed-Lee-Rigby-s-murder-hoax-terrified-family-publishing-addresses-online.html#ixzz3hOssNVg0

Yes, he's a troll. But that word isn't strong enough for him (and a few others of his ilk).

(Good job I'm not on his jury %£&)**#)

[faithlilly]

It has never been my practice to speak ill of the dead (with obvious exclusions such as Mengistu Haile Mariam) so you will not pull me into any such discussion ... that may be the problem with trolls, they have no standards and no manners, they don't really mind who they malign ... the more vulnerable the better they like it.

They will always be with us.
What is particularly despicable is when they organise themselves into a pack for no other reason than to lambaste chosen victims in any which way they can.

Not used it for a while but........

*Irony Klaxon*

[Brietta]

Yes, he's a troll. But that word isn't strong enough for him (and a few others of his ilk).

(Good job I'm not on his jury %£&)**#)

It is certainly going to be an interesting trial and an interesting verdict.

Very little that he has said differs from what has been and continues to be alleged about the Drs McCann and Madeleine ... who can forget the clone allegation.

[Lyall]

It is certainly going to be an interesting trial and an interesting verdict.

Very little that he has said differs from what has been and continues to be alleged about the Drs McCann and Madeleine ... who can forget the clone allegation.

You may feel that, and so may others, but there's clearly a difference between some running a website and random idiotic comments on social media. Occasionally action is taken against that kind of social media (e.g. the prosecution over the comments about the murdered teacher), but it's rare. Spivey runs a website, and is I think in the same legal boat as any publisher.

[Brietta]

You may feel that, and so may others, but there's clearly a difference between some running a website and random idiotic comments on social media. Occasionally action is taken against that kind of social media (e.g. the prosecution over the comments about the murdered teacher), but it's rare. Spivey runs a website, and is I think in the same legal boat as any publisher.

Hmmm ... good point.  Although in many cases the the comments and opinions are anything but random with the same people making the same comments (we all know what they are) on social media outlets where it could be considered they are acting as individuals.

That the same people are hosted and do likewise on many websites populated by like minded people might put that into the category you mention.

However it will be interesting to gauge exactly how the law addresses what is becoming a running sore in our society and what legal sanction, if any, may be in existence to cover it.

[Lyall]

Hmmm ... good point.  Although in many cases the the comments and opinions are anything but random with the same people making the same comments (we all know what they are) on social media outlets where it could be considered they are acting as individuals.

That the same people are hosted and do likewise on many websites populated by like minded people might put that into the category you mention.

However it will be interesting to gauge exactly how the law addresses what is becoming a running sore in our society and what legal sanction, if any, may be in existence to cover it.

It's already in existence, and was used to prosecute the man who made the tweets about the murdered teacher. The maximum sentence allowable was increased in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (to two years). That's been in effect since April.

But the case involving the tweets about the teacher was a case in which they'd be reasonably confident of obtaining a conviction. They'd be unlikely to proceed in cases which weren't so easily prosecutable.

There were other factors in the case involving the tweets about the teacher.

From the Guardian:

But the chairwoman of the bench, Georgina Scannell, said the court had no choice but to send the defendant to jail.

"The offensive messages outraged the public," she said. "You had complete disregard for the tragic death of Ann Maguire. Besides this, countless other vile messages were made by you. The bench finds these were racially and religiously aggravated. The offences are so serious that only a period of immediate custody can be justified."

So it looks like he wasn't just prosecuted for the tweets about the teacher, but for the racial and religious content of his other communications also.

It looks like his tweets about the teacher weren't random, idiotic acts but the culmination of communications that may have been prosecutable themselves (without which they may not have been confident of achieving a conviction).

It's maybe not as easy as you think, Brietta.

[Alfred R Jones]

I reckon the only reason Spivey has been prosecuted is because Lee Rigby's parents went to the police about him themselves.  There are certainly at least a dozen individuals who could find themselves in the same position if the McCanns themselves reported their activites, IMO.

[Brietta]

It's already in existence, and was used to prosecute the man who made the tweets about the murdered teacher. The maximum sentence allowable was increased in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (to two years). That's been in effect since April.

But the case involving the tweets about the teacher was a case in which they'd be reasonably confident of obtaining a conviction. They'd be unlikely to proceed in cases which weren't so easily prosecutable.

There were other factors in the case involving the tweets about the teacher.

From the Guardian:

But the chairwoman of the bench, Georgina Scannell, said the court had no choice but to send the defendant to jail.

"The offensive messages outraged the public," she said. "You had complete disregard for the tragic death of Ann Maguire. Besides this, countless other vile messages were made by you. The bench finds these were racially and religiously aggravated. The offences are so serious that only a period of immediate custody can be justified."

So it looks like he wasn't just prosecuted for the tweets about the teacher, but for the racial and religious content of his other communications also.

It looks like his tweets about the teacher weren't random, idiotic acts but the culmination of communications that may have been prosecutable themselves (without which they may not have been confident of achieving a conviction).

It's maybe not as easy as you think, Brietta.

I don't think I have made myself clear enough, Lyall, I do not think it is at all easy to bring a successful prosecution in matters of this kind and I think the maximum sentence for such offences being two years is risible.
It illustrates that the law is not keeping pace with the effects of internet trolling.

When you say ... "It looks like his tweets about the teacher weren't random, idiotic acts but the culmination of communications that may have been prosecutable themselves (without which they may not have been confident of achieving a conviction)." ... think about the very active internet campaigns which have gone on undeterred for over eight years which are not random and with many instances of prosecutable comments being made.

The same type of mentality which drove the troll in the case you mention is evident day and daily in relation to the Drs McCann and anyone connected to them ... and not only on twitter.

Even the charitable giving using Gofundme is being used as an opportunity and a platform to further disseminate poisonous bile against a couple whose much loved daughter is missing ... by people many of whom are proud to be self proclaimed trolls.

[stephen25000]

I don't think I have made myself clear enough, Lyall, I do not think it is at all easy to bring a successful prosecution in matters of this kind and I think the maximum sentence for such offences being two years is risible.
It illustrates that the law is not keeping pace with the effects of internet trolling.

When you say ... "It looks like his tweets about the teacher weren't random, idiotic acts but the culmination of communications that may have been prosecutable themselves (without which they may not have been confident of achieving a conviction)." ... think about the very active internet campaigns which have gone on undeterred for over eight years which are not random and with many instances of prosecutable comments being made.

The same type of mentality which drove the troll in the case you mention is evident day and daily in relation to the Drs McCann and anyone connected to them ... and not only on twitter.

Even the charitable giving using Gofundme is being used as an opportunity and a platform to further disseminate poisonous bile against a couple whose much loved daughter is missing ... by people many of whom are proud to be self proclaimed trolls.

The 'attacks' have occurred from both sides.

I have yet to see you admit that.

As to the mccanns.

THEY are responsible for what they failed to do.

NO ONE ELSE.

[G-Unit]

I don't think I have made myself clear enough, Lyall, I do not think it is at all easy to bring a successful prosecution in matters of this kind and I think the maximum sentence for such offences being two years is risible.
It illustrates that the law is not keeping pace with the effects of internet trolling.

When you say ... "It looks like his tweets about the teacher weren't random, idiotic acts but the culmination of communications that may have been prosecutable themselves (without which they may not have been confident of achieving a conviction)." ... think about the very active internet campaigns which have gone on undeterred for over eight years which are not random and with many instances of prosecutable comments being made.

The same type of mentality which drove the troll in the case you mention is evident day and daily in relation to the Drs McCann and anyone connected to them ... and not only on twitter.

Even the charitable giving using Gofundme is being used as an opportunity and a platform to further disseminate poisonous bile against a couple whose much loved daughter is missing ... by people many of whom are proud to be self proclaimed trolls.

'Trolling' in itself is not illegal. Not all trolls break the law although some of them do. Some people break the law who are not trolls. Using the word as an insult is counter-productive, particularly when people know they aren't trolls. The media labelled all those giving to Amaral's fund as trolls. That's ridiculous because some are, some aren't. Even if they are it doesn't mean they break the law. That's probably why people decided that they would take the label and be proud of it, because they know they're not doing anything illegal.

[Brietta]

The 'attacks' have occurred from both sides.

I have yet to see you admit that.

As to the mccanns.

THEY are responsible for what they failed to do.

NO ONE ELSE.

Then discuss the trolling from both sides with examples ... should be really easy enough for you ... if what you are saying is true.

[Brietta]

'Trolling' in itself is not illegal. Not all trolls break the law although some of them do. Some people break the law who are not trolls. Using the word as an insult is counter-productive, particularly when people know they aren't trolls. The media labelled all those giving to Amaral's fund as trolls. That's ridiculous because some are, some aren't. Even if they are it doesn't mean they break the law. That's probably why people decided that they would take the label and be proud of it, because they know they're not doing anything illegal.

Unfortunately many of the comments posted by these people are libellous ... and therefore illegal ... if you are happy to rise in their defence and if they are happy to be called trolls ... who are we to deny them their right to that soubriquet.