What is an 'internet troll'?

[Alfred R Jones]

Not all trolling is criminal, but some of it clearly is hence Spivey's conviction, unless we're saying what he did was NOT trolling?!

[Eleanor]

You are completely missing the point about criminal behaviour and trolling. One illegal, one not. One the subject of the thread, one not.

These comments are all subjects of The Thread.  Only The Law can decide.  While we all discuss it ad infinitum.

Whether or not I would consider some such comments as worthy of punishment are not for me to say.  Since I haven't actually been asked to define.

There is often a great lack of logic on here.  Opinion is not fact.  But just how far should opinion be allowed to go?

[sadie]

These comments are all subjects of The Thread.  Only The Law can decide.  While we all discuss it ad infinitum.

Whether or not I would consider some such comments as worthy of punishment are not for me to say.  Since I haven't actually been asked to define.

There is often a great lack of logic on here.  Opinion is not fact.  But just how far should opinion be allowed to go?

Opinion is OK as long as it is sensible opinion, based on facts, BUT it should always be stated that it is opinion and not left as absolute "fact".  That is the stuff of new myths.


And neither should the facts be twisted to give the results wanted to fulfill a personal hypothesis.  That is Fraud.

[Eleanor]

Opinion is OK as long as it is sensible opinion, based on facts, BUT it should always be stated that it is opinion and not left as absolute "fact".  That is the stuff of new myths.


And neither should the facts be twisted to give the results wanted to fulfill a personal hypothesis.  That is Fraud.

I will even go for not very sensible opinions.  I frequently do.  But they won't turn into facts on this Forum for as long as I am around

Not actually Fraud, Sadie.  This is the wrong legal terminology.  Gross Disemination at worst, and this is not actually a crime.

[G-Unit]

Not all trolling is criminal, but some of it clearly is hence Spivey's conviction, unless we're saying what he did was NOT trolling?!

To me, that seems to be the problem. Until we have a definitive definition of trolling how can we know what it is? At the moment it seems to be anything someone else disapproves of. It's not a criminal offence, whatever it is. When people are prosecuted it's for an offence which is illegal, such as harassment or racist comments.

Spivey may have trolled, but he wasn't convicted of trolling, he was convicted of harassment.

[Eleanor]

To me, that seems to be the problem. Until we have a definitive definition of trolling how can we know what it is? At the moment it seems to be anything someone else disapproves of. It's not a criminal offence, whatever it is. When people are prosecuted it's for an offence which is illegal, such as harassment or racist comments.

Spivey may have trolled, but he wasn't convicted of trolling, he was convicted of harassment.

What is harassment, in your opinion?

[Alfred R Jones]

"This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families." - Wikipedia page on Troll, trolling.

[Alfred R Jones]

Then, from the same page, there is this:

"At times, the word can be abused to refer to anyone with controversial opinions they disagree with.[18] Such usages goes against the ordinary meaning of troll in multiple ways. Most importantly, trolls don't actually believe the controversial views they claim. Farhad Manjoo criticises this view, noting that if the person really is trolling, they are a lot more intelligent than their critics would believe". [18]

So, then perhaps Spivey isn't a troll after all, or is he...?  If he's not a troll then most of the "Justice Seekers for Maddie" cannot be labelled trolls either as they seem to sincerely believe the tripe they come out with, but it doesn't mean they are not guilty of similar actions as Spivey, which were detailed in the report I posted earlier. 

[faithlilly]

I often wonder why the McCanns didn't report Bennett to the police as Lee  Rigby's family did with Spivey instead of launching a civil case against him. Surely the police are in a better position to stop harassment than the courts.

[Alfred R Jones]

I often wonder why the McCanns didn't report Bennett to the police as Lee  Rigby's family did with Spivey instead of launching a civil case against him. Surely the police are in a better position to stop harassment than the courts.

Maybe they did and the police weren't interested.  IMO, the police are very reluctant and / or slow to act in many of these cases of harassment.

[Eleanor]

I often wonder why the McCanns didn't report Bennett to the police as Lee  Rigby's family did with Spivey instead of launching a civil case against him. Surely the police are in a better position to stop harassment than the courts.

Oh, I think they did.  But Bennett wasn't listening.  He was creeping around their house, but no one actually caught him at it.  Hard to do after the event.

But what they did was to ask him to stop, which he refused to do.  So The McCanns agreed not to pursue him for Libel if he signed an undertaking.  Which he did sign.  And then he broke the undertaking, which was legally accredited.

He then thought that he could beat the undertaking that he had signed.

Is Bennett a Troll?  Probably not in the true sense of the word.

[G-Unit]

What is harassment, in your opinion?

I haven't actually thought about it and opinion means nothing anyway. It is for the law to decide what constitutes harassment and to act on it.

[Eleanor]

I haven't actually thought about it and opinion means nothing anyway. It is for the law to decide what constitutes harassment and to act on it.

Then I would think about it if I were you.  Amaral's opinions seem to have carried some weight.  But English Courts can hardly put paid to him.

[Lyall]

Surely the McCann "sceptics" who are always going on about free speech and being entitled to say what they like must be disappointed with the verdict on Spivey?  After all, all he did was express his opinion.  He didn't physically harass anyone, did he?  He may have been a bit threatening and nasty to the Rigby family but wasn't Brenda nasty and threatening to a person she thought was Amy Tierney?  Explain the difference please.

The guy also annoyed the Americans. He published a mass of provocative imagery and text about the Boston bombs- and their victims. (On other so-called 'false flags too.)

Nobody I'm aware of -not even the nuttiest of the #mccann tweeters - has been as extreme,on such a wide area of topics.

So there's the difference.

[Alfred R Jones]

The guy also annoyed the Americans. He published a mass of provocative imagery and text about the Boston bombs- and their victims. (On other so-called 'false flags too.)

Nobody I'm aware of -not even the nuttiest of the #mccann tweeters - has been as extreme,on such a wide area of topics.

So there's the difference.

He was not convicted of annoying Americans, and his views on a wide range of subjects are beside the point.  His views on the McCanns are identical in most respects to the views of the nuttiest of #McCann tweeters, and his behaviour towards the Rigbys is very similar that which is meted out to the McCanns now and for the last 8 years.  If anything, the McCanns have had it much worse than Lee Rigby's family, as it has been going on for 8 years and they have been accused of appalling things and by many more than one nutter.