one of the comments from the bbc article yesterday (though I cannot find them now)
Paraphrased as follows:
Quote:
proponents of removing the anonymity to sites like facebook etc (zuckerberg et al) are missing the point - many of us can keep our real identity separate from our online avatar for the reason that trolling online stays online.
Were you to have your real name, address and other details available on such sites, it's a good bet you'd be getting hateful trolling at your home address too.
Which is a much more frightening idea than internet trolls.
|
Trolling will not stop just because you divulge everyone's personal information. That is a fools paradise.
As for the sentence, well.. it seems a trifle pointless if you ask me. Better that the guy be blacklisted from having internet access/social networking, than 3 squares a day and Xbox in a young offenders unit.
There are better things to be punished by time inside.
Like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-I-would.html I know, DM
but you get the idea.
How far is the government (the courts are and extension of gov.) going to stick its nose into areas like this and widen the spectrum of individuals they can call 'criminals'?
You could argue that the number of criminal acts has increased because the government has increased the number of things that are now considered crimes. You might be a law abiding citizen today, but a criminal tomorrow, depending on how the political wind blows.
This particular incident is lacking in respect, taste and general decency, but that is
all.
You'd have to lock up half of subsim (myself included) if you considered internet trolling in its various forms as a criminal act. Not to mention all of the politicians and bankers who have demonstrated an as yet unheard of lack of respect, taste and general decency in recent years, all of which has had a far more devastating impact on ordinary people and their lives to date.
This is a strange grey area, where existing legislation, political and police thinking is a long way behind understanding what is actually taking place, let alone legislating how to deal with is - what we don't need is any more crap laws made by people who don't understand what is going on.
I call the courts and ministers on this one: being seen to be tough on 'crime' and tough on the causes of 'crime' makes for good politics, but rubbish laws and precedent.
Bit like ken clarke and his advocacy for TV cameras in trials (though only appeal for now)... he says it's so people can see the court process and feel safe because of knowing how things work. Well call me a cynic, in view of the recent disturbances on some of our cities streets, it looks more like a warning to me - "Look, look! see what you'll get if you're a bad 'un? So's you best do what we tell ya, alright? Or it'll be bad for you... see how bad it could be? So just watch out!"
It's all pointless anyway when you consider the humour and the truth behind this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...t-2354144.html though I digress a little.
EDIT:
reading back, I'm reminded of an incident here recently with seemed much more aggressive in its nature:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...k-2353150.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...S-embassy.html
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/11/u...te-of-silence/ (btw, you don't want to regard the EDL as 'friends', just so as you americans know, some of the comments clearly do not understand this... or maybe they do?)
Both the OP story and these links highlight examples of a lack of taste, respect and decency, however, I think there will be a contradictory sentencing/conviction regarding the internet troll and these fundamentalist religious trolls and their flag burning. It will show the problem and disparity of how the law is applied by the courts and directed by political interests.