not-so-furry discussion > news forum

Trolls - Nations newest criminal population?

(1/6) > >>

Cirocco the Silver Fox:
I'm kind of amused by this actually. Being from Arizona originally and heading back that way this is about my home state even. Now personally, no matter how much I HATE trolls, and trolling in general, I don't think this is a good idea; people have a right to make an butt of themselves to certain extents. Talking someone into killing themselves isn't EVER okay - however you do have a right to be a weiner; until internet mods get rid of you.

I don't think we should make a law to outright make it illegal to be a jerk - though it would be WONDERFUL if it were more feasible on the other hand. Sometimes you truly do have to make people play nice with each other; just not sure if this is the way to do it.

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/arizona-bill-could-criminalize-internet-trolling-184547052.html

MoonlightSerenity:
To be fair with you it seems very stupid. And from the way it's worded also makes it seem like people in that state aren't even going to be able to cuss on the internet.

A lot of people sometimes come on the internet to blow off steam, as it seems the safer way to do so rather than taking it out irl. But I can see were the bill is coming from. It could have been worded better and not been so vague.

Things like the threats and that I can see being enough to warrant police action. But other things I don't see why they'd get their nickers in a twist over it (so to say).

Jet:
I think, if anything, trolls should pay for their actions. If someone does commit suicide over something that was over the internet, and they find posts by a certain person that antagonized the victim, they should pay some price for it. It would be no different if I were to bully someone for years in real life and then they went and killed themselves. I would be liable under the law for forcing them into suicide. Trolls should be no different, in my opinion. Everything on the internet is traceable if you know how to work it. I just can't believe the human race sometimes...

Cirocco the Silver Fox:
Yes you would - however the law is worded BADLY in my opinion. I agree fully on being held liable for certain acts you do online, including threats and anything that influences another persons decisions when they are suffering from questionable judgement be it from peer pressure, self esteem issues, or depression.

However read it again:

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.

Read the underlined words - those are the major issues we have here.

1) If you act in a way irritating to people, it is criminal - my verbosity has annoyed people simply off my word choice.

2) Certain opinions are offensive to others - no religious, social, or political talk anymore on that logic.

3) No crude language - no damn, screw, bleep, sex, and other colorful adjectives while online.

4) No lascivious language - in other words NO suggesting sexual acts between other people; no cybering, online yiff, or mentioning to your significant other/partner/hook-up all the things you want to do to them. Now this likely is supposed to apply only when going after another, so in other words no more telling people to suck various parts of people's anatomy when you are frustrated.

So now you see where it degrades into the realm of stupid.

Jet:
Ugh... some people are just offended too easily. See, if we all would just practice PLUR, then this would not be a problem to anyone. Such a stupid thing to even think about putting laws on anyway.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page