Slashdot Mirror
Web Site Sues Annoying Pest Troll
kongjie writes "Cleveland's The Plain Dealer has a story in the business section about a pest-control web site that is suing someone who obviously has a particular bone to pick with exterminators: he is accused of being a "troll" who "constantly leaving obnoxious and offensive messages" on their pest-control bulletin board. The suit is for $5,000 and is for "violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.""
is this a good thing or a bad thing?
To make your analogy more accurate. The homeless man was going into the restraunt, goosing the waitresses, yelling and throwing stuff until the customers left.
Once you visit someone elses site you abide by THIER rules. You want free speach? Make your own site then you can say whatever you want.
Actually, by signing up for that forum he accepted an agreement that he could be banned for hateful speech, etc. When he did so, he then (This is what I'm getting from the story) ban evaded and did it some more.
You can scream 'FARK THE USA' on the street all you want... just don't go into corner store and start doing it.
I am a filthy pirate.
Being a jerk shouldn't be illegal / a suable thing.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
And if he kept sneaking into my business to do his musical number, I have the right to have him charged for tresspassing.
Freedom of speech does not mean you get to use other people's property (in this case, a website) to practice it.
But then again, I could be wrong.
"It sounds in part that this [lawsuit] highlights the lack of public spaces on the Internet," Seltzer said. "I would be more comfortable saying they could kick off whoever they wanted if there was someplace else they could tell him to go."
:)
He doesn't get out much, does he?
When you open your site up to anyone, and make the process of getting an account public and easily accessable, you've just created a public space. The vast majority of web-based message boards are this way. No identity verification, no scrutinized application process, no requirements (except possibly vowing that you're over 18). The act of getting an account on these boards is almost totally geared toward providing a constant on-line identity in the forums, but it has nothing to do with who you are in meatspace.
That being said, I'm fine with this lawsuit. It takes money and resources to create such a forum, even if it's free to use. I'm posting on Slashdot's dime right now, in fact.
There are plenty of places for boneheads to go. Selzer's particular place has been targetted for asshole bombardment, and that sucks.
Maybe he should implement a Karma scheme?
GMFTatsujin
However, if this hypothetical homeless man were in your living room with his drum, he would be trespassing on your property and you could request that he beats his drum elsewhere.
If he were to continually sneak in to your house every time you kicked him out, would you not take action against him?
I've run message boards in the past - there are always a few bad apples, and I inevitably got/get others saying
"I'm on board X (running software Y) and they just ban someone - you're stupid cause you can't ban someone."
I try to stress to people you CAN NOT ban someone technically in forums on the internet. Well, not easily. Certainly without putting up roadblocks which just annoy the rest of the people.
What can you do?
1. Require username/password - unless these are paid for, it's hard to stop people from registering
2. Require a reply to email (or click on a link) to verify an email address. Big deal - so I know you know how to open a hotmail account.
3. Track IPs and ban on that - great, except for people on dialups, or shared systems, or mobile people.
4. Require moderators to review and approve all posts before they go out. Most reliable, but requires increasing staff time/cost as traffic grows.
There is NO foolproof way to stop this sort of stuff. I hope this suit sends a message to those trolls who waste/abuse resources and do not heed polite requests to play by the rules the rest of us follow.
I'm normally not in favor of legal tactics, and generally favor technical answers to technical problems, but this isn't a technical problem. It's a behavioural one, and we have a legal system in place to deal with bad/wrong/illegal behaviour.
creation science book
But Free Speech doesn't apply when you're on private property. On my "land" I CAN tell you what you are and are not allowed to do and say. And on the net, it's ALL private property, so I CAN tell you to go piss up a rope. I agree it's extreme, so does their lawyer, but it seems to me that as time goes on, trolls are getting WORSE. They're not just leaving nasty and annoying messages by the ton, they're resorting to DDoS attacks, IRC flooding, attempting domain "theft", spam attacks, and a host of other extreme measures. I'm somewhat torn over this too, but from the story, I'm leaning towards their side, to sue. He's cut traffic, thus potentially threatening their revenue stream. That's real damage, not just a poor response to name calling.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Freedom of speech is not freedom of action. You cant be prosecuted for anything you believe, or expressing those beliefs. But you can be for harassment, trespassing, indecent behaviour, public drunkeness, etc.
Too many people act like shitbags then try and hide behind 'freedom of speech'.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I don't think the people behind this suit are particularly adept. Block the IP. If that doesn't do it contact their provider. If that doesn't work start blocking the whole IP range owned by that person's ISP.
If the guy has to find a whole new ISP just to post a message that will be killed by a moderator in a few hours he's not going to be doing it for long.
The only way I can see this not being a good idea is if the ISP in question is sufficiently large AND sufficiently unresponsive to your complaints, but I don't see that as being the case here. I think they're spending a whole lotta money on something they're going to lose anyway.
My
Limekiller
In a truly public space, yes.
This case is more like a troublemaker walking into a bar, shouting at everyone in the room at the top of his lungs, and demanding his right to pee on their shoes as a speech action. I don't have any problem with bouncers (in the employ of the guy who pays the rent on the building) showing guys like this the door.
This guy wasn't walking down a public street. He was abusing a privately controlled, open space. He was repeatedly making a disturbance that violated the agreement as to his conduct he made when he walked in the door. He was warned, bounced, but kept coming back. Effectively, he was tresspassing, and thus, legal action can and should be taken.
Open forum on the Internet !== non-regulated open space.
GMFTatsujin
I think this is a cut and dry case of a company prematurely jumping into a matter whole, hog.
Any system or forum administrator worth his salt could easily block a range of IP addresses as well as some of the more popular proxy servers that allow deviant trolls to sneak through and continue posting.
Just look at Slashdot and Kuro5hin. Rob and Rusty both, respectfully, understand the dynamics of Web communities and know that court isn't how to solve trivial little troll problems. All you do is give a person a very friendly time out period during which they can't post and you're home free.
The problem here is not trolls or Internet arguers. The problem here is talent, and this pest control company doesn't have anyone in their IT department with half a brain.
K5 and Slash are still running strong through years of low budgets, high troll/contributor ratios, and Dot Com busts. It's not rocket scientry, folks, it's just simple, kind administration on the part of Rusty and Rob Malda.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
To make your analogy more accurate. The homeless man was going into the restraunt, goosing the waitresses, yelling and throwing stuff until the customers left.
The idea that a commercial entity can incur an actionable loss because of the freedom of speech is a new and dangerous trend in our society right now, but the thought of suing every disruptive customer entering a public establishment is so absurd as to defy logical discourse. Are you trolling?
As individuals, we (Americans) live in a society that legally recognizes our inherent right of free speech. The corollary of that is that you might hear speech of which you disapprove. That is the price of freedom. Do you mean to suggest that a commercial entity is exempt from that cost, at the expense of the freedom of individuals?
If so, I must point out that you are in very poor company.
When you sue someone, you are generally not limited to recovering actual damages. You can sue for punitive damages as well, to deter the defendant (and others like him) from repeating his actions in the future -- which would require further intervention of the legal system.
Depending on how much time and effort (and legal bills) GIE has invested to keep him off their forums, and how much damage their reputation has lost because of the trolls on their forums, I can believe $5000 is the actual damages. An organization I work with has persistent trolls, and we spend a huge amount of time to remove them when they act up.
I wonder, though, if GIE has talked to the guy's ISP(s) and reported him for abuse. In my experience, that is much more effective than trying to unmask and sue someone over the Internet.
The idea that a commercial entity can incur an actionable loss because of the freedom of speech is a new and dangerous trend in our society
No it isn't. It's called private property and the principle has been around just as long as the first amendment. If you make noise on my property, I can kick you off. No questions. If you make noise in the street, I can't do anything about it. The web site could easily be considered private property and posting to the site would require the visitors abide by the terms of use. If they don't fine, they have to go do their own website.
This has nothing to do with corporate entities imposing censorship. It has everything to do with private property and the user thereof.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Is it possible that the website owners are not as much interested in winning a lawsuit as they are getting this guy to stop interfering with their business? I'd bet they're hoping to settle out of court. Apologize and leave us alone, and we'll drop the case against you.
<:
Certainly you're right. But it's not the fact that they're suing "for money" that bothers me, what else can you sue for? What bothers me is that they're suing at all.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
OK, I'll enter your house despite your explicit request for me to leave and start beating my drum. If you throw me out, I'll break back in and beat my drum some more.
Let's see how long that lasts before you call the cops.
You're suck a fucking moronic troll.
That someone started taking these irresponsible cretins to task. I applaud this action. For anyone who wants to cry "free speach", it should be noted that the server, bulletin board, and services involved were totally private in nature. That, and this twonk had to get through some kind of agreement prohibitig such behavior in order to gain access. I'm constantly amazed that people seem to think that because a forum is on the Internet that it somehow enjoys some additional protections covering anything you want to say. If you own the equipment, you get to decide what gets done with it, and who can use it.
What "rules"? You want rules now on the Internet? Are you insane?
/. does to ACs (oh, you didn't know? You can't post more than 10 posts a day; they log your IP; they don't respond to emails even though they throw a form up; in the chances that you do, they are clueless with their own error IDs; so if you "catch up" on /. for a week, you're screwed even if all you post are URLs for others to find additional info).
If the government and corporations had their way, they'd slam down every irate customer or voter out there.
Look, site manager's know this--you moderate or you don't. You require logins or you don't. If it's private site, then they can restrict him by the moderation or login requirements and a site usage agreement. If it's a public forum, then it's a public forum. He has the right to express himself on their site; they have the right to restrict him through blocking, etc., just as
It's amazing the number of sites that get by without using federal law to help them, and yet you somehow find validity in this absolutely frivolous BS argument of "play by the rules." It's their forum. It's theirs to manage. If they can't, that's their stinkin problem. You EASILY have more solutions, strategies, and recourse than real life physical moderation, and in the latter case, most of us would not stand our free speech rights being slammed shut (of course, there are numerous limits you could site, but the general scenario of a fellow on the street corner with a sign in front of a business is legal expression, despite the many laws, usually local, regarding conduct, profanity, slander, libel, disorderly conduct, etc.).
Play by the rules. Gee whiz. Down the page, you have network associates stifling reviews of their own product, which they release for sale to the public. Pathetic that the legality of such conduct is even in play, and you want now to "play by the rules." Yeah, you and what other obstinate whiners?
"the rules" of their website - not 'the rules' of the internet. No one said about 'rules of the internet'.
Quit being so damned whiney about this. It's pct's forum, they can do what they want.
creation science book
Realistically, it's easier to troll (note: troll, not crapflood) a site frequented by the extremists: linux zealots make easy targets. Similarly, it's very easy to troll political discussion boards, and unsuspecting teenagers.
Crapflooding, however, is not trolling, and takes no skill. It is absolutely immaterial what type of site you crapflood: some people will anger easier, but it's usually only a matter of time until you get bored and move on anyway.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
but the general scenario of a fellow on the street corner with a sign in front of a business is legal expression
That would be like making your own website complaining about the company. 'Entering" their website and using their boards is more akin to walking into the store, taking their paper, using their markers, making a sign, and protesting inside the store.
--Kevin
Actually it's more like this: the homeless man walks into the restaurant, one which advertises itself as a place specifically friendly to women in technology, carrying stinkbombs, very nasty gay pr0n and spouting obscenities. The homeless man also beat up on the proprietor.
The proprietor of the restaurant doesn't call the police or sue the homeless man, she calls the director of the homeless man's shelter and tells them of the incident. The homeless man is then told by the shelter he is not welcome there anymore and to find one of the other many shelters in or out of the town. She is then forced to hire bouncers to protect the restaurant from future molestation.
The homeless man finds a new shelter, then contacts his buddy trolls-under-the bridges and tells them "Open Season on Ms. Geek's!" They then start attacking the building the restaurant rents, vandalizing it, even to the point of setting up wiretaps in the building's trunk phone line.
The owner of the building suggests that maybe Ms. Geek's should find a new location. The proprietor of the restaurant decides that rents are too high, the frustration factor is way too much, and most people who were visiting the restaurant were checking out the menu, admiring what other people were eating, then deciding "oh no, I mustn't sit down and eat, it's too fattening."
So Ms. Geek's goes out of business thanks to that homeless troll and his buddies. Next week, a Starbuck's opens up in its place. Thanks a lot, WIPO, Vladinator and the rest of you.
Ms. Geek
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Only if they are giving away paper and markers to everybody who comes in to allow us to post on the wall testemonials about how good their product is. Once they do that, they really should not be allowed to sue for somebody writing that they suck.
Especially if they do, in fact, suck.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
...since this got posted on /., this board is going to get attacked by a whole army of crapflooders. Maybe this story should have not gotten through the submission process...if the poor devils who run the board think they had troubles with this one guy, just wait.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The very act of requiring registration ends up cutting down the number of posts a web site receives. I know that I hardly ever post on a web site that requires registration, Slashdot is pretty much the exception for me. I wouldn't have even registered on Slashdot if it required me to put down easily identifiable personal information.
Even if the website in question did have people register, it would have needed a sure way to identify registrants, such as by credit card number. It said in the article that the troll's username was banned but the guy snuck back under other names. Unless they could find a sure way to identify the guy (such as Microsoft's Passport **shudder**), they couldn't stop the guy from posting.
It comes down to this: require people to totally identify themselves (thus causing them to ignore the site), or take the chance that you won't get trolled and leave the site open to all. Trolls are the ones that are driving stuff like Passport and national ID numbers, if people didn't abuse the privacy that certain forums provide then there wouldn't be a need to pin people down with big brother tactics.
Sapere aude!
IANALBMFUTDO (I am not a lawyer but my father used to date one), and she said that the reason that people will sue for an amount less than $10,000 is that they're counting on the defendant to settle. According to her, it costs more than that to defend yourself, so it's cheaper to settle.