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.""
I can see Slashdot's new business model...
I think sterner measures need to be taken. Such as having spammers and trolls fight to the death in a pit for our amusement.
That you've resorted to trolling a pest-control web site?
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.
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.
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
Jon Katz, a freelance writer and dog enthusiast, was arrested and jailed with no bail for attempting to delete an old work of his that falls under the new anti-troll act.
If found guilty, his punishment could range anywhere from a fine of $500 to a sentence of 2 years of jail time during which he would be forced to read his old Slashdot articles 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, until released.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
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.
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?
I think one could successfully argue in court that Slashdot serves no function except for trolls to flex their creative muscles.
It would be like Chuck E Cheese suing little kids for peeing in the balls.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!