First Amendment Ruling Protects Internet Trolls

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal of the State of California (PDF) in Krinsky v. Doe H030767 overturned a lower court ruling and decided that the First Amendment right to anonymous speech protects internet trolls, too. Specifically, the ruling said that 'this juvenile name-calling cannot reasonably be read as stating actual facts.' And, even though some of the statements were crudely sexual and accused Ms. Krinsky of being among 'boobs, liars and crooks,' the statements were held to 'fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.'"

Comments

democracy and noise

[LosManos]

That is one of the down sides of democracy. The signal to noise ration is sometimes bad.
But what you consider BS one time might be the truth the next. It is up to you.

Re:Evident corollary

[novakyu]

So, moderating a comment (-1, Troll) is unconstitutional? Cool! No, because the moderation itself (at least on a private site like this) is expression of opinion in and of itself, and such is protected by the First Amendment rights.

how would it not be?

[hcmtnbiker]

I really don't understand how they wouldn't be under free speech. Defamatory remarks are only ones made that where stated as fact, as so people will believe them when they're not true. That has been decided it doesn't fall under freedom of speech because of its deceiving nature. Whereas trolls aren't trying to deceive anyone, they're just ranting. What it comes down to for me is that the right to freedom of speech is useless unless you piss someone off, the reason its in the constitution is so you can use it to piss people off. If no one ever pissed anyone off with speech then there would be no need for the first amendment.
-----
Oh and go ahead and troll this comment, just for kicks.

Re:how would it not be?

[Admiral Ag]

There's a difference between speech that is primarily intended to make a point, but happens to piss someone off (e.g. "I believe that homosexuality is/is not immoral"), and speech which is primarily intended to piss people off rather than make a point (e.g. "burn all f4gg0+z fur havin A1DZ lolz").

I sincerely doubt that the people who wrote your constitution had the noble aim of allowing their citizens to call each other "poopyheads" in mind. The aim of the first amendment is presumably to allow the free transmission of ideas and for people to be able to speak their conscience. It doesn't protect every kind of lie, for example.

If the founders had wanted to protect the right to specifically annoy other people, they would have written something like: "The right of citizens to throw balloons full of dog shit at each other shall not be infringed".

Trolls can be funny, but they are more often a nuisance. It's not like much can be done in any case, since the law of the universe is that idiots and assholes must win.

Re:how would it not be?

[Logic and Reason]

I sincerely doubt that the people who wrote your constitution had the noble aim of allowing their citizens to call each other "poopyheads" in mind.

No, I think that's exactly what they had in mind. Something along the lines of, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If the founders had wanted to protect the right to specifically annoy other people, they would have written something like: "The right of citizens to throw balloons full of dog shit at each other shall not be infringed".

This is exactly why some of the founders opposed the creation of the Bill of Rights: they worried that people would misinterpret it as an exhaustive listing of the people's (and the states') rights. It is not. It merely lists some of the things the federal government is explicitly, no-really-I-mean-it not allowed to do; but everything not mentioned is supposed to be left up to the people, or to the states. In fact, there's even an amendment saying precisely that:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So since the founders did not put any language into the Constitution granting the federal government the power to prevent people from generally being assholes to each other, the federal government isn't allowed to do it. I leave as an exercise for the reader the task of finding in the Constitution language that grants the federal government the power to establish Social Security and other forms of welfare, the Federal Reserve, the Food and Drug Administration, and so on.

Trolly Comment

[AndGodSed]

bla, yah, abortion, yadda, mohammed cartoon, yack yack, George Bush, bla bla...

Re:Oh dear God...

[edwardpickman]

Trolls are often on topic but are expressing unpopular opinions. I wish the mod was used strictly for those being obnoxious and not contributing to the discussion. "Troll" and "Flamebait" are at times used to shout down people with unpopular stances. Make a few posts supporting copyrights or speaking out against illegal downloading and see how fast you get trolled or flamebaited. People do at times get decent mods for making good arguments but the vast majority of times they'll be modded down.

Re:Words=Noise, Writing=Squiggles

[cliveholloway]

"...trying to get a t-shirt made that simply says F*** Jesus, has been very hard"

So you want to get a T-shirt made with Fuck Jesus on it, but you're too embarrassed to type that almost anonymously on Slashdot?

Um, OK then. Go for it you rebel!

The downside of Free speech

[stox]

is that you're going to be exposed to things that annoy you or that you disagree with. Some things might even offend you. Deal with it, it is a part of real life.

Very interesting: professionalism = responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the summary and the verdict, it actually appears that the main question was whether the statements could reasonably be read as facts, because defamation rules only protect against false factual claims. The judge found that no reasonable person was likely to read them as statements of facts, but rather as 'crude, satirical hyperbole'.

The very strong implication that is likely to have consequences is that the deciding question about any claims is whether they are "likely to be read as facts", which again is going to depend on the professionalism they are delivered with. Whereas posting the commment "Ms. Krinsky likes to suck goats" in a Youtube comment is unlikely to be defamatory, creating a professional-looking blog and writing a post entitled "My disturbing meeting with Ms. Krinsky where she hinted at zoophilia" on the other hand is likely to be.

I completely agree that this is the only sensible and real-life-compatible way for things to be done to be honest, but it is interesting that the court has now spelt it out explicitly. Look forward to the 'convincingness' of internet posts to become an issue in defemation cases in the future. Of course, even if something is not defamatory it could still be harassment or criminal in other ways.

Re:Oh dear God...

[tacocat]

Score one for the good guys. You may not like Trolls, but then neither did King George. If protecting my freedom of speech means I get to listen to a few immature Trolls, it's well worth the price.

Re:Oh dear God...

[LordLucless]

It's also because there are no downmods labeled "factually incorrect", "moronic argument that's been debunked a million times already" or "calling people names isn't going to make your argument any more compelling". When someone's being a dick, and you can't be bothered throwing pearls before swine, there aren't too many options for accurate mods.

Re:Darwinian M&M duels

[montyzooooma]

There's a flaw here. With a winner stays on format the winner gets worn down over time making it statistically unlikely that the last man standing will actually be the strongest competitor when the contest started, just the strongest left when the contest finished.

To what extent?

[Opportunist]

When someone posts "trolling" comments on his blog, fine. But is this supposed to mean that I have to allow it or at least may not take legal steps against someone trying to troll on a board, message system or blog I am responsible for?

To me, this is akin to a party. It's your party, do what you want. You may even kick me out for being no troll, you may do whatever name calling you like, but when you're on my lawn, you either keep your mouth shut or get off it. You will not come to my party and advertise for amway, you will not get drunk and harrass all the girls and you will not start political campaigning for a party I do not like.

I do sincerely hope that the courts see that fine difference. Just because I open my house for anyone who wants to party with me does not mean that I allow anyone to come in and do what they like. And the same applies to internet servers. A server is not a "public space". It is owned by someone who may (or may not) present the rules under which this server may be used. Play by those rules or get off my lawn.

Re:No

[gomiam]

No, that's preventing everyone else from seeing their opinions too.

<sarcasm>Of course it is, because there is no option to browse at -1, whether you are a registered user or not. I guess two clicks are too much work, and having to go to a public library to read a book censors the author because you don't get it sent home just because you think you want to read it right now.</sarcasm>

Preventing would require that those comments were unavailable (or with great difficulty). Two clicks doesn't cut it, for me.

Amen

[pavon]

I can't moderate in this thread because I already posted, but this should be +5.

Furthermore, if you want an idea of what kind of speech the American Revolutionaries wanted to protect, just look at the kind of speech they were using. For every civil and well-reasoned "Common Sense", "Declaration of Independence" and "Federalist Papers", there are dozens of newspapers articles and pamphlets published that were crude, hyperbolic, and dripping with vitriol. They were nothing if not flamebait. The founders of this country clearly felt that no one should be above this sort of criticism, and that no government should be able to suppress this sort of dissent.

Admiral Ag is correct in saying that this sort of speech is nothing but a nuisance, but if someone thinks they need the government to step in and "protect" them from something as insignificant as trolling then they have bigger problems on their hands.