Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
We now have a Slashdot article on trolling? Holy crap, this is gonna be bad, really bad. Does this mean all trolls are now on-topic?
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
I was going to FP but i was afraid of getting moderated "Troll"
Who run Barter Town?
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.
I for one welcome all things troll friendly. The only thing keeping me from rejoicing completely is that this may interfere with internet censorship... Can we protect trolling, but still censor profanity and anything that may offend religious groups? Then I'll be happy and America will be safer. Those who oppose trolls but allow offensive religious speech hate America's freedom.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Let's welcome our new Beowulf Cluster of legal troll-overlords...
... the wave! The wave is coming, I can see it... heck, the earth is shaking!
I'm an infovore...
Don't Feed The Trolls
It only empowers them to wield attack lawyers.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Slashdot's gone cold I'm wondering why I got out of bed at all / The morning rain clouds up my window and I can't see at all / And even if I could it'll all be gray but your picture on my wall / It reminds me, that it's not so bad -- it's not so bad
Dear Rob, I wrote but you still ain't callin / I left my email, my ICQ, and my yahoo chat at the bottom / I sent two emails back in autumn, you must not-a got 'em / There probably was a problem with your sendmail or somethin / Sometimes I scribble email addees too sloppy when I jot 'em / but anyways; fsck it, what's been up? Man how's your boxes? / My boxes is linux too, I'm bout to be a compiler / once I learn gcc, / I'ma go on and compile for hours / I read about your Palm Pilot too I'm sorry / I had a friend lose his Palm over at the airport in Maradonna / I know you probably hear this everyday, but I'm your biggest fan / I even read all your bullshit Linux news and Microsoft's man / I got a room full of your posters and your pictures man / I like the way you sold your ass out too, that shit was fat / Anyways, I hope you get this man, hit me back, / just to chat, truly yours, your biggest fan / This is Stan
Dear Rob, you still ain't called or wrote, I hope you have a chance / I ain't mad - I just think it's FSCKED UP you don't answer fans / If you didn't wanna talk to me outside your Linux World / you didn't have to, but you coulda signed an autograph for Matthew / That's my Senior sys admin he's only 26 years old / We waited on a 9600 baud for you, / four hours and you just said, "No." / That's pretty shitty man - you're like his fsckin idol / He wants to be just like you man, he likes you more than I do / I ain't that mad though, I just don't like bein lied to / Remember when we met in Boston - you said if I'd write you / you would write back - see I'm just like you in a way / I never had a clue about shit either / I gcc'd shit with my wife then beat her / I can relate to what you're saying in your page / so when I feel like rmusering I read Slashdot to begin the rage / cause I don't really got shit else so that shit helps when I'm depressed / I even got a tattoo of slashdot across the chest / Sometimes I even packet myself to see how much it floods / It's like adrenaline, the DDoS is such a sudden rush of blood / See everything you say is real, and I respect you cause you tell it / My girlfriend's jealous cause I talk about you 24/7 / But she don't know you like I know you Rob, no one does / She don't know what it was like for people like us growin up / You gotta call me man, I'll be the biggest fan you'll ever lose / Sincerely yours, Stan -- P.S. / We should be together too
Dear Mister-I'm-Too-Good-To-Waste-A-Packet-On-My-Fans, / this'll be the last packet I ever send your ass / It's been six months and still no word - I don't deserve it? / I know you got my last two emails / I wrote the @ signs on 'em perfect / So this is my payload I'm sending you, I hope you hear it / I'm on my modem now, I'm doing 9600 baud so fear it / Hey Rob, I drank a fifth of vodka, you dare me to code? / You know the song by Deep Purple or Slayer / its irrelevant by playing on my linux player / while I write some php scripts and play some Dragonslayer / That's kinda how shit is, you coulda rescued me from drowning / Now it's too late - I'm on a 1000 downloads now, I'm drowsy / and all I wanted was a lousy letter or a call / I hope you know I ripped +ALL+ of your pictures off the wall / I love you Rob, we coulda been together, think about it / You ruined it now, I hope you can't sleep and you dream about it / And when you dream I hope you can't sleep and you SCREAM about it / I hope your conscience EATS AT YOU and you can't BREATHE without me / See Rob {*screaming*} Shut up bitch! I'm tryin to code / Hey Rob, that's my senior admin screamin from the comode / but I didn't cut the power off, I just rebooted, see I ain't like you / cause if rm -rf'd we'd suffer more, and then the boxes die too / Well, gotta go, I'm almost BGP bridged now / Oh shit, I f
So, moderating a comment (-1, Troll) is unconstitutional? Cool!
"[...] the statements [...] , while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment."
That is a very nice way of protecting free speech, while still making very plain that that kid should work on his argumentative skills.
I've always felt that one should be able to say or write anything that suits their fancy. Short of something that could put someone in immediate harm (i.e. shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded place).
It's like when people put parts of Scientology's texts in public forums. To a true believer, those words are putting them in actual danger or at the very least greatly offending them. But no one cares about that, their a bunch of not jobs.
But in my own experiance, trying to get a t-shirt made that simply says F*** Jesus, has been very hard. And I can't wait to get one made to wear to Wal-Mart... Granted that will probably put me in physical danger, but that's part of the fun of it all.
The point is, the world is a dirty grubby place. And if you can't use your intellect to help you see beyond it all. That's you're problem, people talk shit. Always have always will. IMHO.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
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.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
Oh come on, why are there 18 comments and no one's done this yet? Do I have to do everything myself? Let's get it out of the way:
_____________________________
That idiotic dumb-ass judge wouldn't know a good judicial decision if it bit him in his lame-ass ass. Where did he go to judge-school anyway, The Universduhity of Dumbasia?
I see it came from California. Everyone knows everybody in California is a stupid liberal anyway with their stupid activist liberal judges who just do whatever their retarded Governator tells them to do. Retards. Someone should shoot them all, wouldn't that be ironic? Here they all go crying "free speech, free speech," and then they get shot? Well, if you don't see the irony, then you're even dumber than that retarted freakin judge.
_____________________________
OK, now mod it + funny, - troll and we can be done with it.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
I, for one, would not mind being "among boobs".
:)
And i guess that goes for most of us here.
bla, yah, abortion, yadda, mohammed cartoon, yack yack, George Bush, bla bla...
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
This is good news in an age where free speech is under attack from so many quarters. Let's all remember this famous quote:
... [and] sentenced to serve 10 years in prison . . . ."
... and the victims of the Montana sedition law.
"I may mod down what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
-- Voltaire
This has not always been the land of the free. Remember Eugene V. Debs:
"June 16, 1918 -- Debs made his famous anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting World War I which was raging in Europe. For this speech he was arrested and convicted in federal court in Cleveland, Ohio under the war-time espionage law
(from here)
$META_SIG_JOKE
If they're using comcast, then they don't have the first amendment. Again sorry to repost/whore.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=446180&cid=22344224
import system.cool.Sig;
Okay, there are basically two kinds of companies that follow suits like this: Young companies with inexperienced leadership and companies have a valid tarnished image who want their day in court to clear their name or to just scare critics into silence. Experienced leadership understands that maintaining a good image means fixing problems, not hide them. Also, you don't go out of your way to highlight critics. These guys are making the news circles, which is leading people to read about the company history, further tarnishing their image. Not exactly the kind of thing an experienced leader does.
I'm pretty sure those who do seek to actively silence public critics are those who have something to hide, not am image to maintain. If you run the company right, people will rightfully ignore the trolls.
Burn Hollywood Burn
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.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
There are extremely strong pressures for anonymous posting to be removed from all national newspaper and discussion sites, pretty much every site "run by a company", which is all of them. The social pressure on companies to conform to this could be compared with the Chinese social pressure on companies not to allow 'socially objectionable material' to filter into the public consciousness.
Additionally, every Norway-based social networking site requires a mobile phone for registration, and mobile phones are required by law to be registered to a valid address with SSN-equivalent. You can't buy one without ID.
One person's obnoxious poster is another's modern day Mark Twain. It's time people realised that calling someone a "troll" is just a stereotyping, dismissive way of dealing with things you can't be bothered to discuss. It would be much more mature to simply ignore them.
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.
Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the "loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.
I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theatre of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world.
Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.
When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3x5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes."
This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion.
There can be only one.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one person to separate himself from the association of the other members of a learned discussion, and to assume among the trolls of the earth a separate and equal station, it becomes incumbent upon the troll to enumerate the reasons for his separation.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
are a mega scum bag and a cockroach, and there are probably more cockroaches at the company you work for
however, i will reciprocate felatoin with you even though you have fat thighs, a fake medical
degree, queefs and have poor feminine hygiene
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"and eerily perfect grammar"
BZZZZT. Not even close.
"Did their supposed anonymity give them constitutional rights to be fucktards, or more importantly, to cause my family grief and humiliation?"
Listen crybaby, I'll explain this to you so you'll avoid looking like a bitch again.
THEY DID NOT CAUSE YOUR FAMILY ANYTHING. THEY ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY, WHICH YOU CHOSE TO RESPOND TO WITH GRIEF AND HUMILIATION. YOU CHOSE HOW TO REACT TO THEM AND YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE TO BLAME FOR HOW YOU FEEL.
Grow the fuck up. Your post was the definition of pathetic.
<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.
And just to keep in line with the ruling, the judge called the blogger Crude, Immature and Hyperbolic.
And yes, I know what i wrote. You didn't get the joke perhaps?
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
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.
Of course it's premeditated. That's the entire purpose of any moderation system: to mod posts up that the moderator believes are good and down those he doesn't. Even if you eliminate downmods you're still "censoring" posts by virtue of choosing not to mod them up. The only way to eliminate that oh-so-abhorrent practice is to eliminate moderation entirely. I don't know about you, but I simply don't have the time to read every single comment on every single article I look at on Slashdot. I LIKE the fact that idiotic posts are hidden from my view by my viewing threshold, and that posts that SOMEBODY thought was good are highlighted for my attention. I'm happy to acknowledge that some downmods are undeserved, the same as some upmods are. I simply don't feel that the system not being perfect warrants scrapping it.
Luckily, as the grandparent post correctly pointed out, if you disagree with such a "censorship" regime you're free to disable it by browsing at -1 and ignoring any moderations that were made. You can read everything. Or if you've got a particular soft spot for people modded troll, you can even adjust the moderation for it in your profile such that it is a GOOD thing that brings it to you attention rather than hides it.
This might be censorship from a strict definition of the word, but the vast majority of people, were this system described to them, would not find it inappropriate in the least. Labeling it thus is just some sort of lame appeal to emotion. After all, hardly anybody will support censorship if that's what you ask them--even if they do in some cases. Personally I find it more akin to a tagging system; people decide if a post is funny or a troll or what, and I can decide whether those things are good or bad. And luckily, as has been said many times now, there are multiple options for anybody who disagrees with this system's existence to essentially opt out and see everything anyway. Those of us who find it useful may continue to use it as an aide to finding good posts and hiding bad. What's the problem here?
Nor do smartass remarks make you right. If what you're looking for is an intellectual snobbery win, pat yourself on the back; I'll admit downmodding may fit some of the broader definitions of censorship if you're insistent on considering it "devaluing some peoples' opinions" rather than trying to classify posts in certain ways. Personally though, I think you fail to make any worthwhile point about it.