Revenge can be sweet.
I sometimes daydream about exposing and embarrassing blog trolls, e-mail idiots, and cyber-stalkers, but attention and acknowledgement are exactly what they crave. Besides, what law enforcement agency would arrest a troll, for crying out loud? Well, my daydreams may turn into reality.
The Communications Act of 1934 criminalizes anonymous harassment by a telecommunications device. Congress recently amended the law to criminalize anonymous harassment via the Internet (PDF copy of bill).
Some argue that the law curtails freedom of speech. Perhaps. If someone is blogging or commenting anonymously about a private citizen in an “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent” manner ” with intent to “annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass,” it is actionable, according to the new law. But should someone have the freedom to do that? Apparently Congress doesn’t think so. What do you think?
Of course, words like obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, and indecent are terms of art in our post-modern society. One man’s “indecent” comment is another man’s “no big deal.”
Disagreeing with a post is not trolling. My definition of a troll is someone who disagrees with a post but attacks me personally in his response. (If you think I’m being too sensitive about that, ask yourselves if you’d put up with ad hominem for its own sake, especially from anonymous cowards).
Challenging assertions, offering contrary evidence, etc., is not trolling, but when the commenter/e-mailer writes something gratuitous and inflammatory about me or other commenters, that’s trolling. Additionally, if I ask someone not to comment on the blog anymore and they continue to try, that’s trolling.
Some bloggers are much less sensitive than I am and not offended by personal attacks. I just won’t have it on my blog. This is my forum, and no one has the “freedom” to insult me on it. If that’s what you live to do, if that’s what gets you off, knock yourselves out.
Before you anonymous haters wet your pants for fear that I’ll call the law on you, read this post by friend, fellow blogger, and lawyer at Counseling Kevin:
I doubt that federal prosecutors are going to be going overboard on this. Nevertheless, it’s nice to know that a blog owner will have additional legal recourse, especially for egregious cases. He or she will also have grounds to advise a troll’s ISP that one of their users is violating federal law, which may very well spur some action on the ISP’s part to stop the troll.
I was so elated when one of Michelle Malkin’s e-mail trolls was fired for harassing her. And after I threatened to send a cyberstalker’s e-mails to his boss (The Dodo bird was using his work computer!), the e-mails abruptly stopped. As unbelievable as this sounds, one of my haters sent me a Christmas card!
I’ve outlasted the worst of the trolls, and every now and then a couple of bored-at-work people emerge from the dank recesses of the Internet to comment on a post and say things they’d never say to my face. No need to make a federal case out of it, though. I’m satisfied with mental images of emasculated, effete, ineffectual, over- or underweight, and impotent men too afraid of my wrath to use their own names (Sorry, guys, but I suspect most anonymous trollers are men) and stand behind what they post on this blog.
That they feel it’s necessary to “challenge” me behind a facade with their tails between their unmanly legs is vengeance enough for me. 
Related post and other links:
Addendum: I like this definition of a troll:
[R]egularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net…
(Hat tip: Via Sister Toldjah!)
La Shawn,
I had a troll like that email me and harass me for awhile, and I contacted his boss directly. In fact I blogged about it a long time ago…as a result the emails stopped abruptly and I never heard anything back. I’m going to mention your post later today on Mind & Media.
You go girl!
Comment by Stacy L. Harp — 01.10.06 @ 9:08 am
Criminalizing anonymous harassment via the Internet
Every once in a while, there comes along a troll who seems intent on harassing you no matter how firm you’ve been with them about asking them to stop. They’ll try to somehow get their messages posted at your blog, email you like crazy, an…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 01.10.06 @ 9:38 am
I think your readers need to understand that this law changes little.
There are already laws which prohibit people from making threatening and harassing phone calls anonymously to your house. All this “new” law does is extend this to Internet communications.
Sadly, it is NOT a law against rude annoying trolls on blogs. If you open up a forum or comments section, you do so with the knowledge that people might say things (anonymously) that are lewd, annoying, etc. It is quite a different situation getting harrassing phone calls, since you don’t invite people to call you in the same sense that you invite discussion in a comment thread.
Short of a troll making death threats (or similar threats to your health), the law does not change the landscape. It is still not illegal to be offensive or insulting in blog comments. Sadly.
Comment by Kman — 01.10.06 @ 9:42 am
This is a troll comment: full of profanity, vulgarity, and other nonsense. - Admin
Comment by Donna — 01.10.06 @ 10:12 am
I love the trolls more than anything else. They truly validate the work I put into on my site. I’ll never do anything to expose them. They can be as vulgar or disgusting as they like. I cherish those moments.
Fittingly, I would disagree with any proposed law like the one you mentioned. I’m in the business of regulating myself and my site. I don’t think this is anything the government should be involved in.
Of course there are exceptions to every rule; for instance, terroristic threats made against someone. But, in general, I think this would be complete garbage. I’m all for scrapping agencies like the FCC because they do act as government censors. We don’t need junk like that in a democracy.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.10.06 @ 10:28 am
Kman,
You raise a good point. If a troll DOES make death threats, or threats of bodily harm, he/she HAS not only gone too far, but has broken the law. I don’t think this sort of thing should be ignored. Most of the time the person making the threats has no intention or means of carrying them out, but sometimes these things can be suggestive to people who have mental issues, and do have the means. It doesn’t have to be totally blatant. Often it is enough if the harasser has put you in fear for your life and/or safety, or in fear for the life and/or safety of your family.
Unfortunately, as you state, being gross and insulting is not illegal, but is certainly speaks volumes about that person’s character and life views. Odd isn’t it that those folks on the left who claim to be the most enlightened and tolerant, are the worst offenders when it comes to racist, sexist, intolerant, and downright personally nasty comments and emails.
Comment by Montie — 01.10.06 @ 10:32 am
It’s important to note this: anyone making threats via the Internet, whether trolling anonymously or using his real name, is breaking the law.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.10.06 @ 10:34 am
The people who send you threatening emails, comments, etc., are almost perverse. They’re hiding behind the Internet to behave in disgusting ways. They probably have bland personalities and are borderline weird/geeks who bring out their dark sides when they see your site. Like Jekyl & Hyde.
Comment by mj — 01.10.06 @ 10:45 am
Sure you don’t read the blog, Donna. That’s why you keep trying to comment. Your comment was pathetically juvenile and pouty. Unbecoming of a grown woman. And build your vocabulary; the profanity is uncouth. - Admin
Comment by Donna — 01.10.06 @ 11:19 am
LS, your blog is great, and I don’t really know if this curtails freedom of speech but somehow it doesn’t concern me too much. Helps that I live in Canada, haha.
One thing I will say, I do think personal attacks per se ought to be protected as freedom of speech. If I want to question your motives on something, maybe it’s not great debate technique but it shouldn’t be illegal.
But I think that your definition of troll maybe is slightly off. Or else it just has different uses on blogs than on other parts of the internet. What I’ve always understood a troll means, is a post that is meant only to provoke a “holy wars”-style argument. For instance visiting a Mac forum and posting about how stupid 1-button mice are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Comment by Calvin — 01.10.06 @ 11:48 am
Internet Cowards….
It always amazed and infuriated me when people would not just cross but leap over the bounds of socially acceptable behavior simply because they were anonymous.Saying things they would never say in person for fear of a well deserved beating,
Trackback by The Real Ugly American — 01.10.06 @ 11:50 am
Will the ACLU have a “Trolls Rights” division? In fact, isn’t the mental picture of a troll one that exaggerates the most unbecoming aspects? That can’t be politically acceptable.
Can’t we all just get along?
Shouldn’t there be a “Troll-o-rama” weekend to help hone troll skills?
Vulgarity and obscene comments have a long and ancient history. They add to our fabric of diversity and multiculturalism.
I’m making myself ill, so I will take a break. Trying to think like a liberal makes my brain itch.
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.10.06 @ 11:56 am
Helio, I’ve figured out that people who believe trolls have a “right” to harass aren’t frequently harassed by trolls themselves. I’ve witnessed how blog trolls have made believers of formerly skeptical bloggers.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.10.06 @ 12:07 pm
LaShawn, I know you are right and I appreciate and fully support your position on trolls.
There is much I admire about you and your blog. The fact that you require us to wipe our feet at the front door is high on my list.
When Michelle Malkin revealed the trash she was receiving, it really opened my eyes. No one should have to grow skin thick enough to repel the slime that twisted souls produce.
You did not say it (you are a Christian lady) but I will. Trolls are often able to snag the naive and they play them like a cat with a mouse. Why should any blogger provide that service? And more to the point, why should any blogger set herself up to take any and every punch that is thrown?
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.10.06 @ 12:26 pm
I once posted a message to a nasty troll telling him to drop dead. Am I in trouble?
Comment by RedBeard — 01.10.06 @ 12:44 pm
LaShawn writes:
Helio, I’ve figured out that people who believe trolls have a “right†to harass aren’t frequently harassed by trolls themselves.
Due respect, but I think you confuse what people have a right to do vs. the right thing for people to do.
I hope that everyone can agree that trolls have the right to be annoying, but it is never the right thing to do.
Of course, at some point (don’t ask me exactly when), “annoying” becomes “threatening”, and then it’s a whole new ball game.
Anyway, I don’t see how a troll can be “harassing” in the true sense. “Harassing” behavior would be like literally stalking you, literally following you, calling your home constantly, etc. Posting repeatedly and rudely to the comments section of a blog doesn’t rise to that level.
I’m not defending trolls — they are unquestionably at the lower end of the evolutionary scale. I’m just saying that one of the prices of freedom is that we can’t legally hold others to the standards of civility that most people expect.
Comment by Kman — 01.10.06 @ 1:59 pm
I have visited your site twice. Thanks for your honest perspective. I’ll guess you have received a few ‘flames’. You also take some correct, factual positions similar to Michelle Malkin’s.
For the record, I use my title and initials that I have used for 36+ years. My real name is associated with my email address. I also enjoy Thomas Sowell’s articles on Town Hall and have one his earliest books on Race and the Economy. He made it understandable to those reading and thinking that it was age, not race that determined income.
Comment by Chief RZ — 01.10.06 @ 1:59 pm
KMAN WRITES: “I don’t see how a troll can be “”harassing”" in the true sense. “Harassing” behavior would be like literally stalking you, literally following you, calling your home constantly…..”—-Kman
Kman, listen up: This site IS LaShawn’s home.
Think of it as property rights: LaShawn owns the deed to this site. She pays for it. She decides content. She can lock the doors if she chooses. Right now, she’s allowing others to enter her private home. But, it’s still private property nonetheless. And, on private property, you don’t have the right to do whatever you feel like.
Just because LaShawn leaves the front door to her home open….doesn’t necessarily give anyone, and everyone, the right to enter.
There is such a thing as trespass……on private property whether the front doors are left unlocked or not.
I would say under trespassing laws, anyone who enters private property (which this site is) with the intent to do evil, perpetrate a fraud, harass, threaten, offend, disturb etc…. is breaking the law!
It’s a waste of time explaining it to him, Glam. He apparently doesn’t receive that many visitors or commenters, and his opinion is shared by many who’ve yet to be the target of troll attacks. Perhaps other readers will be edified by your comment. Thanks.
Comment by Glamchild — 01.10.06 @ 2:38 pm
Glamchild, I think taht’s a bad analogy. It’s more like LSB has a sign saying, “Please come into my home and tell me what you think about what I write…”
Not exactly the same as just “leaving a door open”. Leaving a door open or leaving your house unlocked is more like not installing your monthly microsoft patch. You are obviously not asking hackers to turn your computer into a mass mailing drone and so their invasion is tresspass.
Bottom line, it’s a lot easier to say something online, especially mean-spirited and offensive stuff. That’s why it happens more than in real life. Obviously there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed but generally, I can’t help but say: deal with it.
And deal with it I do, Calvin. Sometimes I let troll comments stand, sometimes I delete them. Depends on my mood.
- Admin
Comment by Calvin — 01.10.06 @ 3:27 pm
Holy mackeral! Thanks for the heads up, La Shawn!!! Some friends and I who hang out in a chatroom on AOL have been harassed for YEARS. Time for action.
Comment by RepJ — 01.10.06 @ 4:11 pm
Glam:
Your analogy works against you. Legally, if you open your “property” to anyone, you can’t make a claim of “trespassing”. It’s as simple as that.
LaShawn has created a public forum. As moderator, she can make her own rules. She can (and thankfully does) insist on politeness, respect, etc. She could, for example, decree that all commenters post in Italian. Whatever she wants — that’s HER right as moderator of her PUBLIC forum.
But she cannot expect the legal arm of the government to police HER rules. Because it won’t.
Now, that’s just the way it is. That’s the way the law works.
Okay?
In my prior comment, all I was saying is that “harassment” is a legal term, with a specific legal meaning. I was cautioning against LSB’s readers misunderstanding the term and spreading disinformation.
So… if a troll comes onto this forum (or any similar one), insults the host and others, makes lewd comments, and won’t go away, it is definitely annoying and wrong.
And it may feel like you being “harassed”.
But it is not “harassment” in the legal sense, unless it rises to the level of actual threats. Therefore, this new law isn’t going to be of any use in stopping anonymous trolls, and people shouldn’t be under the impression that they now have some new weapon in their anti-troll arsenal. You don’t.
Again, I’m not defending trolls; I’m just telling you what the law is.
Comment by Kman — 01.10.06 @ 4:26 pm
When the CB Radio became an essential tool in cross-country trucks these worms emerged there. They have such a poor social life that they cannot find friends to converse with. They’d overhear a conversation and jump in with the same puke that they barf here on the web. It is so easy for a worm to hide behind a microphone or keyboard that this gives them the bravado that they cannot muster in a face to face confrontation. I’m sorta on the “no government” side, preferring to deal with them myself. Here in blogland, if one uses a work computer, I see no reason that I wouldn’t use it to contact a principle at that address and show the turd with his pants down, not in the least unfair. Let the trolls name the game, you however, must take it on yourself to make the rules, and to make them to work in your favor. If these slime could find the spine, they’d be preying in public. Just flush ‘em out, and shove a grenade up their @sses. You, I and the rest of us, can deal with these turds. One thing- never, ever give them the satisfaction of using their true handles. Distort it enough to hurt.
nuf sed
Comment by Frankly Opinionated — 01.10.06 @ 4:49 pm
LB, oddly enough, my most persistent troll is a young woman. Maybe it’s an attraction thing… they are intimidated by those of the opposite sex that have a well defined and defended opinion that just isn’t compatible with their worldviews?
Kman,
If I own a store, cafe or other commercial operation, I have the right to ask, then tell, people that aren’t behaiving up to standards to leave. Why should a blog be different?
As for harrasment and trolls and legal definitions, I’d suggest you take an hour or three out and check out La Shawn’s archives. She’s had trolls that have graduated to stalking and harrassment, in my opinion. With regard to the change in the law, it’s just nice to know that somebody in the legislature is finally begining to recognize that the internet exists, and it’s not just for nerds and shut-ins anymore.
My guess is, some congresscritter was getting cyber-stalked or harrassed and a lawyer pointed out that it was a bit of a grey area. Now that one of them feels the pain, action was taken.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.10.06 @ 6:25 pm
I think that these blogs are wonderful because people have a chance to voice different opinions. Preaching to the choir only goes so far, neh? I respect the rights of a person to control who is allowed to post to their page. I respect the rights of the owner of a blog to remove offensive posts. BUT, I don’t support using the law unless you have serious wackjobs that are giving you serious cause to worry that they may try to hurt you in RL. For the owner of the blog to go through the trouble of screening posts comes with writing in the public space–a certain fraction of the population is going to disagree, a fraction of those is going to resort to attacks ad hominem, and a fraction of those might have some serious, “issues”.
Comment by resigned — 01.10.06 @ 6:52 pm
Y’know, LaShawn, when you delete comments but leave notes that they were deleted (Donna), you pique my sick curiousity!
Wasn’t there some guy working at Fidelity Investments who trolled you not too long ago?
Lastly, to help your readers: CONTEXT makes a great deal of difference. Example:
THIS IS WHAT I THINK OF TED KENNEDY
Now, if you were to just link to the sound bite—now that’s just juvenile.
Comment by El Conquistadore — 01.10.06 @ 7:12 pm
Interesting post and discussion La Shawn. Trolls are persistent - and I agree that what they do is harassment. I would like to add to the discussion that I don’t believe that just because some-one has a weblog or website they are automatically required to put up with troll behaviour. Not at all. Actually, let’s call it what it really is as “troll” gets a familiarity to it that doesn’t always indicate whatt he behaviour is. Trolling can be any of the following: vicious, insulting, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, intimidating, perverse, and I’d add theft (of a person’s time). Weblogs are not unmoderated internet forums - where trolls have a field day. They are personal sites and comments are at the blog owners discretion. But I think most importantly - if there is a comment policy then it is a matter of following it. So no, trolls don’t have a right to be vicious or dispruptive toward another human being in their own personal webspace and against their comment policy.
La Shawn I do hear you about people not knowing what it is like. I’ve also found that those who make the most noise about their “right” to say whatever they like on some-one’s blog are generally the most troll-like - or are trolls. Genuine people respect the space and can have reasonable discussion. You write what you have to say - and it’s online for future reference. You aren’t running a socialist web co-operative where you are advertising any and all opinions in space you pay for. And in terms of time - trolls waste it. It is time consuming dealing with their comments/emails - and that time could be used productively in other ways.
I’m not sure about the law - although I think freedom of speech is not the issue because, as far as websites/blogs go it is a matter of the rights of a private property owner.
Comment by Catez — 01.10.06 @ 7:46 pm
Kman, Yo! Let’s talk public. Here’s the gig:
Kman runs a day care center and advertises services in the newspaper. By Kman’s definition this is a “public” enterprise.
I bring my loud-mouthed, turrets syndrome child who is fascinated by fire to be a client in Kman’s day care center.
After one hour of screaming profanities and setting other kid’s clothes ablaze, Kman tells me to take my child home and never return.
Kman is thin skinned and unwilling to accept diversity and cutting edge cultural avante guarde shifts.
Kman is the problem and needs political correctness classes in order to accept the nuances of the “new order.”
Or not.
Kman writes: “Legally, if you open your ‘property’ to anyone, you can’t make a claim of ‘trespassing’. It’s as simple as that.”
Kman has not headed for the mall (privately owned and open to the “public”) and annoyed a store owner. In all 50 states, the store owner can cause Kman to pass by the store without incident and keep Kman from entering the store.
Kman should call the local public prosecutor and check me out on this.
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.10.06 @ 10:27 pm
Heliotrope, I think the equivalent is that I own a bookstore. I put a big chalkboard outside where I let people post poetry. Maybe, if I’m thoughtful, I write a few ground rules (no profanity, etc.). Occasionally, some idiot writes something obscene on the board. Do I (a) call the police? (b) erase it and move on with my life (c) Keep the board and marker inside of the store in front of the counter and if anyone writes something offensive, tell them to stop and not let them write again. The analogy isn’t perfect because of the ease of repeat offenders still coming in for case (c) in the internet, but it’s close enough. I think that most of us would initially adopt option (b). If it became a regular problem, we’d adopt option (c). Finally, if someone write they’re going to kill me and here’s how, then I adopt option (a). Freedom of speech isn’t the issue here, a blogger has control of their site, but if they decide to keep it completely open, then it’s their responsibility to deal with the trash that occasionally strolls in. It’s like having an email list with a moderator. One could I suppose create filtering software to drop some of the worst posts, but then it becomes the same problem as spam and is not winnable given the current anonymity of the internet. The only quick solution which come to mind is that one has a site which is public viewable, but can only be posted on by permission from the author. The author could then designate trusted members to vet other potential members. Then, at least the people who post have some reference. After that, people (and their recommenders) could be booted if they break the ground rules. Some not easily alterable information would have to be given to verify identities to avoid people lurking back under pseudonyms. The question is, is it worth the loss of discussion to avoid nutjobs?
Comment by resigned — 01.11.06 @ 12:19 am
I’ve never had a troll problem, probably because my readership is too low and inconsistent to attract trolls. I have had to deal with a few sporadic nut jobs on occasion, but nothing serious. I just delete there comments if need be. One time I did get some kind of long, rambling off-topic post about space aliens and another time someone left a “I hate Bush” comment underneath an innocuous music review post I did about Beyonce. Ridiculous.
The whole idea of trolling is mind-blowingly absurd anyway. How twisted does a person have to be to want to waste their time harassing other people they don’t even know.
For the big time professional bloggers, I know trolls are a big problem. Sadly, trolling has forced many of the best bloggers to turn off commenting, which is awful.
Comment by John — 01.11.06 @ 1:59 am
SCSIWuzzy writes:
If I own a store, cafe or other commercial operation, I have the right to ask, then tell, people that aren’t behaiving up to standards to leave. Why should a blog be different?
It shouldn’t. I never said otherwise. In fact, I specifically said the LSB can and should (and obviously does) engage in her own self-policing. I recommend that and condone it wholeheartedly.
My point is that being annoying is not a CRIME, wherein the GOVERNMENT does the policing. In fact, to make government acts as the enforcement arm of civility — i.e., by making “trolling” a crime — is the ultimate in “PC” thinking.
Again, it becomes an entirely different situation where the “troll” starts making threats, and that is what the new law addresses.
Comment by Kman — 01.11.06 @ 11:25 am
Kman,
Hence my invitation to check out La Shawn’s archives. She’s had some pretty messed up trolls over the years.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.11.06 @ 1:59 pm
A Cause worth Plugging
Having opined on this matter already, this seems the logical next step.
Trackback by Bayosphere — 01.13.06 @ 4:28 pm
01 13 06
Wow LaShawn thx for pointing this one out. I will cite this as a resource on my blog. Have a nice day.
Comment by mahndisa — 01.13.06 @ 8:34 pm
[…] I don’t know about the wisdom of this new proposed amendment to the 1934 communications act, but I agree with La Shawn Barber completely on this one. This is one of my pet peeves about the intraweb. Before starting this blog, I posted frequently on a few internet message boards, and I have played online video games for several years. It always amazed and infuriated me when people would not just cross but leap over the bounds of socially acceptable behavior simply because they were anonymous. Saying things they would never say in person for fear of a well deserved beating, or in the case of video games, intentionally harming other players for pure amusement. Taking pleasure from the other player’s pain / inconvenience / loss etc. […]
Pingback by The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » Internet Cowards…. — 01.16.06 @ 9:53 am