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!)
