I thought this was interesting. As part of a documentary, BBC tracked down an infamous troll known for posting racist comments on memorial pages for people who have recently died. There is now a Facebook page dedicated (anti-dedicated?) to this person. What do you think, OT? Would this make you think twice before posting offensive anonymous comments on the internet? Or do you think that the BBC is overstepping its bounds by exposing the identity of this man?
so, all the things and messed up things that go on in this world, starving kids, crappy education system and all that but they devout their resources in tracking down a man who probably is just enjoys pissing people off and probably doesn't mean anything by what he says?...
so, all the things and messed up things that go on in this world, starving kids, crappy education system and all that but they devout their resources in tracking down a man who probably is just enjoys pissing people off and probably doesn't mean anything by what he says?...
infinite884
Are you sure that the BBC does not also report on those things?
so, all the things and messed up things that go on in this world, starving kids, crappy education system and all that but they devout their resources in tracking down a man who probably is just enjoys pissing people off and probably doesn't mean anything by what he says?...
infinite884
The show has been going on for over 50 years. They've done lots of stories about those issues.
yeah i'm familiar with BBC they run some good programs and stories but i'm still baffled as to why they would use their time and energy and funds to document tracking a troll, what is this going to accomplish besides probably ruining this guy's life. He's probably an a**hole but he has the right to say whatever he wants, i seen people say way worse things online and i don't see them getting tracked down. It must be a very slow week at the office
Another example of the fine English dictatorship cracking down on free speech.
TheFallenDemon
Part for free Speech or a free socity is being held accountable able for what you say and taking reponsibilty for your actions. No one is stopping him from posting these things they are just asking him to justify it.
Another example of the fine English dictatorship cracking down on free speech.
muffin200
Part for free Speech or a free socity is being held accountable able for what you say and taking reponsibilty for your actions. No one is stopping him from posting these things they are just asking him to justify it.
who cares, you think he's the only one who goes to sites and writes things because it gets under peoples skin? This guy doesn't deserve to have his life ruined because of what he said over the internet if thats the case then we all deserve news reporters tracking us down and exposing our lives and names because i'm sure at one point we all trolled.
Not at all. It's perfectly acceptable for a news organization to out a sh*tty human being. Just like it's perfectly fine for the denizens of OT to out a pedophile.
Not at all. It's perfectly acceptable for a news organization to out a sh*tty human being. Just like it's perfectly fine for the denizens of OT to out a pedophile.
airshocker
2 different things, the guy was just saying things to piss people off, he was enjoying making people mad, other then that he did no harm to anybody except people who don't have thick skins and who can't just ignore his posts. You can't seriously say its the same as being a pedophile.
Yeah, I think the term troll has changed from a few years ago. It used to be more trickery than anything else.
An example could be someone going onto the Steam Powered User Forums and posting a fake email comfirming the existence of Half Life 3. That would be a pretty obvious troll, but a still a troll.
Now people seem to think "They said something annoying that I didn't like, they must be a troll." I think that is an incorrect use of the word.
2 different things, the guy was just saying things to piss people off, he was enjoying making people mad, other then that he did no harm to anybody except people who don't have thick skins and who can't just ignore his posts. You can't seriously say its the same as being a pedophile.infinite884
The BBC did no harm by exposing this individual. I fail to see the issue.
I didn't say it was the same thing as being a pedophile. Perhaps you should reread what I actually said.
I did not agree with the BBC reporters arguement. Does the law, general consensus, or his contemporary obligation to the BBC necessarily define the truth reliability of normative assertions. If you attempting suicide over social refutation, such as being 'trolled' by text, should you subject yourself to such a social environment? As for the "troll", any physical truama is indirect harm. Opinions are acknowledged to be subjective beliefs, are subjective beliefs harmful? If the consequent conditions are direct harm, yes. However, this arguementation is moral philosophy, unless you contradictingly cogent such values in politics and law. It is a self refuting concept. I simply believe in causation.
Another example of the fine English dictatorship cracking down on free speech.
jesuschristmonk
Sadly "Free Speech" is only Free when it's not offensive to others. So it's still wrong to go up to Obama and call him the N-word. Not sure about the UK, but in the US you are free to do so. Not that I would recommend it though.
[QUOTE="infinite884"]2 different things, the guy was just saying things to piss people off, he was enjoying making people mad, other then that he did no harm to anybody except people who don't have thick skins and who can't just ignore his posts. You can't seriously say its the same as being a pedophile.airshocker
The BBC did no harm by exposing this individual. I fail to see the issue.
I didn't say it was the same thing as being a pedophile. Perhaps you should reread what I actually said.
they probably destroyed the guys life, they put his name out there and you know how the internet beehive mind acts
Another example of the fine English dictatorship cracking down on free speech.
jesuschristmonk
Sadly "Free Speech" is only Free when it's not offensive to others. So it's still wrong to go up to Obama and call him the N-word. you can walk up to Obama and do that just be prepared to have the Secret Service beat the s*** out of you
Another example of the fine English dictatorship cracking down on free speech.
jesuschristmonk
Sadly "Free Speech" is only Free when it's not offensive to others. So it's still wrong to go up to Obama and call him the N-word. In the UK racism can come under hate speech which is not protected. This does not apply in the US.
Not at all. It's perfectly acceptable for a news organization to out a sh*tty human being. Just like it's perfectly fine for the denizens of OT to out a pedophile.
infinite884
2 different things, the guy was just saying things to piss people off, he was enjoying making people mad, other then that he did no harm to anybody except people who don't have thick skins and who can't just ignore his posts. You can't seriously say its the same as being a pedophile. They didn't expose him as anything he wasn't, he was a troll and they exposed him as a troll. It really isn't that different to how the tabloids treat celebs.
In a society with free speech, you can say what you want to say, but free speech doesn't mean you are free from being held accountable for it. Sharing his name on TV may have been going too far though, anonymous is probably going to turn his life inside and out. Hope he didn't pay any bills online. Just putting his face on TV would have been enough, as his family and friends would have known, and that shame would have been justice enough. This will simply have to do until we can develop the technology to punch people over the internet. (in which case he would be toothless and deformed)
Not at all. It's perfectly acceptable for a news organization to out a sh*tty human being. Just like it's perfectly fine for the denizens of OT to out a pedophile.
markop2003
2 different things, the guy was just saying things to piss people off, he was enjoying making people mad, other then that he did no harm to anybody except people who don't have thick skins and who can't just ignore his posts. You can't seriously say its the same as being a pedophile. They didn't expose him as anything he wasn't, he was a troll and they exposed him as a troll. It really isn't that different to how the tabloids treat celebs.
That's why if you've got any sense, you'd be against that too.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Not sure I understand. The BBC is independent from the government. Wouldn't free speech dictate that the BBC is allowed to perform these actions?Engrish_Major
They shouldn't have the right to film him unless he's okay with it.
I mean, I'm all for fighting the righteous fight against internet trolls, huehuehehue....
Anyone can film in a public place. You have no expectation of privacy while outside of your home.
Well, actually I quite easily do. It's right here, upstairs.
[QUOTE="markop2003"] They didn't expose him as anything he wasn't, he was a troll and they exposed him as a troll. It really isn't that different to how the tabloids treat celebs.Jabby250
That's why if you've got any sense, you'd be against that too.
I can't say i'm a huge fan of it, i'm just saying that this case is far from unique.
They shouldn't have the right to film him unless he's okay with it.
Jabby250
I don't think CCTV would work in that situation....
That's why if you've got any sense, you'd be against that too.
markop2003
I can't say i'm a huge fan of it, i'm just saying that this case is far from unique.
They shouldn't have the right to film him unless he's okay with it.
Jabby250
I don't think CCTV would work in that situation....
I'm obviously referring to singling out certain people or groups of individuals (and making such information public, especially if it's for entertainment purposes or to generate controversy and such). If it's a crime suspect I'd understand exceptions being made. Even then I'm usually against harassment from journalists.
If the end-scope is clearly productive (gathering attention or support for something, filming when you believe a crime's about to be committed) -- well, I find it quite easy to separate the good from the bad in this case.
I'm obviously referring to singling out certain people or groups of individuals (and making such information public, especially if it's for entertainment purposes or to generate controversy and such). If it's a crime suspect I'd understand exceptions being made. Even then I'm usually against harassment from journalists.
If the end-scope is clearly productive (gathering attention or support for something, filming when you believe a crime's about to be committed) -- well, I find it quite easy to separate the good from the bad in this case.
Was that your first time watching Panomara?
Seriously, anyone who uses 'free speech' to propergate thier own racist agendas, doesnt deserve to have it.
Did anyone notice at the end of the video: "An internet troll, that's what they look like". Is this relative to the prejudice in racism? What of other individuals that look like a "troll"? I personally interpreted it as 'pejorative'.
True, the BBC has a tendency of doing this, especially with tech stories. It seems they're scared of new media taking their audience. But the things they're doing stories on... well, as it's been said this guy technically isn't even a "Troll" BBC doesn't know 1.) what a troll is. 2.) that there's nothing illegal about trolling/flaming. 3.) how to interview a troll. Was i supposed to get anything else out of that video?
I think the BBC violated the guy's privacy by tracking him down. I can't really say I feel bad for him, though. That's what you get for being a moron online. And apparently he's an assh*le in real life, too, so there goes what little sympathy I might have left for the guy.
Are you idiots seriously defending this guy? I wish they would expose these people more often and completely abolish the anonymity of the internet. What other part of life lets you have diarrhea of the mouth and have no repercussions? Not one...
Are you idiots seriously defending this guy? I wish they would expose these people more often and completely abolish the anonymity of the internet. What other part of life lets you have diarrhea of the mouth and have no repercussions? Not one...BrianB0422
If it bothers you so much, why not start "completely abolishing" the anonimity of the internet yourself? How about a real name? Or an adress?
[QUOTE="BrianB0422"] What other part of life lets you have diarrhea of the mouth and have no repercussions? Not one...Nibroc420
no ****. Quit oppressing our free speech How is this oppressing your free speech? You're still free to say whatever you want but don't get pissed when someone comes and shoves a camera in your face asking you to explain yourself. Works both ways people.
[QUOTE="BrianB0422"]Are you idiots seriously defending this guy? I wish they would expose these people more often and completely abolish the anonymity of the internet. What other part of life lets you have diarrhea of the mouth and have no repercussions? Not one...black_cat19
If it bothers you so much, why not start "completely abolishing" the anonimity of the internet yourself? How about a real name? Or an adress?
People are idiots online, deal with it.
If you would like to come visit me I will PM you my address.
[QUOTE="infinite884"]they probably destroyed the guys life, they put his name out there and you know how the internet beehive mind actsairshocker
It actually seemed like he didn't really care that much.
Again, I don't see the issue here.
How would you feel if you just trolled a site and then the news showed up to your door steps the next day, putting your name and your face out for the world to see. If the "site that shall not be named" had members who were bored and saw your face on the news for trolling you can be sure they will get a hold of your phone number, your address, who your family is, either way the news report is silly and it seems this would be a Onion article then a BBC one
Log in to comment