There is a sad story out of London that is a commentary on the mutating influence of anonymity on the Internet. Brenda Leyland killed herself after being confronted about her online abuse of the parents of the missing girl Madeleine McCann. Sky News tracked her down as the troll responsible for thousands of hate filled messages to Kate and Gerry McCann, whose three-year-old daughter went missing in Portugal in 2007.
What is interesting is that she faced a criminal investigation. We have previously discussed the worrisome trend in England in criminalizing different forms of speech. While Leyland (writing as @Sweepyface) was vicious, the 63-year-old was also engaged in what appears to be free speech. She is an online bully — something that we all have had to deal with on blogs as a constant reality. Some people find anonymity intoxicating — unleashing the most vile and hateful sides of personalities. It is truly chilling to think that some many people actively repress such impulses until they find a vehicle to attack others without accountability. However, I have serious concerns over the criminalization of speech.
Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has made clear that social media could be a criminal offence if they contain “credible threats of violence” or target an individual in a way that “may constitute harassment or stalking”. It is the harassment element that can be highly ambiguous. The prosecutors have said that “Grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false” messages can be a crime if a “public interest” case. That creates a huge chilling effect on a wide range of speech that some might see as offensive or untrue. As one of the greatest vehicles for free speech in the history of humanity, these prosecutions threaten to curtail a significant resource for free speech.
The article below cites a study by Canadian researchers that concluded that “Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun… and the Internet is their playground!”
The glee turned to a nightmare for Leyland when her true identity was revealed.
Source: Yahoo
Maxcat, in 1961, we four children went with our parents to be sworn in as citizens of the US. I was 9 years old and raised my hand along with my parents and siblings. I had my picture taken and signed my name in my 9 year old scrawl on my naturalization certificate. When I showed by kids and grandkid’s the certificate they just think its so cool that they are first and second generation Americans. My grandchildren proudly tell the story of their “Nani’s” trip on the ship to America for heritage days at school. I give them a copy of my naturalization certificate and the picture of my family on the converted troop carrier, the USS General Langfitt that brought us from Bremerhaven, Germany to new York City, USA in 1955.
Fantastic story, Annie. There is something about the whole procedure that’s just wonderful. The friend of mine had gone through several visas, then several years on a green card. What’s really touching is that her 83 year old dad, who is still in England, and still believes that the sun never sets on the British Empire, was behind her choice all the way.
It really left me with a lump in my throat. There was such an exciting feeling in the room; huge smiles, lots of hugging, and tons of picture taking.
That’s awesome!
Maxcat,
It sounds like your friend has assimilated quite well. 😉 Congratulation!
Olly –
That she has. Her dream since childhood was to come to the U.S. The ceremony was really moving; 120 people became citizens, originally from 57 different nations. I was as emotional as she.
Sorry, my computer cut off. “she dislikes much of what” the Supreme Court has done in the 15 years that she has resided in the U.S., but she also holds the Constitution sacrosanct, as does she view the right to vote.
Our Constitution is too precious to fiddle with. Amend when necessary, amend again to remove mistakes, but leave the original alone. You want a change in SCOTUS, amend it. I listened to a gentleman from the UK on a Fox Glenn Beck show (about global warming) and he referenced our rights that so many other countries don’t have. If people from other countries envy us that document, guard it with your life.
An open convention geared towards amending the Constitution could only lead to all sorts of mischief, from both ends of the spectrum. On Friday, I went with a friend of mine, originally from England, to see her sworn in as a U.S. citizen. She takes her new country and its credo very seriously, and dislikes much of what t
mespo,
I met a traveller from an antique land who said: “Deliver this unto mespo.” He muttered something about “the hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.” Or possibly “stewed prunes taste a lot more like applesauce than rhubarb does.” It was hard to tell which. He was mumbling after all. Then he gave me the following link. He spoke with a voice like ghostly thunder though when he said, “He’ll know what it means. Look upon my works, ye mighty and despair!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U
I have fulfilled my vow
David, “her language of “hijacked” the effort to amend the Articles of Confederation is emotive language. The truth is that the Constitutional Convention was done at the invitation of the Continental Congress. ”
ok. Hijacked is a bit emotive, but it’s accurate. The Continental Congress called for the convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, just like you’re advocating now. But what actually happened, and could happen again, is a complete rewrite. ALEC would love the opportunity for a rewrite under the guise of a few amendments.
It would be easier to just write the amendments that you want and get them passed. Do you really think it would be easier to get the states to ratify the amendments or a new constitution if they came out of a convention?
bettykath – a Constitutional convention has scared the crap out of politicians long before ALEC arrived on the scene. And you are right, the Continental Congress is a shining example of what can go wrong. 😉 I am not sure they hijacked it as saw a golden opportunity.
bettykath wrote: “It would be easier to just write the amendments that you want and get them passed. Do you really think it would be easier to get the states to ratify the amendments or a new constitution if they came out of a convention?”
It would definitely be easier to Amend. Historically, States calling for an Article V Convention motivated Congress to pass the Amendment themselves. Right now there is a push for an Article V convention to require Congress to have a Balanced Budget. We need that, but we need more than that. I would love to see the States call for an OPEN convention where Amendments may be proposed and debated. It is time for a LEGISLATIVE overhaul of the Constitution because the SCOTUS has become too political and too imaginative in their Constitutional interpretations. Federal government needs to be reigned in by the States. It’s time if we are to save our Republic from another civil war. I would rather see a Constitutional Convention than numerous militias springing up in every State. There are too many people now who love their country but not their government.
Why is there so much discussion of people being disruptive n this blog? Are we in junior high where this mentality is most present. It’s a strange brew.
An ambulance must have just passed. Duty calls.
Chess w/ a chicken.
They are indeed thugs. But the Kennedy’s were Ivy Leaguers and these “grade school” guys took them down. You are an elitists. Some of these guys were very intelligent. You don’t climb to the top of a family being stupid. The stupid guys remain grunts or get clipped. You are just posturing, you know this. I don’t glorify these guys. They are a disgrace to Italians. But, I can be objective. If given the right opportunities they could have been successful legit businessmen. The dumber ones could have been “govt. officials or attorneys.”
I don’t know if it’s possible to have a normal conversation w/ you anymore. But, I Heard You Paint Houses is a fascinating account of the Teamsters and mob. Lot’s of little gems and some big ones. I am now convinced they took out Kennedy. I always thought that but now I’m pretty convinced. Ruby had to hit men dressed as cops who were supposed to take out the crazy guy right after the assassination. They screwed up. Trafficante or Marcello told Ruby[Giancana set Ruby up in Dallas years prior] then you kill Oswald or we’ll kill you. The mob often would use “Crazies” as they called them, “patsy” as Oswald called himself. But, the key is to kill the crazy immediately. Ruby didn’t. So, I got to watch it on TV after church.
Darren:
I’m done with this bully now.
Annie:
As a green friend of mine once told me, “sooner or later they always drop the mask, and man it’s ugly.” Kudos Buddha. You’re right again.
Whitten was in charge of all covert operations at the CIA. Was trained at Annapolis and UVA with two of the highest GPAs at both institutions. Yeah I’ll take his opinion over some mush-nosed felon with a penchant for bravado’s “facts.”
mespo – still waiting for that cite to the Whitten testimony.
Nick, your comment at 12:03 has been deleted.
Mespo, I think someone is imploding.
I “believe” you are purposely sabotaging this blog and throwing your hat over to the echo chamber w/ groupthink. You can’t handle competition. You’re a quitter.
Mespo, did you “stalk” Spinelli here to this thread too? Or did he just mean me?
I love ’em more than thugs with a grade school education and an IQ measured in single digits.