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
It’s likely no coincidence the Professor posted the piece in advance of his return from vacation.
Thank God they helped teach me that.
Olly, I should have said the public education industry. OK w/ that? Jesuits still teach people how to think.
Beldar here. From the perspective of an alien from a far away planet and one who has studied England as part of my world surveillance for my home planet I will make some observations which are perhaps odd to you Americans here on the blog. In America you have a Constitution and you fought a revolution to get rid of the King and Queen thing. In parts of America your thought processes are wedded to your prior geographical history. So, in areas West of the Mississippi like New Orleans which never lived under the British Yoke, the Americans are less generous when it comes to Royal ways like exist in England now. In the old colonies there is still a reverence for the Old Country and there are old buildings here and there and streets named Queen and what not. But note that England does not have a written Constitution. They have some reverence for a document which gets no application in court such as the English Bill of Rights. They still have Queen– and, one must never fail to add, offspring of Queen which rival the Kardashians.
From my point of view down here in New Orleans, the American Way is the best in the world. That half of America which is West of the Mississippi is more solid thinking than further East. The Constitution makes this nation state square and forthright. As for England: they need to re-examine themselves in view of the Queeny thing and go forward in life without King or Queen.
I have seen NO bullying in this thread. Instead of dredging up old arguments and continually picking at your scabs it would be more constructive to address the posts and the issues presented in the here and now.
Frankly, you all sound like a bunch of whiny children complaining about who hit who first. The past is past. Grow up.
I agree with Olly. A debating class would be most beneficial for students and give critical thinking skills sadly lacking it seems. I was on debate team in college and I find it to be one of the most worthwhile things I have ever done and the skills I learned and honed in that class have benefited me very much in my career and in my life.
DBQ – it would be nice for the high school students to take debate but then you have a problem. Do they drop another required class to do it, or is it added on. Right now in Arizona a high school graduate is taking over 20 credits to graduate. When I went to h.s. it was 16.
The school day has not gotten any longer but the class times have gotten shorter so they can fit all the classes into the schedule. And they still have all those pep rallies before games, which shortens the day even more.
Jill, I remember you being assaulted by bullies who have taken their ball and gone home. I was pleased to see you hang in there. Too many were driven off, but some have now returned to a blog w/ a diversity of opinion and civility. I encourage people to read the vile attacks in the archives that occurred on a daily basis here. That will stop the revisionist history that some try and sell here from time to time. I was told to STFU all the time. I never did. I was told to leave all the time, I never did. I was called every name in the book. As you know, JT has worked hard to put those days behind us. He should be applauded. It was tough. But the effort was well worth it for good commenters like yourself.
I really would like to stay in the realm of facts instead of speculation. This is a solvable issue. Annie can name the name of the person who forced off the weekend bloggers and she can name the weekend bloggers she is referring to. Then we can ask the weekend bloggers whether this is true of not.
Nick,
I don’t believe it’s reasonable to indict an entire industry but I do believe the root cause will manifest itself through any means used to “educate” or influence the populace. Who would argue against a trivium-centered education?
The Trivium method: (pertains to mind) – the elementary three.
[1] General Grammar, [2] Formal Logic, [3] Classical Rhetoric
[1] GRAMMAR — (Answers the question of the Who, What, Where, and the When of a subject.)
Discovering and ordering facts of reality comprises basic, systematic Knowledge- not only the rules developed and applied to the ordering of word/concepts for verbal expression and communication, but our first contact with conscious order as such. This is the initial, self-conscious technique used in properly (discursively or sequentially) organizing a body of knowledge from raw, factual data for the purpose of gaining understanding (through logic) and; thus, also organizing the individual human mind. It is the foundation upon which all other “methods of organization and order” are built.
Special grammar properly relates words to other words within a specified language like English, Russian, or Latin.
General grammar relates words to objective reality in any language and applies to all subjects as the first set of building blocks to integrated or fully mindful, objective knowledge. A body of knowledge which has been gathered and arranged under the rules of general grammar can now be subjected to logic for full understanding, which, emphatically, is a separate intellectual procedure.
[2] LOGIC — (Answers the Why of a subject.)
Developing the faculty of reason in establishing valid [i.e., non-contradictory] relationships among facts yields basic, systematic Understanding- it is a guide for thinking correctly; thinking without contradiction. More concisely, it is the art of non-contradictory identification. The work of logic is proof. Proof consists of establishing the truth and validity of a concept or proposition in correspondence with objective, factual reality by following a self-consistent chain of higher-level thought back down to foundational, primary concepts or axioms (i.e., Existence, Consciousness, and Causality). It is a means of keeping us in touch and grounded to objective reality in our search for valid knowledge and understanding. Logic brings the rhythm of the subjective thoughts of the mind, and the subsequent actions of the body, into harmony with the rhythm of the objective universe. The intention is to amicably synchronize individual mental processes, and their attendant actions, with the processes of our surrounding natural, factual existence over the period of a lifetime.
[3] RHETORIC — (Provides the How of a subject.)
Applying knowledge and understanding expressively comprises Wisdom or, in other words, it is systematically useable knowledge and understanding- to explore and find the proper choice of methods for cogently expressing the conclusions of grammar and logic on a subject in writing and/or oral argumentation (oratory). The annunciation of those conclusions is called a statement of rationale, the set of instructions deduced from the rationale for the purpose of application (of those conclusions) in the real world is called a statement of protocols.
http://www.triviumeducation.com/
Yes, Annie, I was wondering who you meant as well. If you think someone forced all the wonderful weekend bloggers to leave, then why not name that person instead of darkly hinting around. Then we can ask some of the weekend bloggers, (if you would also name which of them you mean) if that person is why they left.
Annie – we all, and that includes you, think we are right, most of the time. But I know that I am right more than I am wrong. 🙂 When given new information I have changed my opinion on occasion and thanked the person for the information.
What’s the difference between a bully, a pig and a dog?
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Paul, I don’t think I’m the lone ranger here. I was speaking about my own experience. You should write about yours as well, as should any other person how has been harmed by bullies on this blog.
Thanks Karen. This is a complicated issue. The powerful do use the law as a weapon and they use bullying to silence their critics. So, the law has to be very judicious when addressing this situation. It seems like this woman’s behavior could be called harassment to me. What do you think?
SMH and Annie, I had a very different experience than you did with some of the weekend bloggers. One of them is the person who told me to shut up and get off the blog. I was also attacked by 2 of the others, in some cases. very viciously. It may be these events happened before either of you were on this blog but they did happen to me.
Not at all Paul, why you would jump to that conclusion says more about you than it does about me. I do however have the expectation that commenters here feel that their privacy is safe and being respected. Personality issues I can deal with.
Annie – some people would complain if they were hung with a fresh rope, it has nothing to do with unequal justice or anything else.
You are entitled to your opinion Paul, but in my experience you are often wrong. However I do realize you think you’re right. Reminds me of that cartoon in which a guy is sitting at the computer while his wife is impatiently waiting for him to come to bed, but he can’t because, “Someone is wrong on the Internet!”
Paul, Absolutely. Kids understand there are winners and losers in this world. I would teach my students and athletes you learn more from losing than winning. It hurts to lose but you get up, brush yourself off, and keep grinding away. The grinders in this world are successful. The ones afraid to compete are the losers.
Sadly those excellent weekend bloggers all left because of one person, who could that person be?
Annie wrote: “Sadly those excellent weekend bloggers all left because of one person, who could that person be?”
Be honest now. They left because they disagreed with the civility rule. They wanted to be uncivil in their dialogue to anyone they think deserved it.
David, my impression is that they left because a certain individual was not held to the same standard the rest of us were/are. It creates hard feelings when are there is a sense of unequal justice.
Annie, they left on January 4, 2014. Do you know the day the Civility Rule was posted on the website? January 4, 2014.
Here is what Mike Spindell had to say about his departure:
“However, it has come to pass that there is a fundamental difference in approach between Jonathan and myself about certain blog rules. Those of you who are regulars will understand just what I am talking about…”
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/01/04/bittersweet-life-and-loss/
And here is the ambiguous explanation given by Gene Howington:
“Some might think this is about one thing and really it is about another. Although related to, let us say, miscommunication about how this place operates and a fundamental disagreement about the principles of rule construction, the reason I am leaving is beyond simply the scope of that disagreement. What more, I will not say, but for reasons entirely my own – based in both principle and circumstance – I find that I cannot continue posting or writing columns here at the present time.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/01/04/res-ipsa-loquitur/
Annie – if they felt there was injustice, they did not state it their statements as they left. And I do not think you are the right person to be making the case for them. Let them make their own case. I know that Gene has been on here as a visitor from time to time since I have arrived. So he is not banned from the site.
No one is against spirited debate here that I have seen. It’s when the debate partner is mischaracterized personally, is when things go south in a hurry. Such as characterizing others as “cultists”. When some people attempt to describe a fellow commenter in such a manner as IF to know personal info about them and then goes on to ‘use’ that information OR misinformation, which is nothing more than gross conjecture, against the debate partner, it gets quite ugly. If someone has gone out of their way to ‘research’ others in an attempt to glean information to use as ‘ammunition’ against others, it is a pretty despicable practice. One that should not be allowed on public forums.
Annie – it is clear you are trying to get someone banned. As my father used to say “Sh*t, shoot, or get off the pot!” Give us the name.
Olly and Karen, The education industry does not teach, nor do they want, critical thinking skills. They are indoctrinators, and loathe critical thinking. Plus, debate is competition, and the nanny teachers find competition bad, it’s all about collaboration.
Nick – debate requires a winner and a loser. You cannot have that when everyone is a special snowflake.
SMH, You can find the “nicest weekend bloggers/commenters” @ Flowers for Socrates.
Olly – I agree. Teaching debate in school would be very helpful in nurturing critical thinking and communication skills. And learning how to debate from a side you disagree with is instrumental in understanding both sides of an issue.
Jill – great post!
DBQ – I like that quote, as well. 🙂
Precisely right ShakingMyHead. You have hit the ‘troll’ on the head.