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
The real irony I’ve witnessed in this thread (and blog) is that the Liberals are longing for the good ole days and the Conservatives want to keep the past in the past; the former being regressive and the latter progressive. What’s next; dogs and cats sleeping together? 😉
God’s Jury: The Inquisition and the Making of the Modern World
One case does not inform anyone but simpletons, reductionists, and the Luddite.
Aaamen, Aaaamen, Aaamen amen amen
Agamemnon! Aaaamen
On Christmas Morning! Aaamen.
A A Men Amen Amen.
Say a Blog Prayer!
To all the bloggers! Aaamen.
Pray for bloggers Aamen.
Pogo – I doubt you’ll get an answer. That’s the pattern. Hence the frustration with willful blindness.
And be careful not to equate liberals with communists.
Not the same thing, right?
I want details. When was this terrible liberal purge?
What government branch? What university? What grade school? What business?
“And there was no effort to punish those who disagree with the conservatives?”
Really?
Where? When?
bettykath:
I have only heard of people losing their jobs for expressing conservative views. But, absolutely, if conservatives went after people’s livelihood for expressing non-conservative viewpoints privately, that would be wrong, too.
I recall those two young girls had their speech shut off by a feminist professor at a college campus, where they had a pro-life presentation, for example.
As for the “cultist” comments, I read that as a statement about willful blindness and/or blind obedience to a political party through ignoring any contradictory facts or information. Every political party has its cultists.
Bettykath, who was it that called liberals here “cultists” for months on end?
Karen, “We’ve also seen efforts to punish conservatives for their views. ”
And there was no effort to punish those who disagree with the conservatives?
Karen, Absolutely.
prayer, I’m a skeptic by nature and profession. I’ve been checking for any follow up reporting on the alleged suicide, but have found none.
“Does anyone else see the irony in this thread considering the subject of the post?”
Amen! 🙂
And everyone is absolutely sure it was suicide? The campaign against the McCann’s, not just by that bully, was outrageous. So much so that you might wonder if it was orchestrated. Maybe the bully died for the crime of being exposed.
There have been multiple posts here about employees being punished by employers for their private free speech. We’ve also seen efforts to punish conservatives for their views.
At its best, anonymity allows the free expression of opinions and ideas. At its worst, it brings out the savagery in human nature that people would be too ashamed to do in public, under their real names.
Does anyone else see the irony in this thread considering the subject of the post?
wrxdave, Anonymity is the problem. JT does not allow his weekend bloggers to be anonymous. Some were anonymous commenters and had to come out of the closet to be elevated to blogger status. I think all, well almost all, agree that is righteous.
Late to the conversation here, but it seems like I am seeing only two viewpoints here:
We need a law
Or
The Law infringes essential Liberties and nothing can be done.
This is not in fact true, she did not commit suicide because of the possibility of prosecution – she committed suicide because she was unmasked, because of the enormous negative publicity that then attached to her despicable act.
As a troll – she lost her anonymity.
This is normally all the control that is needed.
When you unmask the vicious anonymous troll – the problem becomes self correcting without the need for “a law” or restricting essential Liberties.
SWM, So I can put you down as a solid, “No” vote. Mark was talking about “Talking points” earlier. Well, SWM is the queen of Dem talking points, and damn proud of it.
Paul, You’re right, the CIA is not supposed to operate in the US, BUT the CIA has people placed in all big cities police forces. Daryl Gates went for LA police chief to head of the CIA. Check out the background of Michael Ruppert, an LA narcotics detective from a CIA family. He was recruited by the CIA with the explicit proviso that he continue within the LAPD. He declined. The CIA brought drugs into the country and facilitated their disbursement in South Central LA, an area targeted for gentrification. See Gary Webb’s expose. And even nick’s assertion that the mob got the CIA to take out JFK suggests that the CIA operates in the US. So the CIA is just another group of outlaws.