Trolling is Serious Buisness

[Exophase]

Out of curiosity guys, do you think that something said about you on the Internet cannot possibly affect you in real life, whether or not you spend any time on the Internet whatsoever?

Stuff happening on the internet can and does frequently spill into offline parts of people's lives.

I think that what Chris Hall did to Olivia Melville, posting her profile and calling out/shaming her was a big example of this. It drew in people Melville knew in real life and she apparently got strangers calling her phone over it and maybe worse. I consider his action very disrespectful and uncalled for if put in the best possible. Unfortunately this happens all the time (there are public forums dedicated to shaming people for their dating site activity, like 95+% of the time the accounts belong to men) and I would consider legislation against it - especially legislation that results in criminal prosecution of the individuals doing it - to be problematic. Not least of all because it involves disseminating already public information.

Then we have the thing with Zane Alchin, Pamola Newton, and other Facebook commentators who were trading blows on Melville's feed. Here Alchin made the comment "I would rape you if you were more attractive" to Newton in response to her disdain over a rape joke and demand that he not make another. Here I would say that no, none of these comments had any effect on anyone's personal lives or sense of safety and wellbeing. And I sympathize with Newton a lot less than I do Melville, because she saw Alchin was making comments directed towards no individual in particular and engaged and reprimanded him, then reported him to the police when he went full bore to offend and outrage her.

It's unfortunate that the media reporting on this is very muddled, with a lot of conflation over what comments were made to who and in what context. The general idea, and what people seem to be interpreting based on comments, is that Alchin went on Melville's feed and left a string of threatening statements directed at her, saying that he planned to rape Melville. If that were what actually happened I'd have a very different outlook.

 

[mikeymikec]

Then we have the thing with Zane Alchin, Pamola Newton, and other Facebook commentators who were trading blows on Melville's feed. Here Alchin made the comment "I would rape you if you were more attractive" to Newton in response to her disdain over a rape joke and demand that he not make another. Here I would say that no, none of these comments had any effect on anyone's personal lives or sense of safety and wellbeing.

I doubt you're speaking from a position of personal experience on this one. For example, for all she knew, the guy actually knows her, maybe knows where she lives / works / frequents, and all this harassment is because he had an actual beef with her: Maybe he tried a creepy chat-up routine on her and she turned him down six months earlier.

 

[Schmide]

Facebook. Is. Not. Real. Life.

The guy didn't stalk anyone. He didn't call someone on their home phone, or threaten them in public. He made some jokes on an online service, one which requires you to opt-in in order to communicate on it. At any time, the woman could have clicked on the image to "hide post", "report post", or to unfollow the person who created the post. OR, she could hide the posts that were actually bothering her, and left the original post in place since she seemed to find it okay.

Instead she choose to participate in the argument, by attempting to harass the harasser, proving that is indeed just a game she wanted to play, not real life.

WTF are you even talking about expectation of safety? There was no danger in the harassment case. Words can't jump out of a post and hurt you. The harassment was always 100% safe.

People must be losing touch with reality if they feel that Facebook is more comparable to real life than a video game. FB is as much a video game as much as World of Warcraft is. The day they make it so people can't disconnect from Facebook or can receive a punch through fiber optic cables, then we can treat it like real life harassment and assault.

Man your grasp of law and reality is bent. FB is social media. It nears the same as published media in terms of libel and stalking laws. I don't know what you have on your profiles but most peoples' reflect their communication with their social circles and thusly what is said in those venues would and should constitute public speech.

All you guys are trying to do is muddy the waters to justify some detachment from your actual persona. A video game is no where near social media.

 

[Exophase]

I doubt you're speaking from a position of personal experience on this one. For example, for all she knew, the guy actually knows her, maybe knows where she lives / works / frequents, and all this harassment is because he had an actual beef with her: Maybe he tried a creepy chat-up routine on her and she turned him down six months earlier.

If any of that is true then what he says online is really irrelevant. But there is nothing from what we've seen to suggest that and I think it's pretty heavily implied by what pieces of the exchange we did see that they didn't know each other. His insults are in direct response to an exchange they were having, not something that came out of nowhere.

Sure anything is possible if there's more to the story, but neither the woman nor any of the reports I've seen mention anything like this so there's no real point speculating on it.

 

[mikeymikec]

If any of that is true then what he says online is really irrelevant. But there is nothing from what we've seen to suggest that and I think it's pretty heavily implied by what pieces of the exchange we did see that they didn't know each other. His insults are in direct response to an exchange they were having, not something that came out of nowhere.

Sure anything is possible if there's more to the story, but neither the woman nor any of the reports I've seen mention anything like this so there's no real point speculating on it.

I didn't say that they might know each other, I said a possibility is that he knows her. Someone threatening someone online or off is not irrelevant.

 

[Exophase]

I didn't say that they might know each other, I said a possibility is that he knows her. Someone threatening someone online or off is not irrelevant.

He didn't make threats to this woman. Or at least nothing among anything she published. He said:

"You know the best thing about a feminist they don't get any action so when you rape them it feels 100 times tighter"

To which she commented at some point:

"How fucking dare you talk about raping women"

And he responded:

"I'd rape you if you were better looking but I wouldn't fuck you a nimbus"

This only looks like credible threats if your brain stops accepting any more context once you see someone talk about rape.

Even the woman who reported him didn't say he was posing a direct threat to her but was "normalizing violence against woman", I quote:

This kind of behaviour is what we call 'normalisation of violence against women' and it is really really scary and damaging, it is the reason that every day our mothers, our sisters and our friends are killed by men, and raped by men. Every time you 'playfully' tell a woman to get back in the kitchen, every time you smack a girl on the bum because its funny, everytime you make a joke about rape YOU are contributing to a society where unfortunately women are not safe.

We can argue about whether or not she has any point that making jokes about rape to troll feminists contributes to people raping and killing women (I'm skeptical) but that certainly should not be a standard for criminal charges.

I don't believe at all that she saw him as a direct threat that needed to be withheld for her safety. If she did then it was a pretty bad idea for her to continue to respond and insult him, posting the exchange publicly, linking people to his Facebook and employer's contacts (and also a completely innocent person with a similar sounding name who ended up getting a lot of shit from strangers, but that's another matter) - all things that you'd think would further provoke a dangerous person.

No, I'm quite sure that she was outraged over this man's disrespect and debasement of women and invoking of rape as a mean to insult, offend and enrage. And that is what she thinks should be outlawed.

Like I said, if he posted on this woman's feed completely unprompted saying something like "I'm going to find you and rape you you slut" then it'd be a totally different scenario.

 

[Schmide]

@Exophase A veiled threat is still a threat. Her picture was the context of the thread. Even using general terms about ones disposition towards certain groups of people, isn't enough to abstract it from her as the context of the conversation.

Edit: Furthermore inferring an inequality, i.e. if you were better looking, does not take off the table the intent of the statement. It was meant to intimidate and rightfully so was used to basis the judgement against him.

 

[jlee]

@Exophase A veiled threat is still a threat. Her picture was the context of the thread. Even using general terms about ones disposition towards certain groups of people, isn't enough to abstract it from her as the context of the conversation.

Edit: Furthermore inferring an inequality, i.e. if you were better looking, does not take off the table the intent of the statement. It was meant to intimidate and rightfully so was used to basis the judgement against him.

There were more direct words as well:

The several posts allegedly made by Alchin include “You’ll be eating my cock till you puke” and “I’d rape you if you were better looking.”

 

[Exophase]

@Exophase A veiled threat is still a threat. Her picture was the context of the thread. Even using general terms about ones disposition towards certain groups of people, isn't enough to abstract it from her as the context of the conversation.

A threat should be considered criminally actionable based on an assessment of risk of harm. I do think that anything that happened conveys any credible risk.

By all indications (I can't find anything official) Newton is the one who pressed charges so even if the first statement was considered related to Melville that wouldn't be material.

Edit: Furthermore inferring an inequality, i.e. if you were better looking, does not take off the table the intent of the statement. It was meant to intimidate and rightfully so was used to basis the judgement against him.

A lot of language contains the intention to intimidate, demean and devalue but that doesn't raise it to the level of tangible threat that calls for detainment/conviction/incarceration. Saying that you will not rape someone, regardless of qualification, is pretty clear indication that you don't have intent to rape them.

 

[Exophase]

There were more direct words as well:

Whatever the "you'll be eating my cock until you puke" line came from (no picture, no idea if it's paraphrased or what the greater context was) I feel pretty confident that it wasn't directed towards Newton since she didn't include it in the comments she captured. So again immaterial to her charges.

 

[jlee]

Whatever the "you'll be eating my cock until you puke" line came from (no picture, no idea if it's paraphrased or what the greater context was) I feel pretty confident that it wasn't directed towards Newton since she didn't include it in the comments she captured. So again immaterial to her charges.

Earlier, I asked if you had seen all 55 comments and you replied:

Have you? You'd think the article would illustrate the pertinent ones.

Now that an article has addressed one, you once again move the goal posts and decide that it's not relevant....because you "feel pretty confident"? You're right - you have no idea what the greater context was. The court that found him guilty did have an idea.

 

[Schmide]

A threat should be considered criminally actionable based on an assessment of risk of harm. I do think that anything that happened conveys any credible risk.

By all indications (I can't find anything official) Newton is the one who pressed charges so even if the first statement was considered related to Melville that wouldn't be material.



A lot of language contains the intention to intimidate, demean and devalue but that doesn't raise it to the level of tangible threat that calls for detainment/conviction/incarceration. Saying that you will not rape someone, regardless of qualification, is pretty clear indication that you don't have intent to rape them.

If I say as a direct quote to you.

If you weren't such a pussy, I would beat the living hell out of you, shave your man hole and go to town on your girly ass.

I have done 2 things. One infer that I am in such a position that I could do all these things with ease. and two provide a scenario where the threat is real. For women the first is almost always the case. One need only provide enough imagery where one small thing can change to convey a threat.

 

[Exophase]

The court didn't find him guilty, he pleaded guilty. The law includes vague provisions for "intending to offend" - I agree that he did intend to offend (as do many, many people who will probably never risk prosecution). So maybe it wasn't worth trying to fight that. But that doesn't mean that there were credible threats made against her.

It was incredibly unclear what comments were directed towards whom in any of this, because the media was very muddled. Earlier in the thread I linked to the person who said she was pressing charges. I haven't moved anything since then.

 

[Exophase]

If I say as a direct quote to you.

If you weren't such a pussy, I would beat the living hell out of you, shave your man hole and go to town on your girly ass.

I have done 2 things. One infer that I am in such a position that I could do all these things with ease. and two provide a scenario where the threat is real. For women the first is almost always the case. One need only provide enough imagery where one small thing can change to convey a threat.

What he said in anything but clear in his distinction of his intentions.

So let's get this straight - if someone said that to me there's no way I'd consider that a serious and actionable threat. Much less would I think to actually report them to the police and press criminal charges. I'm a male, so I'm guessing you agree with this. Most people would probably agree with this. If I did threaten to report you to the police I'd probably be ridiculed and told to be a man.

So apparently this changes if I'm a woman... why? Because women are weaker? Because they're more desirable targets for sexual violence? Because "for women the threat is almost always the case?" Why, you think women are under constant risk of someone popping out of the shadows and raping them?

Either you intend to assault me or not. Whether or not I have a vagina or think I can take you on (something I would never assume) should not be a factor in determining what level of risk or harm you pose to me. My gender should not be a deciding factor.

 

[Schmide]

and thus by standing up to me. You have now negated the pussy part of my inequality. Logically though not directly I have now threatened you.

This was done in 2 posts. Now imagine if we went back and forth 50 times and you were actually a woman, for which I or most males could easily take.

The threat has gone from implausible to at least probable by most who read it.

 

[Exophase]

and thus by standing up to me. You have now negated the pussy part of my inequality. Logically though not directly I have now threatened you.

Did this whole thing actually happen? I don't remember standing up to you over sincerely making this comment. Are you saying I should be threatened by you now?

This wasdone in 2 posts. Now imagine if we went back and forth 50 times and you were actually a woman, for which I or most males could easily take.

The guy's posts were all over the place, most of them were ridiculous rants about wanting to take away women's rights. Only a few of the posts were directed to Newton in a back and forth. She even said she'd take things to the police if he mentioned rape again, then he didn't after that, but it didn't stop her.

So if someone's a woman and most males could "easily take", let's say I'm in the bottom 5% of physical strength for men, does this give me a greater claim for being threatened? This isn't about what I can do, this is about what you're going to do.

 

[Schmide]

Did this whole thing actually happen? I don't remember standing up to you over sincerely making this comment. Are you saying I should be threatened by you now?

No but I am a threatening guy. (just enough to make you think)

The guy's posts were all over the place, most of them were ridiculous rants about wanting to take away women's rights. Only a few of the posts were directed to Newton in a back and forth. She even said she'd take things to the police if he mentioned rape again, then he didn't after that, but it didn't stop her.

He put enough time into the thread to make escalation plausible. It obviously weighed enough on her to make her finally report it.

So her indifference at one point in the conversation immediately negates the full context of the threat?

He pleaded guilty! He looks relatively well off. I'm guessing his lawyers and the letter of the law was enough for him to cut his losses while he could.

 

[Exophase]

No but I am a threatening guy. (just enough to make you think)

There's a pretty good chance you could take me then. But seriously, for someone making a comment like that to me online the odds that they actually intend to find me and rape me (much less actually will manage to find me and rape me) are really, really low. I mean, if that is what you want you'd probably do better not to say anything about it.

He put enough time into the thread to make escalation plausible. It obviously weighed enough on her to make her finally report it.

So her indifference at one point in the conversation immediately negates the full context of the threat?

The context of the threat is that she reprimanded him for making a rape joke so he made her the subject of a rape comment. That wasn't much of an escalation.

You don't really think that feeling threatened is the only reason she'd ultimately decide to take it to the police, do you?

He pleaded guilty! He looks relatively well off. I'm guessing his lawyers and the letter of the law was enough for him to cut his losses while he could.

Sure, the letter of the law leaves enough room to prosecute him in court. A plea bargain makes sense. Plus he's also suffered a lot of social losses and admitting guilt could help appease some of his enemies.

But that doesn't mean that he was a credible threat and that is certainly not a thing he admitted to, he admitted to trolling.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm wondering whether anyone who claims that they would "rape if..." should be put on the sex offenders register, based on the logic that someone who is inclined to make such a statement is a credible threat to 'compatible' targets around them.

 

[motsm]

I'm wondering whether anyone who claims that they would "rape if..." should be put on the sex offenders register, based on the logic that someone who is inclined to make such a statement is a credible threat to 'compatible' targets around them.

Of course not, that would be completely ridiculous.

 

[mikeymikec]

Of course not, that would be completely ridiculous.

So if someone says that they would rape in certain circumstances, you think it's ridiculous to assume that they would?

 

[motsm]

So if someone says that they would rape in certain circumstances, you think it's ridiculous to assume that they would?

I have the ability to see context, and I would assume most humans do. So with that in mind, I can't imagine any realistic context that could exist, where a person would say "I would rape if..." and they were being serious. Then when you consider the further context of this thread, which is someone posting nonsense on the internet, it becomes a ludicrous suggestion, that these people should be labeled sex offenders for saying those kinds of things.

You should never rape anyone. Unless you have a reason, like you wanna fuck somebody and they won't let you.

So was the above quote something said by a sex offender, or a stand up comedian? (That as far as I know, isn't a sex offender.)

 

[mikeymikec]

I have the ability to see context, and I would assume most humans do. So with that in mind, I can't imagine any realistic context that could exist, where a person would say "I would rape if..." and they were being serious. Then when you consider the further context of this thread, which is someone posting nonsense on the internet, it becomes a ludicrous suggestion, that these people should be labeled sex offenders for saying those kinds of things.

The sex offenders register (AFAIK) is largely used to ensure that people who are more likely to commit sex offences do not get jobs that put various categories of vulnerable people at risk. It's basically risk mitigation.

Just as a bank is pretty unlikely to employ someone who said "I would rob a bank if", and people would say, "if you are so fucking stupid to have said something like that, that's your own fault", the same applies here, IMO. For example, do you honestly think that say a rape shelter would employ anyone who made any kind of rape advocacy statement whatsoever, regardless of what you regard to be "nonsense"?

Your idea of "determining seriousness" or "nonsense" is purely wishful thinking.

 

[motsm]

The sex offenders register (AFAIK) is largely used to ensure that people who are more likely to commit sex offences do not get jobs that put various categories of vulnerable people at risk. It's basically risk mitigation.

Just as a bank is pretty unlikely to employ someone who said "I would rob a bank if", and people would say, "if you are so fucking stupid to have said something like that, that's your own fault", the same applies here, IMO. For example, do you honestly think that say a rape shelter would employ anyone who made any kind of rape advocacy statement whatsoever, regardless of what you regard to be "nonsense"?

Your idea of "determining seriousness" or "nonsense" is purely wishful thinking.

Context is EVERYTHING, it's not wishful thinking.

I would rob a bank

Pretty poor idea to admit that so openly.

 

[Exophase]

I remember when I was nine years old I got into some kind of heated verbal fight with another kid. It was a few weeks after my father died. I don't remember who started it or what it was even over but I do remember at the end the kid said that my father was dead because he killed him. Now I doubt he actually did, but I wasn't there when he died and he didn't get an autopsy so I can't really say for sure. At any rate, even if he didn't really kill my father if he's going to say something like this he probably has the potential to kill people, doesn't he? Why else would he have said something like that? Maybe he should have been locked up, or at least put on a list with the actual murderers, a list he's legally required to tell everyone he's on.

I mean it's just risk mitigation.