• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

#McCann Trolls

Charlie Wilkes said:
This woman is becoming a martyr in some circles.
http://www.independent.ie/world-new...for-troll-brenda-leylands-death-30642858.html

"How many more must die before the McCann’s accept that negligence is at the heart of all their grief?"
Click to expand...

Bizarre. I do not exult in her death by any means but I can't summon up a shred of sympathy either. The internet has become a perfect nest for those who used to write poison pen letters, just as the gramophone record transformed the lot of the humble minstrel into the grotesquely overhyped 'superstar' of today. I have big problems with the widespread abuse of anonymity on the net, this shrivelled up, hate-filled woman being a good example of what I mean.
 
Agatha said:
Given the volume of similar tweets http://greptweet.com/u/sweepyface/sweepyface.txt that she sent, she must have been pretty much permanently intoxicated. Or perhaps not.

It really frosts my grill that some people on the 'hate the McCanns' bandwagon call Madeleine 'Maddy' (something the family never did) and claim to be so grief-stricken over Madeleine's disappearance that they are suffering more than the McCanns - despite them never having met Madeleine or known her in any way outside the newspaper stories.

I don't get why people feel the need to insert themselves into someone else's tragedy to the extent that some online keyboard warriors have. It's clear from these tweets and the websites such as the '3 arguidos' that this group of people they feel they know more about the events than anyone who was there, the police of two countries or the social services who investigated the family - and that they somehow have been granted the 'right' to indulge in a hate campaign.

I don't think the McCanns did the right thing in leaving the kids alone, but it does happen, particularly on holiday. And their error of judgement still doesn't make them murderers, or more culpable than the actual abductor.
Click to expand...
I arrived here because my anger at the wrongful destruction of Amanda Knox, and her family, and their money seemed to be amenable to correction here. Nothing has changed.
The McCanns could reasonably be sentenced by the loving community to time served. They only lost a very precious three year old daughter after all.
 
Agatha said:
Given the volume of similar tweets http://greptweet.com/u/sweepyface/sweepyface.txt that she sent, she must have been pretty much permanently intoxicated. Or perhaps not.

It really frosts my grill that some people on the 'hate the McCanns' bandwagon call Madeleine 'Maddy' (something the family never did) and claim to be so grief-stricken over Madeleine's disappearance that they are suffering more than the McCanns - despite them never having met Madeleine or known her in any way outside the newspaper stories.

I don't get why people feel the need to insert themselves into someone else's tragedy to the extent that some online keyboard warriors have. It's clear from these tweets and the websites such as the '3 arguidos' that this group of people they feel they know more about the events than anyone who was there, the police of two countries or the social services who investigated the family - and that they somehow have been granted the 'right' to indulge in a hate campaign.

I don't think the McCanns did the right thing in leaving the kids alone, but it does happen, particularly on holiday. And their error of judgement still doesn't make them murderers, or more culpable than the actual abductor.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Agatha said:
I don't think the McCanns did the right thing in leaving the kids alone, but it does happen, particularly on holiday. And their error of judgement still doesn't make them murderers, or more culpable than the actual abductor.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even go that far. What happened to their daughter was tragic but very very rare. Kids are in more danger simply taking a car ride.
 
anglolawyer said:
Bizarre. I do not exult in her death by any means but I can't summon up a shred of sympathy either. The internet has become a perfect nest for those who used to write poison pen letters, just as the gramophone record transformed the lot of the humble minstrel into the grotesquely overhyped 'superstar' of today. I have big problems with the widespread abuse of anonymity on the net, this shrivelled up, hate-filled woman being a good example of what I mean.
Click to expand...

It's a real problem, and I don't know what the solution is. These people are destructive to their targets, and I think they are destructive to themselves, in that they dig themselves ever deeper into a morass of rancor and hostility. Certainly they are destructive to meaningful online discussion.

I was a troll on Usenet for many years. It was an unmoderated free-for-all with countless nitwits competing for attention, and I joined right in. I didn't care what people said to me, and I played by that rule. Over time, however, I realized I was genuinely hurting people who didn't play by that rule, and I cleaned up my act, because that was never my intent. I was just having fun.

These people who hound the McCanns, Amanda Knox, etc., are not having fun. They are very much bent on inflicting pain and suffering, and they do it because they are hurting themselves. Public shaming obviously wasn't the optimum solution for dealing with Brenda Leyland; she went off to a hotel room and killed herself, leaving behind a grieving son. But what is the optimum solution? I don't know. I'd be interested in ideas.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
It's a real problem, and I don't know what the solution is. These people are destructive to their targets, and I think they are destructive to themselves, in that they dig themselves ever deeper into a morass of rancor and hostility. Certainly they are destructive to meaningful online discussion.

I was a troll on Usenet for many years. It was an unmoderated free-for-all with countless nitwits competing for attention, and I joined right in. I didn't care what people said to me, and I played by that rule. Over time, however, I realized I was genuinely hurting people who didn't play by that rule, and I cleaned up my act, because that was never my intent. I was just having fun.

These people who hound the McCanns, Amanda Knox, etc., are not having fun. They are very much bent on inflicting pain and suffering, and they do it because they are hurting themselves. Public shaming obviously wasn't the optimum solution for dealing with Brenda Leyland; she went off to a hotel room and killed herself, leaving behind a grieving son. But what is the optimum solution? I don't know. I'd be interested in ideas.
Click to expand...

I offer this knowing it can be greatly refined: one strike and you're out. Anonymity is permitted only until it is abused, then the right is lost.

In an article I read today it was suggested we were living in the Wild West of the Internet. The lawless early phase. I agree with that. It will take time to adjust, for morality to organise the medium and for the novelty of riskless abuse to wear off. In Dr Johnson's time (late 18th century) ferry passengers crossing the Thames engaged in a sort of sport, calling abuse across to each other. We have a timeless appetite for being vicious and need to re-learn the proper limits of the power to harm.
 
Let's see....

Charlie Wilkes said:
It's a real problem, and I don't know what the solution is. These people are destructive to their targets, and I think they are destructive to themselves, in that they dig themselves ever deeper into a morass of rancor and hostility. Certainly they are destructive to meaningful online discussion.

I was a troll on Usenet for many years. It was an unmoderated free-for-all with countless nitwits competing for attention, and I joined right in. I didn't care what people said to me, and I played by that rule. Over time, however, I realized I was genuinely hurting people who didn't play by that rule, and I cleaned up my act, because that was never my intent. I was just having fun.

These people who hound the McCanns, Amanda Knox, etc., are not having fun. They are very much bent on inflicting pain and suffering, and they do it because they are hurting themselves. Public shaming obviously wasn't the optimum solution for dealing with Brenda Leyland; she went off to a hotel room and killed herself, leaving behind a grieving son. But what is the optimum solution? I don't know. I'd be interested in ideas.
Click to expand...

Not sure this is a valid comparison – Knox is a convicted killer, the McCanns are the parents of a murder/abduction victim.

Of course the sex crime aspect is common to both cases.
Perhaps a better analogue would be the abuse directed at the family of Meredith Kercher by fans of one of the killers.

anglolawyer said:
I offer this knowing it can be greatly refined: one strike and you're out. Anonymity is permitted only until it is abused, then the right is lost. In an article I read today it was suggested we were living in the Wild West of the Internet. The lawless early phase. I agree with that. It will take time to adjust, for morality to organise the medium and for the novelty of riskless abuse to wear off. In Dr Johnson's time (late 18th century) ferry passengers crossing the Thames engaged in a sort of sport, calling abuse across to each other. We have a timeless appetite for being vicious and need to re-learn the proper limits of the power to harm.
Click to expand...

Not sure how this would work from either a practical or a legal perspective.
As you appear to have a legal background [I’m basing this on your username] perhaps you could offer an opinion on the judicial framework /safeguards etc which such a piece of legislation would entail.

Or maybe you would propose a vigilante approach along the lines of Charlie Wilkes investigative skills [upthread] - the likes of which ‘ironically’ lead to the death of the unfortunate ‘online expert’ in this case.
 
Last edited:
"I'm entitled to do that"

"I'm entitled to do that"

What @sweepyface did went beyond voicing her own opinion. She was cyberbullying and cyberharassing the McCann family. She was sending them direct messages of hate and wishes of suffering. She did this in conjunction with a group of others doing the same thing. An online cybermob posting continually for years.

Who should decide what crosses the line? In this case I would say twitter should have.
 
platonov said:
Not sure this is a valid comparison – Knox is a convicted killer, the McCanns are the parents of a murder/abduction victim.

Of course the sex crime aspect is common to both cases.
Perhaps a better analogue would be the abuse directed at the family of Meredith Kercher by fans of one of the killers.



Not sure how this would work from either a practical or a legal perspective.
As you appear to have a legal background [I’m basing this on your username] perhaps you could offer an opinion on the judicial framework /safeguards etc which such a piece of legislation would entail.

Or maybe you would propose a vigilante approach along the lines of Charlie Wilkes investigative skills [upthread] - the likes of which ‘ironically’ lead to the death of the unfortunate ‘online expert’ in this case.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the idea needs refinement. That would involve a lot of thought and careful drafting but I don't see why it should not be possible. Private legal remedies already exist to strip an Internet abuser of anonymity. What do you think of the idea itself, leaving aside the mechanics?
 
anglolawyer said:
I offer this knowing it can be greatly refined: one strike and you're out. Anonymity is permitted only until it is abused, then the right is lost.

In an article I read today it was suggested we were living in the Wild West of the Internet. The lawless early phase. I agree with that. It will take time to adjust, for morality to organise the medium and for the novelty of riskless abuse to wear off. In Dr Johnson's time (late 18th century) ferry passengers crossing the Thames engaged in a sort of sport, calling abuse across to each other. We have a timeless appetite for being vicious and need to re-learn the proper limits of the power to harm.
Click to expand...

I think you're on the right track. For years, I have largely accepted the arguments for protecting anonymity in online discourse, but I am beginning to change my view on this, because I see so much rampant abuse. I think it might be reasonable for services like Twitter to require people to use their real-life identities, or at least make those identities known to the public.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I think you're on the right track. For years, I have largely accepted the arguments for protecting anonymity in online discourse, but I am beginning to change my view on this, because I see so much rampant abuse. I think it might be reasonable for services like Twitter to require people to use their real-life identities, or at least make those identities known to the public.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. It could also stifle legitimate political discourse, and anonymity is another safeguard against tyrants and oppressors, to borrow Jefferson's words. In the end, the identity of a twitterer is known: Twitter knows the IP address from which the tweet was made, and the ISP knows the real identity of the person. It's just one indirection. The solution lies, IMHO, more in that services like Twitter and Facebook assume more responsibility for what is published through them, and maybe expedited legal procedures for getting to the identity, than in flat-out requiring wholesale abolition of anonymity.

For my part, discuss your favourite case on whatever forum you like, within the bounds that forum (and the law) sets. If you have convincing evidence, bring it to the police and the prosecution; they're appointed by us all to prosecute criminals and get them convicted. But don't bully directly aimed at the people you think are guilty of crime.

ETA: Maybe this suicide is a wake-up call to other bullies. I fear not.
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
"I'm entitled to do that"

What @sweepyface did went beyond voicing her own opinion. She was cyberbullying and cyberharassing the McCann family. She was sending them direct messages of hate and wishes of suffering. She did this in conjunction with a group of others doing the same thing. An online cybermob posting continually for years.
Click to expand...

It was claimed earlier that the McCanns don't do Twitter. How, then, is abuse of them on Twitter "cyberbullying and cyberharassing the McCann family"?
 
Information Analyst said:
It was claimed earlier that the McCanns don't do Twitter. How, then, is abuse of them on Twitter "cyberbullying and cyberharassing the McCann family"?
Click to expand...

They steer clear of social media because of the abuse they receive there. That is like not going out on the street because of abuse that may be anticipated there also. Why should their potential to derive substantial benefit (in the form of moral support, aid in finding their missing child and/or otherwise) from what is for many now an essential medium of modern life be blighted by abusive and hurtful trolls?
 
ddt said:
I'm not so sure. It could also stifle legitimate political discourse, and anonymity is another safeguard against tyrants and oppressors, to borrow Jefferson's words. In the end, the identity of a twitterer is known: Twitter knows the IP address from which the tweet was made, and the ISP knows the real identity of the person. It's just one indirection. The solution lies, IMHO, more in that services like Twitter and Facebook assume more responsibility for what is published through them, and maybe expedited legal procedures for getting to the identity, than in flat-out requiring wholesale abolition of anonymity.

For my part, discuss your favourite case on whatever forum you like, within the bounds that forum (and the law) sets. If you have convincing evidence, bring it to the police and the prosecution; they're appointed by us all to prosecute criminals and get them convicted. But don't bully directly aimed at the people you think are guilty of crime.

ETA: Maybe this suicide is a wake-up call to other bullies. I fear not.
Click to expand...
Criticism of the state can be distinguished from abuse and harassment of individuals in the drafting of Anglo's Law.
 
anglolawyer said:
Criticism of the state can be distinguished from abuse and harassment of individuals in the drafting of Anglo's Law.
Click to expand...
I mentioned "expedited legal procedures to lift anonymity" - is that what Anglo's Law will contain? Because, as I argued, forbidding anonymity in the first place is or can be detrimental to political discourse or the airing of other potentially unpopular opinions.
 
anglolawyer said:
They steer clear of social media because of the abuse they receive there. That is like not going out on the street because of abuse that may be anticipated there also. Why should their potential to derive substantial benefit (in the form of moral support, aid in finding their missing child and/or otherwise) from what is for many now an essential medium of modern life be blighted by abusive and hurtful trolls?
Click to expand...

Right, so the argument is not that they are being directly abused, but that they would be if they engaged through social media?
 
The McCanns aren't on twitter because of this hate campaign. It's no different from the hatemongerers plastering an entire town with posters repeating their vitriol, and then claiming it's OK because the targets of their abuse stay away from that town.
 
ddt said:
I mentioned "expedited legal procedures to lift anonymity" - is that what Anglo's Law will contain? Because, as I argued, forbidding anonymity in the first place is or can be detrimental to political discourse or the airing of other potentially unpopular opinions.
Click to expand...

Yes. Anonymity will be permitted unless and until abused. Then the right ends for that person for good. Sanctions to be penal in nature. Very likely a whole bunch of laws already exist, albeit not targeted specifically at anonymity per se. If someone has to type in their own name, the effect should be to mellow their words which is a large part of what is needed.

By 'abused' I mean the kind of abuse the net is awash with, not political discourse or critique. The problem with such laws is all in the drafting because you can be sure that if an opportunity is afforded to the state to abuse its powers that opportunity will be taken. Examples are too numerous to particularise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom