Why not make trolling illegal?

The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.

Group B consists of the slightly more 'subtle' trolls, who pretend to
be on the newsgroup for legitimate and respectable reasons, but in the
end are just motivated by exactly the same anti-cycling sentiment as
Group A. This group includes 'JNugent', 'NM' and of course the fake
cyclist 'John Benn'. In many ways I find this group more frustrating,
as they so persistently deny that they are present for anything but
the most noble of reasons, despite making it obvious what they really
think by always, no matter what, siding against the cyclist(s) in any
given scenario.

Anyway, there is further reading elsewhere on the ongoing and very
specific problems that uk.rec.cycling has unfortunately experienced.
We are trying to do something about it. Various legal remedies are on
the table. But these rely on showing that some kind of 'harassment' of
individual cyclists has occurred, which is tricky. And it is
understood by all concerned that the 'harassment' accusations are just
the method by which we are having to bring these trolls to justice,
and that the real reason why they are being taken to court is to
punish them for trolling and destroying a valuable and once pleasant
newsgroup with their constant, vicious jibes and their worthless and
incorrect opinions, all of which are carefully calculated to stoke the
fire and cause maximum friction.

It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way to
do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and
secondly because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone of
'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish them
for trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best solution, at
least for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling illegal.

'What about free speech?', I hear you ask. Well, it is generally
accepted that sometimes we need to make exceptions to allowing free
speech where it is in the public interest, e.g. with hate speech. So
why not make another exception with trolling? How exactly is it in the
public interest to allow the likes of 'Dave' and 'Judith' to
systematically and irrevocably destroy valuable Internet resources?
Isn't it much more in the public interest to stop them? Your favourite
newsgroup or forum could be next if we do not stop these worthless
individuals from spreading their hate. Trolling is on the increase as
more and more idiots spend more and more time online, and so society
needs to act robustly and quickly in order to show that it is not
going to tolerate such extremely antisocial behaviour.

I will be writing to my MP about this subject, using uk.rec.cycling as
my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until
someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the
law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the
requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being
just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that
people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve
their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent'
does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made
illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you
will agree.

Thanks,
M Wicks

On 09/07/2012 23:19, M Wicks wrote:

**** off and grow a pair of balls

"M Wicks" wrote in message
...
The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem


So does this one - he is called Doug*, why don't you and he stay on cycling
groups and stop trolling this one?






* he often posts about "pavement motorist kills cyclists" or similar,
although if you bother to read his posts they often don't involve pavements,
motorists, motorists driving on pavements or cyclists.

Doug would also make news group posting illegal, but only for people he does
not agree with

On 09/07/2012 23:19, M Wicks wrote:
The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.

Group B consists of the slightly more 'subtle' trolls, who pretend to
be on the newsgroup for legitimate and respectable reasons, but in the
end are just motivated by exactly the same anti-cycling sentiment as
Group A. This group includes 'JNugent', 'NM' and of course the fake
cyclist 'John Benn'. In many ways I find this group more frustrating,
as they so persistently deny that they are present for anything but
the most noble of reasons, despite making it obvious what they really
think by always, no matter what, siding against the cyclist(s) in any
given scenario.

Anyway, there is further reading elsewhere on the ongoing and very
specific problems that uk.rec.cycling has unfortunately experienced.
We are trying to do something about it. Various legal remedies are on
the table. But these rely on showing that some kind of 'harassment' of
individual cyclists has occurred, which is tricky. And it is
understood by all concerned that the 'harassment' accusations are just
the method by which we are having to bring these trolls to justice,
and that the real reason why they are being taken to court is to
punish them for trolling and destroying a valuable and once pleasant
newsgroup with their constant, vicious jibes and their worthless and
incorrect opinions, all of which are carefully calculated to stoke the
fire and cause maximum friction.

It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way to
do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and
secondly because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone of
'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish them
for trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best solution, at
least for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling illegal.

'What about free speech?', I hear you ask. Well, it is generally
accepted that sometimes we need to make exceptions to allowing free
speech where it is in the public interest, e.g. with hate speech. So
why not make another exception with trolling? How exactly is it in the
public interest to allow the likes of 'Dave' and 'Judith' to
systematically and irrevocably destroy valuable Internet resources?
Isn't it much more in the public interest to stop them? Your favourite
newsgroup or forum could be next if we do not stop these worthless
individuals from spreading their hate. Trolling is on the increase as
more and more idiots spend more and more time online, and so society
needs to act robustly and quickly in order to show that it is not
going to tolerate such extremely antisocial behaviour.

I will be writing to my MP about this subject, using uk.rec.cycling as
my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until
someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the
law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the
requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being
just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that
people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve
their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent'
does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made
illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you
will agree.

Thanks,
M Wicks

What a tosser. More time to waste than I have.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

M Wicks wrote:

Probably something to dowith freedom of speech.

On Jul 9, 11:19*pm, M Wicks wrote:
The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.

Group B consists of the slightly more 'subtle' trolls, who pretend to
be on the newsgroup for legitimate and respectable reasons, but in the
end are just motivated by exactly the same anti-cycling sentiment as
Group A. This group includes 'JNugent', 'NM' and of course the fake
cyclist 'John Benn'. In many ways I find this group more frustrating,
as they so persistently deny that they are present for anything but
the most noble of reasons, despite making it obvious what they really
think by always, no matter what, siding against the cyclist(s) in any
given scenario.

Anyway, there is further reading elsewhere on the ongoing and very
specific problems that uk.rec.cycling has unfortunately experienced.
We are trying to do something about it. Various legal remedies are on
the table. But these rely on showing that some kind of 'harassment' of
individual cyclists has occurred, which is tricky. And it is
understood by all concerned that the 'harassment' accusations are just
the method by which we are having to bring these trolls to justice,
and that the real reason why they are being taken to court is to
punish them for trolling and destroying a valuable and once pleasant
newsgroup with their constant, vicious jibes and their worthless and
incorrect opinions, all of which are carefully calculated to stoke the
fire and cause maximum friction.

It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way to
do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and
secondly because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone of
'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish them
for trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best solution, at
least for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling illegal.

'What about free speech?', I hear you ask. Well, it is generally
accepted that sometimes we need to make exceptions to allowing free
speech where it is in the public interest, e.g. with hate speech. So
why not make another exception with trolling? How exactly is it in the
public interest to allow the likes of 'Dave' and 'Judith' to
systematically and irrevocably destroy valuable Internet resources?
Isn't it much more in the public interest to stop them? Your favourite
newsgroup or forum could be next if we do not stop these worthless
individuals from spreading their hate. Trolling is on the increase as
more and more idiots spend more and more time online, and so society
needs to act robustly and quickly in order to show that it is not
going to tolerate such extremely antisocial behaviour.

I will be writing to my MP about this subject, using uk.rec.cycling as
my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until
someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the
law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the
requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being
just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that
people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve
their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent'
does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made
illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you
will agree.

Thanks,
M Wicks

Who in this context is the 'we' you refer to in your risable nonsense
about making free speech illegal? Do you have allies in your quest? If
so please let us have their names.

What gives you the right to determine what is written by others?

What gives you the right to determine the language others use?

What gives you the right to expect others to adhere to your
'christian' values?

I don't understand what you are doing here, you claim you don't like
it and there is a perfectly good moderated group for pillocks like
you, why do you persist in posting here? Are you a masochist?

On 10/07/2012 01:06, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"M wrote in message
...
The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem


So does this one - he is called Doug*, why don't you and he stay on cycling
groups and stop trolling this one?






* he often posts about "pavement motorist kills cyclists" or similar,
although if you bother to read his posts they often don't involve pavements,
motorists, motorists driving on pavements or cyclists.

Doug would also make news group posting illegal, but only for people he does
not agree with



Doug is an irreplaceable jewel of uk.legal and I quite enjoy his posts,
but is he as loved and appreciated in a whole newsgroup of Dougs?

j

M Wicks wrote:
The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem

Thanks,
M Wicks

The one that I see trolling is M.Wicks. His posts are nothing to do with
the group he posts to, and certainly this particular one shows every
hallmark of the accepted qualities of a 'troll' post.
Urban dictionary:
troll :
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or
message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

On 10/07/2012 00:43, Martin wrote:
On 09/07/2012 23:19, M Wicks wrote:

**** off and grow a pair of balls


Don't feed the trolls.

Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 10/07/2012 08:22, Mrcheerful wrote:
M Wicks wrote:
The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem

Thanks,
M Wicks

The one that I see trolling is M.Wicks. His posts are nothing to do with
the group he posts to, and certainly this particular one shows every
hallmark of the accepted qualities of a 'troll' post.
Urban dictionary:
troll :
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or
message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument


Spot on. Lets stop feeding him.

Cyclist trying to be clever. Never works.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University