First Amendment Ruling Protects Internet Trolls

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal of the State of California (PDF) in Krinsky v. Doe H030767 overturned a lower court ruling and decided that the First Amendment right to anonymous speech protects internet trolls, too. Specifically, the ruling said that 'this juvenile name-calling cannot reasonably be read as stating actual facts.' And, even though some of the statements were crudely sexual and accused Ms. Krinsky of being among 'boobs, liars and crooks,' the statements were held to 'fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.'"

democracy and noise

[LosManos]

That is one of the down sides of democracy. The signal to noise ration is sometimes bad.
But what you consider BS one time might be the truth the next. It is up to you.

Nice argument

[Okind]

"[...] the statements [...] , while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment."

That is a very nice way of protecting free speech, while still making very plain that that kid should work on his argumentative skills.

Re:Evident corollary

[novakyu]

So, moderating a comment (-1, Troll) is unconstitutional? Cool!

No, because the moderation itself (at least on a private site like this) is expression of opinion in and of itself, and such is protected by the First Amendment rights.

Re:Words=Noise, Writing=Squiggles

[Heir Of The Mess]

You might get more action if you wear a shirt that says "Gay and Proud of it!". Christians are fairly hardened towards abuse of their religion as religious debate is not uncommon. Or maybe you could try "NASCAR sucks!"

how would it not be?

[hcmtnbiker]

I really don't understand how they wouldn't be under free speech. Defamatory remarks are only ones made that where stated as fact, as so people will believe them when they're not true. That has been decided it doesn't fall under freedom of speech because of its deceiving nature. Whereas trolls aren't trying to deceive anyone, they're just ranting. What it comes down to for me is that the right to freedom of speech is useless unless you piss someone off, the reason its in the constitution is so you can use it to piss people off. If no one ever pissed anyone off with speech then there would be no need for the first amendment.
-----
Oh and go ahead and troll this comment, just for kicks.

Trolly Comment

[AndGodSed]

bla, yah, abortion, yadda, mohammed cartoon, yack yack, George Bush, bla bla...

Re:how would it not be?

[Admiral Ag]

There's a difference between speech that is primarily intended to make a point, but happens to piss someone off (e.g. "I believe that homosexuality is/is not immoral"), and speech which is primarily intended to piss people off rather than make a point (e.g. "burn all f4gg0+z fur havin A1DZ lolz").

I sincerely doubt that the people who wrote your constitution had the noble aim of allowing their citizens to call each other "poopyheads" in mind. The aim of the first amendment is presumably to allow the free transmission of ideas and for people to be able to speak their conscience. It doesn't protect every kind of lie, for example.

If the founders had wanted to protect the right to specifically annoy other people, they would have written something like: "The right of citizens to throw balloons full of dog shit at each other shall not be infringed".

Trolls can be funny, but they are more often a nuisance. It's not like much can be done in any case, since the law of the universe is that idiots and assholes must win.

Some companies don't understand

[Auckerman]

Okay, there are basically two kinds of companies that follow suits like this: Young companies with inexperienced leadership and companies have a valid tarnished image who want their day in court to clear their name or to just scare critics into silence. Experienced leadership understands that maintaining a good image means fixing problems, not hide them. Also, you don't go out of your way to highlight critics. These guys are making the news circles, which is leading people to read about the company history, further tarnishing their image. Not exactly the kind of thing an experienced leader does.

I'm pretty sure those who do seek to actively silence public critics are those who have something to hide, not am image to maintain. If you run the company right, people will rightfully ignore the trolls.

Re:Oh dear God...

[edwardpickman]

Trolls are often on topic but are expressing unpopular opinions. I wish the mod was used strictly for those being obnoxious and not contributing to the discussion. "Troll" and "Flamebait" are at times used to shout down people with unpopular stances. Make a few posts supporting copyrights or speaking out against illegal downloading and see how fast you get trolled or flamebaited. People do at times get decent mods for making good arguments but the vast majority of times they'll be modded down.

Re:Words=Noise, Writing=Squiggles

[cliveholloway]

"...trying to get a t-shirt made that simply says F*** Jesus, has been very hard"

So you want to get a T-shirt made with Fuck Jesus on it, but you're too embarrassed to type that almost anonymously on Slashdot?

Um, OK then. Go for it you rebel!

The downside of Free speech

[stox]

is that you're going to be exposed to things that annoy you or that you disagree with. Some things might even offend you. Deal with it, it is a part of real life.

Re:how would it not be?

[Logic and Reason]

I sincerely doubt that the people who wrote your constitution had the noble aim of allowing their citizens to call each other "poopyheads" in mind.

No, I think that's exactly what they had in mind. Something along the lines of, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If the founders had wanted to protect the right to specifically annoy other people, they would have written something like: "The right of citizens to throw balloons full of dog shit at each other shall not be infringed".

This is exactly why some of the founders opposed the creation of the Bill of Rights: they worried that people would misinterpret it as an exhaustive listing of the people's (and the states') rights. It is not. It merely lists some of the things the federal government is explicitly, no-really-I-mean-it not allowed to do; but everything not mentioned is supposed to be left up to the people, or to the states. In fact, there's even an amendment saying precisely that:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So since the founders did not put any language into the Constitution granting the federal government the power to prevent people from generally being assholes to each other, the federal government isn't allowed to do it. I leave as an exercise for the reader the task of finding in the Constitution language that grants the federal government the power to establish Social Security and other forms of welfare, the Federal Reserve, the Food and Drug Administration, and so on.

Very interesting: professionalism = responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the summary and the verdict, it actually appears that the main question was whether the statements could reasonably be read as facts, because defamation rules only protect against false factual claims. The judge found that no reasonable person was likely to read them as statements of facts, but rather as 'crude, satirical hyperbole'.

The very strong implication that is likely to have consequences is that the deciding question about any claims is whether they are "likely to be read as facts", which again is going to depend on the professionalism they are delivered with. Whereas posting the commment "Ms. Krinsky likes to suck goats" in a Youtube comment is unlikely to be defamatory, creating a professional-looking blog and writing a post entitled "My disturbing meeting with Ms. Krinsky where she hinted at zoophilia" on the other hand is likely to be.

I completely agree that this is the only sensible and real-life-compatible way for things to be done to be honest, but it is interesting that the court has now spelt it out explicitly. Look forward to the 'convincingness' of internet posts to become an issue in defemation cases in the future. Of course, even if something is not defamatory it could still be harassment or criminal in other ways.

Re:Oh dear God...

[tacocat]

Score one for the good guys. You may not like Trolls, but then neither did King George. If protecting my freedom of speech means I get to listen to a few immature Trolls, it's well worth the price.

Re:Oh dear God...

[LordLucless]

It's also because there are no downmods labeled "factually incorrect", "moronic argument that's been debunked a million times already" or "calling people names isn't going to make your argument any more compelling". When someone's being a dick, and you can't be bothered throwing pearls before swine, there aren't too many options for accurate mods.

Re:Darwinian M&M duels

[montyzooooma]

There's a flaw here. With a winner stays on format the winner gets worn down over time making it statistically unlikely that the last man standing will actually be the strongest competitor when the contest started, just the strongest left when the contest finished.

Re:Oh dear God...

[Asic Eng]

Well "moronic argument" could be modded as "overrated", "calling people names" would be "flamebait". The category "factually incorrect" is difficult - but I think slashdot discussions wouldn't necessarily benefit if posts were just modded "wrong" (no matter how appropriate that may be in some cases...). Currently you need to check replies and see if someone explains why the post is wrong - then mod that reply up. I think reading the comments slashdot benefits from this - gives me a chance to learn something if I've been laboring under the same misapprehension as the guy who has been posting.

Re:define "obnoxious" post

[gomiam]

It would be much more mature to simply ignore them.

Which is achieved by modding them down. If you really want to read them all, you can always read at -1 like I do. Even better: as a registered user, you can set your account to ignore (-1) Troll moderations.

Re:How long does it take?

[Ethanol-fueled]

California: at least it ain't Mississippi.

To what extent?

[Opportunist]

When someone posts "trolling" comments on his blog, fine. But is this supposed to mean that I have to allow it or at least may not take legal steps against someone trying to troll on a board, message system or blog I am responsible for?

To me, this is akin to a party. It's your party, do what you want. You may even kick me out for being no troll, you may do whatever name calling you like, but when you're on my lawn, you either keep your mouth shut or get off it. You will not come to my party and advertise for amway, you will not get drunk and harrass all the girls and you will not start political campaigning for a party I do not like.

I do sincerely hope that the courts see that fine difference. Just because I open my house for anyone who wants to party with me does not mean that I allow anyone to come in and do what they like. And the same applies to internet servers. A server is not a "public space". It is owned by someone who may (or may not) present the rules under which this server may be used. Play by those rules or get off my lawn.

Re:Oh dear God...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot karma is like the US Treasury Department. However, I'm still the gold standard baby.

WAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!

[nunyadambinness]

"and eerily perfect grammar"

BZZZZT. Not even close.

"Did their supposed anonymity give them constitutional rights to be fucktards, or more importantly, to cause my family grief and humiliation?"

Listen crybaby, I'll explain this to you so you'll avoid looking like a bitch again.

THEY DID NOT CAUSE YOUR FAMILY ANYTHING. THEY ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY, WHICH YOU CHOSE TO RESPOND TO WITH GRIEF AND HUMILIATION. YOU CHOSE HOW TO REACT TO THEM AND YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE TO BLAME FOR HOW YOU FEEL.

Grow the fuck up. Your post was the definition of pathetic.

Re:No

[gomiam]

No, that's preventing everyone else from seeing their opinions too.

<sarcasm>Of course it is, because there is no option to browse at -1, whether you are a registered user or not. I guess two clicks are too much work, and having to go to a public library to read a book censors the author because you don't get it sent home just because you think you want to read it right now.</sarcasm>

Preventing would require that those comments were unavailable (or with great difficulty). Two clicks doesn't cut it, for me.

Re:Oh dear God...

[Qetu]

How about (-1, [Citation Needed])?

Re:Darwinian M&M duels

[sorak]

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior.

I think you are just perpetuating the myth [salon.com] that Darwin was racist [cotch.net]. I'm pretty sure that the Discovery Institute will be quoting your post in the following way:

I have found that, in general, the brown and red... are tougher, and... are genetically inferior.

Amen

[pavon]

I can't moderate in this thread because I already posted, but this should be +5.

Furthermore, if you want an idea of what kind of speech the American Revolutionaries wanted to protect, just look at the kind of speech they were using. For every civil and well-reasoned "Common Sense", "Declaration of Independence" and "Federalist Papers", there are dozens of newspapers articles and pamphlets published that were crude, hyperbolic, and dripping with vitriol. They were nothing if not flamebait. The founders of this country clearly felt that no one should be above this sort of criticism, and that no government should be able to suppress this sort of dissent.

Admiral Ag is correct in saying that this sort of speech is nothing but a nuisance, but if someone thinks they need the government to step in and "protect" them from something as insignificant as trolling then they have bigger problems on their hands.

Re:No

[Dhalka226]

The attempt to legitimise your censorship by saying that you've gone out of your way even more to provide a method of making the censorship usable is worse, because it shows more premeditation.

Of course it's premeditated. That's the entire purpose of any moderation system: to mod posts up that the moderator believes are good and down those he doesn't. Even if you eliminate downmods you're still "censoring" posts by virtue of choosing not to mod them up. The only way to eliminate that oh-so-abhorrent practice is to eliminate moderation entirely. I don't know about you, but I simply don't have the time to read every single comment on every single article I look at on Slashdot. I LIKE the fact that idiotic posts are hidden from my view by my viewing threshold, and that posts that SOMEBODY thought was good are highlighted for my attention. I'm happy to acknowledge that some downmods are undeserved, the same as some upmods are. I simply don't feel that the system not being perfect warrants scrapping it.

Luckily, as the grandparent post correctly pointed out, if you disagree with such a "censorship" regime you're free to disable it by browsing at -1 and ignoring any moderations that were made. You can read everything. Or if you've got a particular soft spot for people modded troll, you can even adjust the moderation for it in your profile such that it is a GOOD thing that brings it to you attention rather than hides it.

This might be censorship from a strict definition of the word, but the vast majority of people, were this system described to them, would not find it inappropriate in the least. Labeling it thus is just some sort of lame appeal to emotion. After all, hardly anybody will support censorship if that's what you ask them--even if they do in some cases. Personally I find it more akin to a tagging system; people decide if a post is funny or a troll or what, and I can decide whether those things are good or bad. And luckily, as has been said many times now, there are multiple options for anybody who disagrees with this system's existence to essentially opt out and see everything anyway. Those of us who find it useful may continue to use it as an aide to finding good posts and hiding bad. What's the problem here?

p.s.: added sarcasm doesn't make you any less wrong.

Nor do smartass remarks make you right. If what you're looking for is an intellectual snobbery win, pat yourself on the back; I'll admit downmodding may fit some of the broader definitions of censorship if you're insistent on considering it "devaluing some peoples' opinions" rather than trying to classify posts in certain ways. Personally though, I think you fail to make any worthwhile point about it.