Now why would anyone troll memorial websites?..

I hope that sleazy racist turd gets trolled in real life by tons of people now that he basically admitted it on the BBC.

What a shock! He was unapologetic and a prick!

He's attention whoring, not trolling, similar to what 4chan kiddies do. He can't even adequately defend himself when confronted, again, similar to what the 4chan kiddies do.

That was really, really disorienting. I was cleaning my glasses, and kept hearing Frankie Boyle dryly condemning someone for race-based trolling and offensiveness.

Then I glanced at the screen, sans lunettes, and the guy (blurrily) looked like Dara O'Brien.

Very, very disorienting.

So, what's his fark handle?

DeathByGeekSquad: He can't even adequately defend himself

I think he defended himself just fine. He goes to open forums and expresses his opinion. I'm surprised Ric Romero wasn't reporting.

Dear BBC,

Please don't feed the trolls.

Granted racists are pricks but at least here in the States they have the right to freely express their prickdom. Convicted of espousing a belief system seems odd to me.

That yobbo is going to get an ASBO.

I saw the size of the reporter and the "yob" and was trying to figure out why he wasn't more agressive. then near the end when he was ont he bus you see the security guy in the puffy jacket behind the reporter.

germ78: with the tiniest little tadger is the world's biggest prick.

Rot in piss you filthy troll

Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet. It's not a good thing. It's the root problem of a lot of anti-social behavior. It's teaching a whole new generation that there isn't consequences to their actions. It's facilitating illegal activity (there's a can of worms). If an actual name and address was attached to each and every comment made, I doubt you'd see some of the behavior that's displayed now....including some of the shiat I write.

indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet. It's not a good thing. It's the root problem of a lot of anti-social behavior. It's teaching a whole new generation that there isn't consequences to their actions. It's facilitating illegal activity (there's a can of worms). If an actual name and address was attached to each and every comment made, I doubt you'd see some of the behavior that's displayed now....including some of the shiat I write.

If it is the "root problem" we wouldn;t be seeing these things prior to to the mid 90's (or later).

It facilitates illegal activity in the same manner that not having GPS trackers on us every second facilitates illegal activity.

And finally you are a coawrd for holding this stance, but not willing to put your name/address out there.

indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet.

That is a can of worms. While I'm not ashamed of things I say (because I avoid saying things that I'd be ashamed of), I do occasionally post in threads that my employers (and students) would misunderstand.

Being able to participate on public forums under a number of pseudonyms allows me (with some reasonable precautions), to keep my private, public, and professional lives as partitioned as possible without forcing me to entirely smother the person I am. If I had to force myself to live that repressed, I really would eventually become a Fark headline.

Don't do it! THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER!

Is this supposed to be "gritty in depth journalism" tracking down an internet troll?

Seriously?

Track down a crack or heroine dealer, maybe an arms smuggler, a back alley abortionist or something - this is shiate!

But at least they put a fyess to the nyem.

indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet. It's not a good thing. It's the root problem of a lot of anti-social behavior. It's teaching a whole new generation that there isn't consequences to their actions. It's facilitating illegal activity (there's a can of worms). If an actual name and address was attached to each and every comment made, I doubt you'd see some of the behavior that's displayed now....including some of the shiat I write.

It would also result in more murders of people with reasonable opinions.

s2s2s2: indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet. It's not a good thing. It's the root problem of a lot of anti-social behavior. It's teaching a whole new generation that there isn't consequences to their actions. It's facilitating illegal activity (there's a can of worms). If an actual name and address was attached to each and every comment made, I doubt you'd see some of the behavior that's displayed now....including some of the shiat I write.

It would also result in more murders of people with reasonable opinions.

Isn't there a link on the main page about a man who murdered a couple for 'unfriending' his daughter on Facebook?

Whodat: Granted racists are pricks but at least here in the States they have the right to freely express their prickdom. Convicted of espousing a belief system seems odd to me.

There are laws just like this in the US. Zachrey Harris, 23, was convicted April 6 of ethnic intimidation, a class 1 misdemeanor, for using racial slurs and comments - like "get out of my country"

Prosecutions are just as rare in the UK, you'd have to be pretty extreme to get convicted, but it can happen.

madcan34: Isn't there a link on the main page about a man who murdered a couple for 'unfriending' his daughter on Facebook?

Yes.

Mark Ratner: AverageAmericanGuy: Now why would anyone troll memorial websites?..

I think the second L has been shopped. I can't tell from the pixels, but the lower part of the L is noticeably shorter, like its been squeezed in there.

The original would be for the Lutz family.

What a waste of time that was. They should have told him he had won a vacation in America, then dropped him off in downtown Detroit. For the lulz.

relcec: Flint Ironstag: Whodat: Granted racists are pricks but at least here in the States they have the right to freely express their prickdom. Convicted of espousing a belief system seems odd to me.

There are laws just like this in the US. Zachrey Harris, 23, was convicted April 6 of ethnic intimidation, a class 1 misdemeanor, for using racial slurs and comments - like "get out of my country"

Prosecutions are just as rare in the UK, you'd have to be pretty extreme to get convicted, but it can happen.


there are not laws that are anything like that here. Z. Harris can be distinguished from the UK cases where just espousing a negative belief about a group on the internet can get you thrown in jail, and is more similar to a disturbing the peace charge here in the U.S.
he was screaming racial insults at someone face to face. he wasn't saying blacks are lazy or chinese can't drive on facebook. he could have just as easily been thrown in jail for disturbing the peace without that ordinance even being passed.

Cite?

MooseUpNorth: Mark Ratner: AverageAmericanGuy: Now why would anyone troll memorial websites?..

I think the second L has been shopped. I can't tell from the pixels, but the lower part of the L is noticeably shorter, like its been squeezed in there.

The original would be for the Lutz family.

The original, in case anyone's interested, is in Kansas. clicky pop

Me thinks he watched Jackie Brown or read Huckleberry Finn too many times.

MooseUpNorth: indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet.

That is a can of worms. While I'm not ashamed of things I say (because I avoid saying things that I'd be ashamed of), I do occasionally post in threads that my employers (and students) would misunderstand.

Being able to participate on public forums under a number of pseudonyms allows me (with some reasonable precautions), to keep my private, public, and professional lives as partitioned as possible without forcing me to entirely smother the person I am. If I had to force myself to live that repressed, I really would eventually become a Fark headline.

It's strange how the internet has ever allowed anonymity in the first place. Has any phenomena like this ever happened before in the history of mankind where a society has allowed all of it's member to say or act as they want without any ramifications? I know the moderators at fark act as an ad hoc government (in a sense) but generally, there's nothing codified in history that I'm aware of. No precedent that allows a faceless person to say what they want without consequence. If you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper, you have to include your information which is verified before your letter is printed. In a large gathering of people, you can say anything you want, but the response is always immediate. Hey, this is really strange. How come we've been allowed to get away with this so far? Government (no matter what the political stripe) doesn't allow for anonymity. You can't wear a ski mask into a bank. You can't walk into a police station and say "cops are asshole pigs that fark their mothers" and expect nothing to happen. And there's nothing saying an ISP can't demand you start using your name and real address. Weird.

indarwinsshadow: MooseUpNorth: indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet.

That is a can of worms. While I'm not ashamed of things I say (because I avoid saying things that I'd be ashamed of), I do occasionally post in threads that my employers (and students) would misunderstand.

Being able to participate on public forums under a number of pseudonyms allows me (with some reasonable precautions), to keep my private, public, and professional lives as partitioned as possible without forcing me to entirely smother the person I am. If I had to force myself to live that repressed, I really would eventually become a Fark headline.

It's strange how the internet has ever allowed anonymity in the first place. Has any phenomena like this ever happened before in the history of mankind where a society has allowed all of it's member to say or act as they want without any ramifications? I know the moderators at fark act as an ad hoc government (in a sense) but generally, there's nothing codified in history that I'm aware of. No precedent that allows a faceless person to say what they want without consequence. If you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper, you have to include your information which is verified before your letter is printed. In a large gathering of people, you can say anything you want, but the response is always immediate. Hey, this is really strange. How come we've been allowed to get away with this so far? Government (no matter what the political stripe) doesn't allow for anonymity. You can't wear a ski mask into a bank. You can't walk into a police station and say "cops are asshole pigs that fark their mothers" and expect nothing to happen. And there's nothing saying an ISP can't demand you start using your name and real address. Weird.

You can write books and or newspaper opinion pieces using fake names. Even ol Benjiman Franklin did it and I don't think people usually find out until the writer comes clean or dies.

lokisbong: ol Benjiman Franklin

Sorry for misspelling your name Benjamin Franklin.

indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet. It's not a good thing. It's the root problem of a lot of anti-social behavior. It's teaching a whole new generation that there isn't consequences to their actions. It's facilitating illegal activity (there's a can of worms). If an actual name and address was attached to each and every comment made, I doubt you'd see some of the behavior that's displayed now....including some of the shiat I write.

Given that someone did find my real name, where I lived, and my workplace and proceeded to threaten to harass my coworkers by informing them of my "vicious online activities" (for constructively criticizing a story she wrote), I think the can of worms would get much, much worse if people were required to give out their RL information out to the entire planet.

indarwinsshadow: MooseUpNorth: indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet.

That is a can of worms. While I'm not ashamed of things I say (because I avoid saying things that I'd be ashamed of), I do occasionally post in threads that my employers (and students) would misunderstand.

Being able to participate on public forums under a number of pseudonyms allows me (with some reasonable precautions), to keep my private, public, and professional lives as partitioned as possible without forcing me to entirely smother the person I am. If I had to force myself to live that repressed, I really would eventually become a Fark headline.

It's strange how the internet has ever allowed anonymity in the first place. Has any phenomena like this ever happened before in the history of mankind where a society has allowed all of it's member to say or act as they want without any ramifications? I know the moderators at fark act as an ad hoc government (in a sense) but generally, there's nothing codified in history that I'm aware of. No precedent that allows a faceless person to say what they want without consequence. If you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper, you have to include your information which is verified before your letter is printed. In a large gathering of people, you can say anything you want, but the response is always immediate. Hey, this is really strange. How come we've been allowed to get away with this so far? Government (no matter what the political stripe) doesn't allow for anonymity. You can't wear a ski mask into a bank. You can't walk into a police station and say "cops are asshole pigs that fark their mothers" and expect nothing to happen. And there's nothing saying an ISP can't demand you start using your name and real address. Weird.

The freedom of the internet is it's best, and sometimes worst, feature. I doubt any government would have allowed it to happen if they had known how it would turn out. But it started as just a geek thing that was ignored, dismissed or just not understood by politicians and by the time they realised what it was it was too late.

You can write to a newspaper without giving you details, there is no law saying they need it, but they may have a policy of asking and can, of course, decline to publish. Or give a flase name and address of course.
Speakers Corner in the UK is a traditional place for anyone to say anything they want, and there is no requirement to give your name, though you could of course been seen.

For me, while trolling might be bad, the same freedom is also what allows dissidents in dictatorships to speak and communicate, so the good outweighs the bad.

indarwinsshadow: Yeah, I know this comment won't be popular, but I'd like to see the end of anonymity on the internet. It's not a good thing. It's the root problem of a lot of anti-social behavior. It's teaching a whole new generation that there isn't consequences to their actions. It's facilitating illegal activity (there's a can of worms). If an actual name and address was attached to each and every comment made, I doubt you'd see some of the behavior that's displayed now....including some of the shiat I write.

I mean, there are people who will get violent just for others disagreeing with them. Do you want them to know where you live? Do you think a homosexual man wants the Westboro Baptist Church to know where he works? In forcing people to reveal their real name and location, you expose them to groups like this which means less people will feel free to speak their minds.

And as pointed out, it also is a function of Free Speech against tyrannical governments.

Yeah, trolls suck. Illinois Nazi's suck too.

The freedom of expression and communication the anonymity of the internet gives more than outweighs the crazy.

Yeah, rot in piss. You ALL rot in piss!

(Did that guy just tell me to rot in piss? HE can rot in piss.)


/rot in piss

Finally. A face to the name of "Bevets".

Gilligann: Pretty sure the guy never expected his internet act to be called out in real life.

I doubt he will continue now that he's been exposed and people know who he is.
He'll most likely be harrassed. He deserves as much.

THIS

He's not necessarily the worst, and he certainly won't be the last. Just like child molesters and rapists in prison... it will come back on him.

Statcat: Finally. A face to the name of "Bevets".

Bevets would not do the trolling thing like that he would just spam them with religious quotes. Bevets has never that I have seen even been rude just pushy and bot like with the quotes.

relcec: Flint Ironstag: relcec: Flint Ironstag: Whodat: Granted racists are pricks but at least here in the States they have the right to freely express their prickdom. Convicted of espousing a belief system seems odd to me.

There are laws just like this in the US. Zachrey Harris, 23, was convicted April 6 of ethnic intimidation, a class 1 misdemeanor, for using racial slurs and comments - like "get out of my country"

Prosecutions are just as rare in the UK, you'd have to be pretty extreme to get convicted, but it can happen.


there are not laws that are anything like that here. Z. Harris can be distinguished from the UK cases where just espousing a negative belief about a group on the internet can get you thrown in jail, and is more similar to a disturbing the peace charge here in the U.S.
he was screaming racial insults at someone face to face. he wasn't saying blacks are lazy or chinese can't drive on facebook. he could have just as easily been thrown in jail for disturbing the peace without that ordinance even being passed.

Cite?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-jailed-for-racist-int er net-post-2371883.html (new window)



"Hope they all die. Simple. Catholic scumbags ha ha" and the rest isn't "just espousing a negative belief about a group", it's hate speech. Hate speech in a highly charged Catholic vs Protestant community in the lead up to a Celtic vs Rangers game. It is inciting violence.

Gilligann: Pretty sure the guy never expected his internet act to be called out in real life.

I doubt he will continue now that he's been exposed and people know who he is.
He'll most likely be harrassed. He deserves as much.

If there is any justice in the world, he'll be shamed into a quivering mass of sobbing flesh.

/but there is no justice in the world, so he'll probably get a TV show or a book deal...

mooseyfate: Gilligann: Pretty sure the guy never expected his internet act to be called out in real life.

I doubt he will continue now that he's been exposed and people know who he is.
He'll most likely be harrassed. He deserves as much.

If there is any justice in the world, he'll be shamed into a quivering mass of sobbing flesh.

/but there is no justice in the world, so he'll probably get a TV show or a book deal...

This is in the U.K., not the U.S. He'll become a columnist at the Daily Mail.

Flint Ironstag: there are not laws that are anything like that here. Z. Harris can be distinguished from the UK cases where just espousing a negative belief about a group on the internet can get you thrown in jail, and is more similar to a disturbing the peace charge here in the U.S.

Z. Harris, what have you done?