7/30/2019 On Internet Comments and ‘Trolling’

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/on-internet-comments-and-trolling 1/1

On Internet Comments and ‘Trolling’ 

What is ‘trolling’?  

In modern online discourse, the word ‘troll’ is applied to people who post deliberately 

provocative comments in the hope of causing an argument or distraction on forums

and comment sections..

It is widely acknowledged that the most appropriate and efficient way to deal with ‘trolling’ is to ignore the

comments. This insight has given rise to the phrase ‘don’t feed the trolls’, meaning, do not respond to those

deliberately seeking to distract from the discussion at hand.

‘Trolling’ is annoying for those seeking a serious discussion, but it is not a practice that should be proscribed by law.

Those who maintain spaces for online discussion should be left to moderate such comments as they see fit. They may

choose to delete such comments, leave them in place, or label them as ‘trolls’.  

Trolling is not... 

●  … Disagreement or dissent - Many politicians and public figures are often surprised by the large negative

reaction to articles they may publish. This leads them to describe any derogatory or derisive comments, or

even comments that disagree with them, as ‘trolling’. 

●  … Abuse and threats - Threatening or abusive comments online, whether specific or general, are covered

by existing laws governing communications and hate speech. The Director of Public Prosecutions has issued

interim guidelines on when to prosecute this kind of behaviour online. The guidelines state that messages

that include a ‘credible threat’, or breach a court order, should be “prosecuted robustly” under Section 16 of 

the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, or Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

●  … Harssment and stalking - Persistent electronic messages that may not be individually threatening, but together may constitute stalking. Such communications may also be dealt with through existing law. The

DPP’s social media guidelines also cite the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 as a means to prosecute

those who engage in this kind of behaviour online. No new laws are required to address this problem.

●  …. Anonymous and pseudonymous commenting. It is a mistake to assume that anonymous comments

are inherently negative and to be discouraged. Maintaining privacy online allows people to participate in

discussions that they may otherwise be excluded from. It allows people to explore different identities and

interests of which their family and friends may disapprove, and professionals to discuss their work without 

revealing client or patient’s details. Anonymity prevents identity theft.  Anonymity allows online

communities and online economies to flourish. It is not a niche protection for a small number of 

corporate whistleblowers. 

Finally... 

Trolling is not defamation.  It is incorrect to use the word ‘trolling’ to describe the publication of, or linking to,

defamatory content. It is also wrong to equate any of the practices above (dissent, abuse, stalking, anonymity) as

being related to defamation. They are conceptually different problems, and it would be unwise to use the Defamation

Bill as a vehicle to address other perceived concerns about online discourse.