We need a better conversation
By Emma.
Last night and much of today, Twitter has been all aflutter about a case of quite horrible abuse sent over the network to the Olympic Diver Tom Daley. The abuse was sent from a 17 year old boy, and eventually, the police were called in as his abuse got threatening. It was also visible from the original tweet stream, that Daley wasn’t the only recipient of vile, sexualised, misogynistic, racist tweets from the account in question. What happens next is up to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts. In this case, with the law as it stands, I will say no more about the details of this individual case as to not prejudice the outcome.
But the debate about the case on Twitter has been instructive. In the main, it has boiled down to two points of view – that the perpetrator should be prosecuted and jailed or that he should be left alone and the authorities not involved at all.
I don’t get a great deal of abuse on Twitter. I get some – usually when someone better know and more controversial than me quotes or retweets me – but not anything like that which well know people get and live through daily. I’ve blocked a couple of particularly obnoxious people, and I’ve been blocked myself by others tired of what I wanted to say to them – as is their right. I think my Twitter experience is pretty much average, so I have no axe to grind in this debate.
But I don’t believe that it should be up to the victims of abuse to be the ones to have to “protect” themselves or to “accept” that their profile brings with it inevitable unwanted consequences. I feel it is wrong to say that of any other abuse and it’s wrong of this one. We’ve come a long way from “stick and stones” and just because the chances of physical harm after internet interactions are more remote (though not impossible – which is why threats of violence should always be taken seriously) the damage of constant verbal and written abuse through the web can be harmful mentally and emotionally and no one who receives such abuse should have to put up with it.
That’s not to say that debate can’t and shouldn’t be robust. But there is a difference between challenging a viewpoint and abuse. Those who fail to see that diminsh our chance at both having proper debate in which all feel free to take part, and at stopping abusers from abusing.
However, I’m not convinced that the best course of action for those who abuse others over Twitter is always to criminalise them. Where they have made a real and credible threat, then yes, they should be treated as someone would be who has dome so in a pub, a library or a shop. But I think that’s a different category from the world of the troll.
I think there must be triggers into what makes someone behave as an online troll. I don’t think nearly enough time and energy has been put into finding out what those are and how they can be changed. The Police may well be the first call when incidents like these take place, but there should be a route that addresses their behaviours but doesn’t lead to criminal prosecution. Should the authorities we call in on such occasions be widened to social services? Psychiatrists?
What we have seen is that trolling doesn’t happen simply as an individual activity. Take the case of the vicious attacks on Gamers Against Bigotry or on Anita Sarkeesian which were gang-organised and highly predatory. Picking off individuals within that action would have made little difference as they were group attacks. They were responding to the culture online that protects and prizes a trolls’ right to troll over a victim’s right not to be abused.
There are not easy answers. The Internet is not yet a mature space and we are all still finding ways to deal with the new possibilities both profoundly exciting and profoundly depressing that it offers us. People have started to move on from the initial sense of wonder and wild-west style entitlement, but we have miles to go before the internet is a mature culture that allows all who partake in it to be free and safe and the best they can be.
I don’t think this will be achieved through heavy handed laws. A great many of the laws already passed have been simply drafted by the naieve or led by the wrong instincts. Based largly on the protection of commerce, not the protection of the individual or of the community, they have usually either failed to achieve their original purpose or had unintended consequences so high-profile and ridiculous that they threaten the whole idea of having a legal framework in the first place.
The answer will have to come not just legislatively (though good and well written law has its part to play) but also socially. As we teach our kids about this fact of their lives we need to teach them to interact well online as we try to do so offline. We need to show each other the responsibility we all share for our ever shrinking world and to work together to do that culturally and socially.
Abusive behaviour is not ok. It should never be the “price we pay” for freedom. It is sick and damaging to the victim and to the abuser. We should be spending far less time arguing about whether to lock the individual abusers up, and far, far more time and energy on how we change that culture forever.
Tags: Internet abuse
Tuesday, July 31st 2012 at 20:38
Agreed totally. If you can’t be prosecuted for verbal bullying/insults of personal nature, criminal law feels utterly heavy-handed. Also twitter gave Tom a great platform to retweet to a disgusted and horrified British public whose support and troll-wrath probably far out-weighed power of original insults. Imagine public exposure if punishment enough for most with option of reporting to school/ employers, gps or psychiatrists as further options depending upon seriousness/ motivations of troll.
Tuesday, July 31st 2012 at 20:44
I like your article
One of the things that struck me about this incident (and a similar one involving cricketer David Lloyd a week or two back) is that the “supporters” of the celebs weighed in in their defence by using exactly the same kind of language and threats as the perpetrator had in the first place. This is surely not acceptable either.
The person last night appeared to be interacting with twitter much as an immature person might muck about with a voice recognition system. “Please say your name slowly after the bleep” “Fuck off” – “I’m sorry I don’t recognise Fuck off – please say a name after the bleep”
Ho Ho many hours of hiliarity (I remember seeing Ozzy Osbourne doing it with his Sat Nav). Thing is the lad last night didn’t seem to comprehend that his actions were of any consequence to anyone but himself – he may as well have been playing Call of Duty against an anonymous on line opponent.
Somewhere along the line we have to move towards a recognition that on-line comments, tweets, facebook updates or whatever, do have consequences and the people who make them have to be responsible for them. So if you make threats, then you have to be ready to face the consequences.
We do have to retain a sense of perspective though. If that guy had heckled Tom Daley at the poolside instead of over the net, then I dare say police might have been involved. He wouldn’t have gone to prison though – and he shouldn’t go to prison for tweeting horrible stuff. It is a crime, it’s not a nice one, but it’s not like he’s hurt anyone, killed anyone, stolen anything or been dishonest. He’s just been unpleasant.
I’ve been a member of a football email list for many years (for Huddersfield Town) and what’s always impressed me has been how it polices itself in relation to list etiquette. For a start bad language isn’t allowed – it’s in the list description – and it’s pointed out that other lists exist where bad language IS allowed (and many of the members are the same ones). If you transgress you will get a warning from one of the other posters, if you carry on, they’ll gang up on you, and you’ll find yourself removed from the list.
Racism is also completely out of order. Which causes the occasional problem – usually in relation to Leeds United. Hurling abuse at Leeds is of course acceptable (so long as you don’t use bad language) – but using the traditional Huddersfield term of abuse for a Leeds fan : “Yid” is unthinkable. Yet many supporters don’t actually know that it’s an anti-semitic insult. Whatever – if you use it you’ll be taken to task. If you support another team and join the list that’s fine, but not if you make offensive comments about Huddersfield. The list runs a reciprocal arrangement with other football team lists, so that if you get barred from one list, you tend to get barred from the others too – in this way we avoid most of the “Your team is shit, ours is brill” “No our team is brill your team is shit” kind of silly banter that seems to clog up a lot of Youtube comments.
There’s always a second chance on the list though – people are always forgiven – its not about what you did before, it’s about what you do now. Amazingly many of the people who police these rules so well are to my certain knowledge, convicted football hooligans. Although some are police officers as well. Most people don’t know which is which though.
I’ve read your blog a few times – it’s good site – please keep it up !
Tuesday, July 31st 2012 at 20:57
Thanks for sharing that. I’ve had my own excellent experiences with well run sites that would confirm what you’re talking about. But does this only work with smaller, more manageable lists? I don’t know, but would be interested to see it investigated.
Friday, August 10th 2012 at 09:59
Why do people twitter, and if you do and people do not like you then a bit of growing up is needed, free speech we are told is a human right.
But of course if you have nothing to say then say nothing, sadly having free speech will mean people will say what they think and some of that may well be against you.
I have noticed also on a number of sites when a person who has obviously got a mental health issue the abuse that person gets, people have to accept some of the things which come on twitter will be from people who are suffering mental health issues, or people who do not think your an angel.
I would have said that to many of the people in the Olympic games open them self up to accusations of making money, well of course you have to live.
In the end I really would say if your in sport in the public eye, why twitter.
Friday, August 10th 2012 at 10:20
You want freedom of speech for trolls, but not for people whose achievements put them in the public eye? You would deny those sportspeople who enjoy it the pleasure of tweeting?