Spent six months in the UK a few years back.

of course it can and often has got somewhat out of hand. (xpost)

I’ll chime in here and say that trolling leading to school shootings is hyperbolic and extreme and I don’t really see how the two connect.

though I am guilty of the second part of this statement myself, not thinking this is “real” as I probably should.

thinking of other figures on the internet as amusing playtoys and not actual people out there somewhere,

“Troll” is like the “Emo” of internet jargon. It meant one very simple type of dickish behavior: http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html See “they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand”? Now it has seemingly took on the meaning of “anyone who posts offensive/inflammatory/disruptive messages of any sort” and it used to summarily dismiss a person or post (often deserving of dismissal).

Likewise “Emo” once meant one particular thing: http://www.fourfa.com/history.htm but now means many: http://www.fourfa.com/styles/index.htm—even beyond what is listed there; encompassing choadish NME pop punk shit! Even the US/UK divide on the term is pretty small compared to the difference between the original and current meanings in the united states.

QUESTION:

has anyone seen NITSUH and MOMUS together? Photos? or are they a regular JANUS?

I read in National Enquirer that Nitsuh and Momus had dinner together and engaged in what some onlookers described as a ‘heated debate’.

I’ll chime in here and say that trolling leading to school shootings is hyperbolic and extreme

phew, because i thought that was exactly what nabisco was saying.

What (I think) he’s trying to say is that trollers are repressed schoolboys with issues, the very same that have conducted school shootings. AND LISTEN TO MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE.

thinking of other figures on the internet as amusing playtoys and not actual people out there somewhere,

If you ever had the pleasure of watching MUSE fans discover your favorite band, you would stop feeling like these people’s feelings matter.

xpost, or MUSE?

Calum was pretty combative from the word go, IIRC.

(x-post I haven’t seen Momus post here (sandbox) at all?)

I like the school shootings analogy. (Mr. Que, “analogous” does not mean “causal”.)

the troll/emo thing is otm.

I’ll chime in here and say that trolling leading to school shootings is hyperbolic and extreme
phew, because i thought that was exactly what nabisco was saying.

— temporary enrique (miltonpinsk...), December 21st, 2006.

I guess what I mean here is that Nabisco’s thoughts that trolling leads to school shootings are way off base and I don’t think ever happen in real life, and have no basis in fact.

That’s not what he said though, is it?

Yes because arguments on message boards are invariably going to lead to DUNBLANE-STYLE CARNAGE if its perpetrators are not summarily ROUNDED UP AND DISPOSED OF FOR THE GREATER GOOD

It’s totally not. (xpost)

Trolls of interest to me lately: PEW, who was uncannily accurate at hitting all my rage buttons by saying things like “I’m here to teach you.” And this new Fake Dirty Vicar, who has subtly managed to make at least one person think he was the actual DV. Is this person really a troll, if all he’s done is start using a variation on another person’s screen name, without making explicit claims to be that person or even use his writing style?

there’s a fake DV?

The guy who posts as The Real Dirty Vicar — maybe he’s real, but he’s not ILX’s Original Dirty Vicar.

i don’t mind trolls on their own threads like PEW, and tbh ilx is mostly free of people like him and nude spock grubbing up other threads. the ‘trolling’ is basically people taking threads in directions they always go in type stuff.

Oh come fucking on, some of you: you all read English well enough to see that I did not say trolling leads to school shootings. I said it’s “kind of a similar dynamic!” As is basically any situation where someone feels resentful of a community they feel excludes them, and then starts dreaming up ways to take revenge on the community as a whole. You’d think anyone with a minimum fourth-grade reading level could tell the difference between “similar dynamic” and “leads to.” (And maybe not read such a “bold statement” into a footnote with two question marks after it, which is pretty much by definition not that bold a statement.)

The best part about sandbILx is that I was contacted by a troll when it was announced and we brainstormed and registered many many login names. Who knows, half of this board could be an elaborate ruse put on by sockpuppets, by my contact and his organized clandestine group of 33rd degree troll cohorts.

JW is making me doubt my own existence now.

“I was contacted by a troll”!!

PLEASE TO ADD TINY IMAGE OF KEN C DANCING!!!!

I just don’t see the similar dynamic, at all. Saying crazy stuff on ILE, or starting a thread that says I HATE ALL BRITISHERS (with plenty of examples to back it up, natch) is entirely different then shooting a bunch of people for “revenge”. I guess I don’t buy the whole trolling=revenge. Sometimes people are just assholes, which is the case of trolls I think.

The troll then left the country for Spain, getting through customs wearing a veil and an eyepatch.

lolz

wanting to revenge a specific act ≠ feeling excluded from discourse

pony-poops, erm people were defending you yes. it was quite obvious Que had misquoted you.

“um,, what is it we don’t talk about again?”

xpost

Also, PEW-style trolls who spread their shit far and wide are very interesting to me because my own trollish (and many of all of ours here) seem to get the most ground from jaymc-esque referencing information from years past.

yeah exactly. jw OTM^^^^^

I would say that Nitsuh is trolling on this thread.

jon is furry?

How so, Marcello?

in a Scottish accent

i agree with pashmina (from waaay up there): ppl are absolutely like they are online.

Some people are, some people aren’t.

Sometimes I think ILX — especially ILM — consists of trolling in reverse

deliberately confrontational intro

(* Ultimate in real-life trolling = school shootings??)

deliberately provocative/idiotic assertion

You’d think anyone with a minimum fourth-grade reading level could tell the difference between “similar dynamic” and “leads to.”

characteristic condescending sneer

Classical for a troll.

Que, I was pointing out that those were two distinct concepts and that both of them are applicable to both situations. I think the overall comparison was valid.

XPOST

(xpost) Hmm, perhaps. But you’ve forgotten something:

I think Nabisco qualified his comments well enough, it’s hardly your typical trolling “lob in a bomb then run off sniggering to hide behind a tree whilst damage is wreaked” behaviour.

(xpost to Marcello)

So a certain amount of frustration with discourse, and expressing same, is trolling?

you are all morons.

apart from rock hardy

ken c otm

bai

ppl are absolutely like they are online.

80–90% untrue in my personal experience

totally ridiculous to accuse nabisco of trolling on this thread. some people really have no idea what it actually means. see jon w’s post upthread for the original and correct meaning.

no, i think they are. maybe not in the way they intend. what reason is there to believe people would be so different from an ostensible “persona”? as if what they are, “really”, is any less of one. or as if the will to put something on isn’t transparently indicative in itself.

We’re talking about people who respond to their awkwardness or failures in social settings with pattern acts of aggression—in that case I see the faintest of analogies between the psychology of trolls and school shooters (but why restrict it to schools—mass murderers hew to a fairly consistent psychological profile, from Howard Unruh to Charles Whitmore to Harris & Klebod). Obv the diff between ILX and Columbine is several orders of magnitude.

xxxpost So either way I lose, Stevem. So you’re an asshole/nice in real life? ;-)

as i said

xxxpost

ppl are absolutely like they are online.

97% true in my experience with meeting ILXors. (Sample size: 7)

i don’t see “omg he was such a raging prick online but out in the pub he was kind of sweet” dynamics as such a mindblowing schizophrenia or proof of an elaborate performance, btw

80–90% untrue in my personal experience

ok what i really meant was that the vast majority of people who act like cunts online do not really do so offline. but 80–90% of people on ilx are both okay online and in person. sorry 4 confusion.

It’s harder to act like a cunt in person because you’re more likely to get a punch to the face.

I was just about to post that!

ALL TROLLS ARE MURDERERS

hardly your typical trolling “lob in a bomb then run off sniggering to hide behind a tree whilst damage is wreaked” behaviour

Hahaha interesting metaphor!

(P.S. “frustration with discourse” does not make one a troll, but I think the decision to try and disrupt that discourse, or try to make the people engaged in it miserable, or somehow try to sabotage or destroy the place where that discourse takes place ... that’s where it becomes trollish, right? At some point people give up on penetrating the discourse directly and just start, you know, bitterly lobbing bombs into it, bombs that have nothing to do with the ideas in question, and are just a kind of disruption/sabotage/revenge.)

(P.P.S. The “orders of magnitude” difference should be taken as obvious and given in the analogy I proposed there. And I suggested schools as an example because (a) they’re a closed small social system, like an individual message board, plus (b) the mentality of trolling seems a pretty juvenile.)

Nabisco and Momus met earlier this year:

Oh, and I finally met a longstanding online sparring partner, Nitsuh Ebebe of Pitchfork (Nabisco is his online moniker), with whom I’ve recently crossed swords over the legacy of Betty Friedan and Bush’s Middle East plans. I’m hoping we can do dinner soon, because our differences are very small ones.

Re: “The Real Dirty Vicar” = I probably haven’t been paying close enough attention, but I thought that he called himself Dirty Vicar, and then when he was informed that there was already a Dirty Vicar who sometimes posted to this board, he changed his name, somewhat cheekily, to The Real Dirty Vicar. I haven’t noticed any malice in his posts.

but I think the decision to try and disrupt that discourse, or try to make the people engaged in it miserable, or somehow try to sabotage or destroy the place where that discourse takes place ... that’s where it becomes trollish, right?

i think so yes

(P.S. “frustration with discourse” does not make one a troll, but I think the decision to try and disrupt that discourse, or try to make the people engaged in it miserable, or somehow try to sabotage or destroy the place where that discourse takes place ... that’s where it becomes trollish, right? At some point people give up on penetrating the discourse directly and just start, you know, bitterly lobbing bombs into it, bombs that have nothing to do with the ideas in question, and are just a kind of disruption/sabotage/revenge.)

Nabisco, does it ever get tiring to be so consistently on the money all the time? Like, doesn’t your change pocket ever get frayed? ;-)

“longstanding online sparring partner” = careerist troll

It’s harder to act like a cunt in person because you’re more likely to get a punch to the face.

in a nutshell! should be engraved all over the internet, really, just to remind some people

^^ real jaymc ^^

Kenan, STFU. You’re actually fun to talk to at parties and out drinking, etc. You’re only really insufferable online. And really, that’s not such a bad thing. For you. For the rest of us, it sucks.

— crunkleJ (samsajk...), December 16th, 2006. (crunkleJ) (later) (link)

Spot the troll.

to get away from the analogy talk, I think some trollish behavior is a cry for attention, i.e. PEW’s posts that link to his MySpace blog. Some people probably get off on the attention from stirring up shit, and it has nothing much to do with malice or anger or revenge.

That troll’s so full of Ronin (xpost).

I think most behaviour on ILX is a cry for attention, tbh. Why post your thoughts and opinions etc on the internet for perusal by strangers unless you are, to some extent or other, wanting to be noticed for it. Why not just lurk?

“longstanding online sparring partner” = careerist troll

I can’t tell if you’re trying to be funny and failing, or trying to be clueless and succeeding.

this is the bone stupidest thread in sandbox history

Another two trolls there.

The meme bored office workers seems to be the elephant in this thread’s sitting room.

hahahaha, okay, Marcello, okay.

lex speaks from experience!

i don’t act the same way in real life as i do online because typing is a different method of communication. it’s harder to XPOST and still follow a decent conversation for a start, and it’s harder for people to GET things sometimes in speech.

is there a difference between trolling and heckling?

if not i think Marcello may be the biggest troll in ILX history, in the end. countless unconstructive, unreasonable, dismissive and indeed abusive remarks over the years. and to a number of different people.

no doubt this will be considered trolling by him also. but it is actually the truth.

i think that’s where ‘but he’s fine in person’ holds no truck, for me.

King Troll.

tbh steve is basically otm — i cite the whole ‘let’s deliberately misread nabisco’ thing upthread.

is there a difference between trolling and heckling?

Yes, huge.

steve is alright in real life because he has no ability to ban awesome funny things there.

it’s harder to XPOST and still follow a decent conversation for a start, and it’s harder for people to GET things sometimes in speech.

conversation skills lol

exactly! xposting in speech is way too pr0

I once said “LOL” on stage in a Theatresports show in a kinda trolling way.

That’s kinda real life, innit?

steve is alright in real life because he has no ability to ban awesome funny things there.

i have never banned anything ‘awesome’.

did you spell it out? or was it like “lowl”

is there a difference between trolling and heckling?

if not i think Steve may be the biggest troll in recent ILX history, in the end. countless unconstructive, unreasonable, dismissive and indeed abusive remarks over the last few months. and to a number of different people.

no doubt this will be considered trolling by him also. but it is actually the truth.

whether ‘but he’s fine in person’ holds any truck here i am not qualified to comment since he manfully avoids any direct communication with me in real life situations, so it is difficult to establish the basis for his equivocal assertion.

particularly as i get on perfectly well with ilxors in real life except for the two who noticeably and continually make the loudest noises on ilx. no doubt they do so thinking that the squeakiest wheel gets the oil.

I don’t consider people who post random snarky quips as trolls. Trolls bait people purposefully and/or continously, thriving on extended conflicts that bum everybody else out. They’re pretty easy to kill if you starve them of air, however, they invariably meet some poor sap who thinks they can WIN. My response as always...

Yeah, like “lowl” but the nerds got the message (xpost)

gareth and pinefox?

i said ‘one times’ the other day, out loud.

crosspost

Wow, Stevem. Just wow. I can’t believe you had the guts to say that, but I’m glad that you did.

I think that Nabisco is also getting at something else important—my dichotomy of trolling was based on ideas of “intent” which you can never accurately judge—some people are not even aware of their own intents, let alone that of others.

But that thing where trolling crosses the line and becomes intrusive, and actually becomes a way of stiffling discourse instead of participating in it... Hrmmm. It’s all very interesting food for thought.

roffle

My own personal line between “someone who disagrees with me and/or acts in a way I disapprove of” and “troll” is how easy it is to ignore them. I know, that’s in mine own head, mostly.

There are some people who are able to disagree without making a personal issue or a last stand or whatever out of it. And there are some people that the moment you see them turn up on a thread, you know, that’s it, it’s time to stop participating or sometimes even reading.

That said, I’m sure there are some people who feel that way about me. :;shrugs::

What is “obscene” under U.S. law has plagued our courts for the last fifty years. Many people don’t realize that in our society, which trumpets free speech, that there are many restrictions on speech, including restrictions on adult or sexual images and words—or “obscene” materials. Other forms of unprotected or regulated speech include: speech which creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action; speech which contains narrowly predefined “fighting words”; written or spoken untruths (libel, slander, fraud) which may be punished by civil suit; speech which is false or deceptive advertising; speech which threatens others; and speech with restrictions justified because the government can demonstrate a “narrowly tailored” “compelling interest”.

“Obscene” speech is “unprotected” speech as ruled by the Supreme Court. “Unprotected speech,” means speech that does not enjoy First Amendment protection and may even be criminal to express.

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain “hard-core” pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . ”[1]

This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is “obscene”.

It is surprising that the difficulty in defining obscenity in our history did not fully begin until the mid-1900s. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, who served from 1956 to 1990, who was one of the great, and often liberal, legal minds of the 20th century, attempted repeatedly to define obscenity. The task was much more daunting than he had anticipated.

Background

The book The Brethren[2], by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, outlines the behind-the-scenes battles of the Supreme Court during the 1960’s and 1970’s and provides an interesting background to the obscenity cases decided during that period. The most important case during that time was Miller v. California, which still defines obscenity today.

The Brethren describes Supreme Court “movie day” – when the law clerks and the Justices sat down to eat popcorn and see the porn films for the cases awaiting decisions. Justice Hugo Black, who served from 1937 to 1971, always refused Movie Day by saying “if I want to go see that film, I should pay my money.” Justice Black and Justice William Douglas, who served from 1939 to 1975, at the time were the only two Justices who believed that speech should be entirely free of restrictions.

According to The Brethren, the law clerks that drafted the Justices’ opinions created the following short hand for how their bosses decided if material was obscene:

Justice Byron White’s Definition: “no erect penises, no intercourse, no oral or anal sodomy. For White, no erections and no insertions equaled no obscenity.”

Justice Brennan’s Definition, The Limp Dick Test: “no erections. He was willing to accept penetration as long as the pictures passed what his clerks referred to as the ‘limp dick’ standard. Oral sex was tolerable if there was no erection.”

Justice Stewart’s Definition, The Casablanca Test: “ . . . I know it [obscenity/pornography] when I see it.” In Casablanca, as a Navy lieutenant in World War II and watch officer for his ship, Stewart had seen his men bring back locally produced pornography. He knew the difference between that hardest of hard core and much of what came to the Court. He called it his ‘Casablanca Test’.“

These were the opinions of the more liberal Justices.

The First Definition

In 1957, Brennan crafted the first Supreme Court legal definition of obscenity in the case of Roth v. United States. Although indirectly addressed in the law to this point, Roth’s formal legal holding on pornography was a case of first impression for the US Supreme Court. Brennan held that the First Amendment did not protect obscene materials.

The definition of obscenity set forth in Roth was:

Speech which ” . . . to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest“ and which is ”utterly without redeeming social importance...“

By 1964, lower courts had misapplied the Roth standard resulting in many cases for Court review. Thus, the Court tried to clarify this standard by adding another requirement for obscenity in later opinions – that the material goes ”substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation.“ The Court also clarified that the ”community“ referred to in the definition was as the national, not local, community. This clarification resulted in a more liberal definition of obscenity going forward.

The Second and Current Definition

The tide turned more conservatively on free speech and sex when two liberal elements – Chief Justice Earl Warren, an Eisenhower appointee, resigned in 1969 and Black, a Roosevelt appointee, resigned in 1971. President Nixon appointed two replacements, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice William Rehnquist, along with two other appointees Justice Harry Blackmum and Justice Lewis Powell. With the arrival of Rehnquist and Burger, the Court opinions on obscenity became more conservative.

In the summer of 1973, the Court decided a group of pornography/obscenity cases that set the standards for the future of pornography. In his Dissent in one of these cases, Justice Brennan wearily admitted:

”Our experience since Roth requires us not only to abandon the effort to pick out obscene materials on a case-by-case basis, but also to reconsider a fundamental postulate of Roth: that there exists a definable class of sexually oriented expression that may be suppressed by the Federal and State Governments. Assuming that such a class of expression does in fact exist, I am forced to conclude that the concept of ‘obscenity’ cannot be defined with sufficient specificity and clarity to provide fair notice to persons who create and distribute sexually oriented materials, to prevent substantial erosion of protected speech as a byproduct of the attempt to suppress unprotected speech, and to avoid very costly institutional harms.“[3]

Unfortunately, this realization came too late and without support from the majority of the Court.

Thus, in 1973, in Miller v. California, Justice Burger announced the second definition of obscenity—the majority position of the Court, and the definition, which, more or less, is still in effect today. It is as follows:

”(a) whether the ‘average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.“

This holding specifically replaced the old test and also held that community standards could be local rather than national. This change swung the pendulum back toward a more conservative definition of ”obscenity“ by local, some times rural communities.

As many had complained that these rulings were so vague that they were impossible to comply by those trying to obey the law, the Court set forth examples of what was ”hard core“, or that which the Court considered obscene and illegal. The Court’s list of illegal acts was as follows:

”(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.

(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.“[4]

Clarifications and Today’s Definition

Since Miller, the Court has clarified and explained aspects of the Miller standard:

Jurors are to apply the standards of the area ”from which he comes for making the required “ decision as the ”community standards“ for obscenity; [5]

”[A]ppeals to the prurient interest“ means that which appeals to ”shameful or morbid interests“ in sex, but not that which incites normal lust [6] and includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group; [7]

”[A]verage person “ includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children; [8]

Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude a finding that a work is obscene.[9]

Additionally the Court has created a sort of middle category of materials – ”indecent“ materials that are protected speech. Indecent materials are defined as those which show ”nonconformance with accepted standards of morality.“[10] After reviewing the above, most persons, including lawyers, remain confused about what is and is not legally permissible.

The Definition of Child Pornography

In New York v. Ferber in 1982, the Court held that ”the States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children“ because:

”It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in ‘safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor’ is ‘compelling’“ and therefore that narrowly tailored government interests may restrict such speech as stated in the initial definitions of restricted speech above.

”The distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children in at least two ways. First the materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child pornography must be closed if the production of material which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be effectively controlled.“

”The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal through the Nation.“

”The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis.“

”Recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the protection of the First Amendment is not incompatible with our earlier decisions“

The Court then declared a more conservative Miller standard applicable for child pornography:

”A trier of fact need not find that the material appeals to the prurient interest of the average person; it is not required that sexual conduct portrayed be done so in a patently offensive manner; and the material at issue need not be considered as a whole.“

Conclusion

What persons in the sex industry typically fail to understand is how conservative the legal standards for pornography are and how vulnerable to prosecution they truly are due to these vagaries. One reading of the personal obscenity tests of the liberal justices of the past makes that clear.

What the Miller test outlines is the outer most limits on banning sexual speech. Thus, nearly all legislation at the both state and federal level, simply copies the Miller test into its language since substitution of even a single word can result in the law being held unconstitutional. The result is that application of the Miller test – what ”prurient“, ”patently offensive“, or having ”social, artistic or scientific value“ is, and what the local standard are for such decisions—rests squarely in the hands of the juries of each state. In the end, the Court concluded that this decision was one that must be made by each state, not the Supreme Court.

FOOTNOTES

1 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964)

2 The Brethren, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, (Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 193–200.

3 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 103 (1973)

4 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24–25 (1973)

5 Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 105 (1974)

6 Brockett v. Spokan Arcades Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985)

7 Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966)

8 Pinkus v. United States, 436 U.S. 293, 298–299 (1978)

9 Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987)

10 FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726, 741 (1978)

as i said.

It’s child’s play.