In recent
years, with the expansion of social media and other communication applications
across the online community, the practice of “trolling” has become more
prevalent. Some ethics scholars, such as Judith Donath, have expressed trolling
as simply an “identity game”, where an anonymous or pseudonymous user attempts
to pass his or herself off as a legitimate member of a group bounded by common
interests and ideas. However, many others see the practice of trolling to have
negative connotations, to either disrupt or transgress a particular online
community’s norms or even to go as far as to wish harm or unpleasant thoughts
upon others among one’s online audience.
Websites such as Facebook and The Huffington Post have
attempted to curb this increasingly aggressive behavior by requiring users to
use their real names in order to actively participate in their online
communities. Other sites, such as Twitter, have had no success in deterring the
potentially abusive practice, with Twitter Chief Executive Dick Costolo
admitting “We suck at dealing with abuse and trolls on the
platform and we've sucked at it for years.” However, governments have recently
addressed concerns from citizens about the levels of mob harassment and
threatening activity associated with trolling and cyberbullying and one
particular country may soon be taking extreme measures to combat the problem.
The
Republic of Ireland’s lower legislative house (Dail Eirann) is currently
debating a measure that would criminalize the act of sending “a message or
other matter that is grossly offensive or is indecent, obscene or menacing.”
The measure, proposed by Pat Rabbitte, former Minister of Communications, would
also criminalize content sent that generates “annoyance, inconvenience, or
needless anxiety to a person without reasonable cause.” A conviction under this
potential law would result in up to a five year prison sentence, a €75,000
fine, and the confiscation of the sender’s phone, tablet, or PC.
While
many can agree that the law would further protect individuals from unwanted
harassment and threatening online behavior, there is a potential problem in the
scope of legislation that could potentially curb freedom of speech and
expression. This problem lies with what behavior would qualify as annoying,
offensive, or inconvenient to others. While many would agree that wishing death
upon someone and/or their family members repeatedly would be considered
offensive and annoying, what about political activists sending out campaign
literature for or against issues such as same-sex marriage, environmental
concerns, tax increases? What about retailers who send out coupons or other
promotional deals to attractive customer bases in order to attract new
business? Would that be obscene, annoying, or inconvenient?
In
a deontological perspective, that section of the law would not particularly
work because in a democratic multicultural society such as Ireland as well as
the majority of the world’s most developed countries, citizens have varying
degrees of constitutional free speech and expression which inform them on what
they believe to be obscene, annoying, or inconvenient online behavior of others.
There would be no feasible way to adopt a universal maxim of this scope because
people in this society have not universally defined what is obscene, annoying,
or inconvenient to them. What might be annoying to some, like a person
repeatedly sending them memes of cats, might be enjoyable to others or what
might be obscene to some, like a person sharing sexual photos or risqué jokes,
might not seem obscene or offensive to others.
In
a utilitarian perspective, even though the definitions of what is obscene,
annoying, or inconvenient would have more of a consensus as to what is good for
the greatest number of people, there could still be groups that deontologists
could argue that are being denied their basic rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of property. For a modern example, if the majority of people in Ireland
find blog posts or shared information supporting gay rights to be obscene, the
LGBT community could be discriminated against which could potentially be viewed
as being denied the same near absolute rights as heterosexual citizens. This
example may also be used to undermine the perspective if religious groups were
labeled as obscene for posting or sharing online information against gay rights
that transgresses what the majority of Ireland’s population believes.
Considering
that offenders of this law would be looked at on a case-by-case basis, this
practice of adjudication could also have the potential to set dangerous
precedents on what is obscene, annoying, and inconvenient for the country’s
citizens. This practice could have the potential to introduce a system of
guidelines or virtues for all citizens to live by in practicing online
etiquette, which is not ideal because individuals have different ideas of what
is right and just in order to live happy and satisfying lives.
In
looking at the potential ethical problems this measure could create if passed
into law, there is a strong argument that it should be narrowed in scope.
Instead of focusing on what could be obscene, annoying, or inconvenient, which
could open up a floodgate of legal proceedings not only in Ireland but other
countries that could seek to adopt similar measures in the future, the Irish
legislature should focus more on the sinister acts of trolling and
cyberbullying that manifest in threats of violence and persistent, aggressive
harassment. Honing in on the specific intent of the government to stop this
sort of behavior may prove to be more effective in deterring trolls from use
while avoiding the potential to censor individuals’ and companies’ attempts to
legitimately promote and express themselves throughout online communities.
