Legislation Against Trolling: Has it gone too far?

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.