Should there be a freedom to troll included in the 1st Amendment?

Asked by: DatAzian
  • It Should Within Reason.

    Trolling on the internet will only be an issue if a direct threat or false fact is stated. If someone says "you should go kill yourself and on February 19, 2010 you punched a baby in the face" and you actually didn't, then that violates the first amendment. However, if you just state "I think this is stupid", then you should be protected because it is your opinion and you are not necessarily influencing others to say the same thing. Both are considered to be trolling, but only one of those examples should be protected under the first amendment, and it already somewhat is.

  • Learn to stop feeding the trolls

    First, we need to consider that no matter what a troll says on a website, it realistically will never be able to incite any lawlessness in the reader. Part of this understanding stems from the very nature of what a troll is. Their obnoxious comments and annoying presence on the internet are only there to make the average reader angry so they can elicit a response. Most people do not take these trolls seriously, and no one should. Ultimately, the best course of action is to just ignore their provocations and comments and let them tire themselves out when no one decides to correct them. Besides, even if we denied them the right to free speech on the internet, they would find another way to aggravate us.

  • Protection from the government, not protection from websites

    A website is within its rights to block people for trolling. But banning trolling would completely stiffle free speech. There are specific things that should be illegal, threatening someone's life or property would qualify. Other than that trolls should have freedom of speech. Otherwise the law would be enforced only against people who support political views the government doesn't like, even against people who aren't technically trolling.

  • Hell yeah! It's free speech

    Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. Free speech. It's free speech people. The azianz have spoken. Trolololol

  • Harassment is illegal

    Trolling is a form of harassment where as free speech is about expressing an opinion or some kind of art. There's no real art in trolling; most trolls aren't exactly witty. Most of them are pretty cliche and just hateful. I honestly believe there should be a law to stop trolls. I think everything should be linked to facebook and everyone who comments on anything has to have an actual picture of themselves.

  • No freedom to play practical jokes or troll

    Trolling is purely destructive and distracting. We already have the right to parody and make satire. That is sufficient for artistic purposes. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to cause pain to others. There should not be a legally defensible freedom to play practical jokes - the equivalent of trolling.

  • Stop abusing innocent people!

    Freedom of speech and trolling shouldn’t even fit in the same category. Trolling is attacking someone through verbal abuse which is not freedom of speech, it is just straight abuse. Most of the things trolls say are either an opinion or just straight hurtful. There is no need to just be mean to a stranger online for no reason. If a person has a problem with what someones says online than just ignore it. People do not need to express themselves in ways that hurt others feelings. If a person is a troll i just straight up feel bad for them. They really have nothing better to do than troll on others. So, no freedom to troll should not be included in the 1st Amendment because it is abuse not freedom of speech.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
themohawkninja says2013-11-07T17:59:19.943
"Trolling" is generally considered the act of formulating sentences that are known to be false for the purpose of annoying people. That is protected by the first amendment if you ask me.