A popular television discussion recently debated the issue of trolling. Panellists included a lady who has faced such aggressive and vulgar trolling that she found herself at the cop station, registering a complaint. The panel discussed probable ways that could inhibit people from attacking others so viciously and so freely. The moderator proposed a ban on anonymous accounts. If people are easily identifiable, they may not conduct themselves so unreasonably and violently. It may lead them to consider their use of words and to think their thoughts through before vomiting out the first aggressive reaction they feel. Another view held that people have the right to express themselves, even anonymously, and that in any case, people, even as themselves, are sending obscene threats to those whose views they don’t like.
Why curb it?
While the debate over freedom of expression can seem unending, people, on and off the panel, agree that trolling is touching alarming proportions. A ‘troll’ is defined as an ugly, despicable cave-dwelling creature. Trolling is the act of being aggressive on the internet because you can. There is no check on preventing you from unleashing your nastiness from the comfort of your ‘cave’. The ‘cave’, however, is not all-protective. The effects of trolling are grave at both ends. The person who is trolled may suffer anxiety and mental anguish, as a consequence. Alternatively, they may become numb to the harshness expressed on the net. Either way, it is a cost to human sensitivity and resource. For the troll, the effects are similar, if not more serious. First, by shunning the tone of better language and thought, the troll breaks into a base and violent zone. To be in this zone makes the troll as vulnerable to violence as the victim…………………….