The jerk who made that video, the one that supposedly incited rioting and murder in Egypt and Libya, is the very definition of a troll: He made it to elicit the reaction he was sure he'd cause. That is what trolls do.
Those who reacted are trolls, too, but of course worse: murderers. They exploited just any excuse -- an obviously cheesy, fake movie seen by no one -- to stir up their band of fanatics into visible outrage and violence.
The media who cover these trolls -- the trolls who make the bait and the trolls who look for bait -- are dupes themselves, just continuing a cycle that will only rev faster and faster until someone says: Stop. Stop feeding the trolls.
We've learned that online, haven't we all? Oh, I sometimes have to relearn the lesson when one of my trolls dangles some shiny object in front of me and I snap. I just pulled the food bowl away from one troll: no reaction for you. I was just delighted to see another troll get his comeuppance and said so. But as a rule, a good rule, one should never, never feed the trolls. They only spit it up on you. Starving them of the attention they crave and the upset they hunger for and feed on is the only answer.
But still, there's no controlling the trolls. Some still think the trolls can be stopped. An Australian newspaper just started a #stopthetrolls campaign to bring the ride miscreants to justice and silence. Good luck with that. In a sense, the rioters and murderers in Libya and Egypt and now elsewhere are demanding that someone stop the trolls they are choosing to get heated up about.
But, of course, there is no stopping them. Neither do I want to stop them. I believe in protecting free speech, which must include protecting even bad, even noxious speech.
Zeynep Tufecki, a brilliant observer of matters media, digital and social, cautioned on Twitter that we must understand a key difference in attitudes toward speech here and elsewhere in the world: "Forget Middle East, in most of Europe you could not convince most people that *all* speech should be protected. That is uniquely American," she tweeted yesterday. "In most places, including Europe, 'hate-speech' -- however defined -- is regulated, prosecuted. Hence, folks assume not prosecuted=promoted.... U.S. free speech absolutism already hard to comprehend for many. Add citizen media to mix, it gets messy. Then, killers exploit this vagueness." Excellent points and important perspective for the current situation.
But the Internet is built to American specifications of speech: anyone can speak and it is difficult unto impossible to stop them as bits and the messages they carry are designed to go around blocks and detours. The Internet *is* the First Amendment. We can argue about whether that is the right architecture -- as an American free-speech absolutist, I think it is -- but that wouldn't change the fact that we are going to hear more and more speech, including brilliance and including bile. There's no stopping it. Indeed, I want to protect it.
So we'd best understand how to adapt society to that new reality. We've done it before. This from Public Parts about the introduction of the printing press:
This cultural outlook of openness in printing's early days could just as easily have gone the other way. The explosion of the printed word -- and the lack of control over it -- disturbed the elite, including Catholic theologian Desiderius Erasmus. "To what corner of the world do they not fly, these swarms of new books?" he complained. "[T]he very multitude of them is hurtful to scholarship, because it creates a glut and even in good things satiety is most harmful." He feared, according to [Elizabeth] Eisenstein, that the minds of men "flighty and curious of anything new" would be distracted from "the study of old authors." After the English Civil War, Richard Atkyns, an early writer on printing, longed for the days of royal control over presses. Printers, he lamented, had "filled the Kingdom with so many Books, and the Brains of the People with so many contrary Opinions, that these Paper-pellets become as dangerous as Bullets." In the early modern period a few "humanists called for a system of censorship, never implemented, to guarantee that only high-quality editions be printed," Ann Blair writes in Agent of Change. Often today I hear publishers, editors, and academics long for a way to ensure standards of quality on the Internet, as if it were a medium like theirs rather than a public space for open conversation.
There is a desire to *control* conversation, to *civilize* it, to *cleanse* it. God help us, I don't want anyone cleaning my mouth out. I don't want anyone telling me what I cannot say. I don't want a society that silences anything that could offend anyone.
I understand why Google decided to take down That Video from YouTube in Libya and Egypt, given how it is being used, while also arguing that it meets YouTube's standards and will stay up elsewhere. But YouTube thus gives itself a dangerous precedent as some will expect it to cleanse other bad speech from its platform. YouTube is in a better position in Afghanistan, where the government blocked all of YouTube -- but then it's the government that is acting as the censor and it's the government that must be answerable to its people.
But in any case, blocking this video is no more the answer than rioting and murdering over it. All this will only egg on the trolls to make more bad speech and in turn egg on trolls on the other side to exploit it.
The only answer is to learn how to deal with speech and to value it sufficiently to acknowledge that good speech will come with bad. What we have to learn is how to ignore the bad. We have to learn that every sane and civilized human knows that bad speech is bad. We don't need nannies to tell us that. We don't need censors to protect it from us. We certainly don't need fanatics to fight us for it. We need the respect of our fellow man to believe that we as civilized men and women know the difference. We need to grow up.
Follow Jeff Jarvis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffjarvis