It sounds like people who comment in Japan media are also being targeted for criminal behavior by the trolling “community”/subculture.
Brasor says the media should take a stand, and he’s right—because people will just stop commenting by name in newspapers. The solution, though, remains criminal law. Media can’t stop bad behavior. Law can. The law is behind the technology. The law lags the technology.
You take a sh*t-state banana republic like Pennsylvania, where the judges AND the district attorneys are elected, and you’d think that Pennsylvania would be ahead of the curve on harassment via the internet. Well, no. Because there was no internet in the 1950s, and a large plurality of the state (who aren’t in religious sects that get around on horses) lives in the 1950s. So their take on these issues of petty criminality is that it isn’t worth anyone’s time unless it’s something “really bad”, and gee whiz, why don’t people just get over this internet fad already. Get out the old black-and-white with the rabbit ears. (Get the TV station in the city to go back to sending an analog signal, too . . .)
Countries like Canada, and the European ones, seem to be much more on the ball about this sort of thing. They actually bring criminal charges. You would think that some of the anecdotes that Brasor reports on in Japan would also have resulted in criminal charges. It doesn’t sound that way. Makes you wonder why.
[Postscript 9/4: By the way, the Peace Churches have very little to do with why Pennsylvania is so screwed up. Many of the followers of the Amish and Old Order Mennonite reject modern technology because they feel it interferes with the teachings of Jesus. They are not trying to “go back and live in the past”. They very much realize it’s 2013. They just have no use for modernity. The people I’m talking about, are those ones going around, thinking, just one more election and we’ll take things back to the 1950s! (Or nineteenth century, which, on labor issues, was incredibly bloody and violent in Pennsylvania.) These people are the nuts, who make Pennsylvania much less than what it could otherwise be. And, currently, our Governor is right in there with that kind.
The fact that our judiciary is one of the worst in America, and it’s because the judges are elected, has been pointed out by done finer than former Governor Ridge. Governor Rendell, too. It’s been the lament of people who know, around here, since at least 1968—when judicial merit narrowly failed as a constitutional question.
When your judges are basically bought and paid for by campaign contributions, to get on the party “palm card” or other endorsing procedure, who do you think become the judges? The smart men and women? Or the hacks? What do you think the ratio of hack judges to competent ones are in this state?
Then, you take District Attorneys. Same deal. Lawyer who hooked up and got the nod from the local controlling party. Out here in Lancaster, that means Republican. The DA, then, sees administrative value in prosecuting the kind of crime that the tight set of Republicans who put him on the party line at election would want to see. That’s different than an appointed DA, who had to pass muster with a governor’s vetting process and a state senate. (Ideally, one that could be removed by the governor for cause.) An appointed DA takes the job seriously, not the politicking seriously.
It’s the whole state, though. Everything’s elected. Coroner is elected. When the roles are elected, you get people who politick everything.]