Professional Boxer Gets Trolled On Twitter, Shows Up At Guy's House
from the for-whom-the-bell-trolls dept
Sadly, for my purposes at least, internet trolls aren't always as entertaining as the antics of On press Inc. In fact, often times childish and uncreative trolling can produce some really unfortunate results. In particular, I'm recalling the twitter troll whose efforts culminated in a SWAT team and TV crew showing up at the wrong guy's house. That story aside, there is a certain amount of truth to the notion that anonymity can spark horrific behavior, with keyboard cowboys feeling safe in saying incredibly hurtful things to people. Twitter couples that occasion with a connection to public figures, allowing those who wish to, to engage in trollish and hurtful behavior with the rich and famous. Typically, those attempts are shrugged off by targets, and often times the shrugging off is done by whichever PR team is handling the celebrity's Twitter feed. Those that man their own Twitter posts can always use the helpful "block" button to keep the worst aggressors at bay.
Or you can go the Curtis Woodhouse route, which is to sleuth your way to finding the street the troll lives on and go hunting. And if any trolls out there don't think this is a scary enough prospect on its own, consider that Woodhouse is a professional boxer. To be fair to the troll, his tweets aren't the worst I've seen:
@woodhousecurtis Haha u lost u silly mug fight a 10 year old next time if u want to actually win u waste of spunk
— the master (@jimmyob88) March 11, 2013And:
@woodhousecurtis Whats funny u put so much effort in sacrificed all that time and failed to defend your mickey mouse title #wasteofspunk
— the master (@jimmyob88) March 11, 2013As I noted, certainly not nice, but not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time. I'm not particularly sure what this guy thought he was getting out of antagonizing a professional boxer on Twitter, but I can be certain he didn't think this was going to happen.
Unfortunately for the troll, Woodhouse decided that he wasn't going to take such abuse sitting down. Somehow, he managed to discover what street his antagonist lives on, and he set out to pay him a visit while mercilessly live-tweeting his trip.Oops. Woodhouse live-tweeted all the way up to parking on the guy's street, indicating that he was "coming over for a brew" and asking anyone who knew to tell him what number house he lived at, so that he wouldn't have to "knock on every door." Predictably, the troll first went silent, and then moved on to the kind of apologies reserved for someone who knows they are about to meet a pissed off pugilist face to face.
Now, it would be quite easy to side with Woodhouse here and think that scaring the hell out of a troll would be a satisfying thing. But that would be short-sighted and stupid. Woodhouse is a professional athlete and a public persona and, if he wants to continue that career, he needs to learn pretty quickly that there are people out there who are going to say mean things. That's what the "block" button is for. In my mind at least, tracking down a member of the tweeting public instead only makes him look like a loon. Additionally, I would have to think that it makes him a prime target for future trolling.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: curtis woodhouse, feeding trolls, trolling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
TOR
Can we get someone to show this guy how to change his snowflake?
Oh wait, this shows how bad online anonymity is. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOR
About 10 years ago I used to be an Administrator on a Teen Christian Advise website. We also had a section for people who self-harmed. Every now and again someone would go from talking about their problems to outright suicide notes and that is when I would start doing a bit of google-fu and call local authorities to get that person help.
The thing about the internet is we are creatures of habit, and we're not that good at being vigilant about our anonymity. In one post someone might say what state they are in, in another they may say what town, in some forum game talking about your "Gang Name" you may let lose what street you live on. Or you might have different email accounts (yahoo, msn) tied in to that forum account that I could google and pull up other online identities of you and spread the search out even more. I'm a terrible example of all this because if you see "Ccomp5950" anywhere online unless it's Dark Helmet being an ass and signing up under my name on such wonderful sites as "Spank me Gently.com" "I pee freely.net".
Go look through my techdirt postings. I'm pretty open with the fact I could throw a rock at the Federal courthouse here in Marshall Texas (disclaimer: that's not a terroristic threat, I won't be throwing rocks, I am saying that should I be inclined I have the capability to do so")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of how it would go for the troll if he just sat and waited for this boxer to come pounding down the door. He could shoot the guy and easily claim self defense using the boxers own tweets as proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You assume this guy was just knocking on the door to say "you're an ass" and walk away. You're also assuming that the person in the home knew that there was no threat. If I had a boxer tracking me down looking for a "brew" after a dumb ass insult, I'd be carrying a weapon, improvised or otherwise.
I would assume that the UK has laws that let people defend themselves in threatening situations. I would qualify a boxer coming after me as possibly life threatening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if the boxer said he was coming over for a cup of tea, I'd still qualify it as a threat. You can't track people down who insult you and expect them to not think you're a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, in the UK a brew is almost universally understood to be a cup of tea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. I'm from Texas, cops tell you you're in the right if you feel threatened here. (And they usually add, when asked, that it would be in your best interest to shoot to kill. As in make sure you kill the person. Otherwise you may find yourself potentially in trouble with the authorities and/or on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." It goes on to say that "the actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:", and then it lists some scenarios.
In Texas (and any other state with the same law) that part is where this troll would not be able to use it as a defense were he to shoot and kill the guy for coming on to his property. The belief that the force was necessary is only reasonable if the actor "did not provoke the person against whom the force was used".
The trolling was the provocation. The law provides Civil Immunity, but that's only if the force used was deemed justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We, as in my family and a few friends, have personally had police officers tell us that. I always thought it sounded weird coming from cops.
I mean, come on, it's not as if cops have never said or done things that were contradictory to the law, right? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You learn something new every day. To me, a "brew" means one thing and one thing only: a beer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
geez, no wonder we moved away...
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess brew now means you're butt hurt over a Twitter Rambo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
brouhaha
(brōō-h�-h�)
n. An uproar; a hubbub.
French, of imitative origin.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Chris Dodd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And people wonder why...
It's things like this that proves the first rule you learned back in the 90s still rings true.
"Never give out your personal information unless shopping online."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
Here's what Timmy directed at me, going out of his way several times solely to troll me in a lapsed item where I was amusing myself (with good cause):
"There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you...."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do- brains-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
By the way, anyone wanting to really understand Mike's notion of "can't compete with free" should read that through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
Now that that's out of the way, you want to apologize for the constant demeaning comments, including your odd use of "Timmy", or is this apology going to be completely one-sided?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
Hypocrisy, thy name is blue.
And, in his defense, you are an ignorant motherfucker. And you're most definitely a few fries short of a happy meal/not the sharpest knife in the drawer/not the brightest color in the box/etc.
[offers you a tissue because your incredibly thin skinned and still apparently upset about a comment that was said in jest ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF AGO]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
I'm nearly there
Yep I can see your place in the distance
Can you hear me yet Blue
Hear that horn... that was me
Close now blue
Fuckit!! fell off your bridge trying to get underneath!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "not unlike the kind of thing we see in our own comments section from time to time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake.
17 miles in 40 minutes: 25mph. Gurr.
I suppose he could have done that. Would be better if he just faked it, estimating 25mph average.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boxer should have beat his ass
Im all down for Freedom of speech, but that has just been abused so that people can say whatever they want whenever they want.
Think 10-15 years ago, if the person wanted to say shit he would have had to to the boxer's face for a reaction....and the boxer would have been in his rights to knock the prick on his ass.
Frankly, I wish the boxer had actually run into the troll...would teach that troll a lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boxer should have beat his ass
Actually, the boxer WOULD NOT have had the right to knock the "prick" on his ass.
Which isn't to say he couldn't have done so, just that it's not a right either protected by the Constitution or other wise. Freedom of speech however is.
Your rights end where others begin. As long as the speech is not causing or inciting others to cause physical harm to themselves or others or in any way defamatory, it's protected. Even if it is insulting or hurtful.
Being a celebrity or in the public eye (like a politician or law enforcement officer) will always result in criticism from others, if you can't handle it for whatever reason you can find a new profession. It doesn't give you the right to essentially stalk someone and threaten them with bodily harm. At that point, you or whoever pose more of a threat and should be dealt with more severely by the law than the name caller. Public persona or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boxer should have beat his ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incivility
If you drive around honking and giving the finger to people all the time and one day you are the victim of road rage -- it doesn't make the road-rager right, but you might want to rethink your behavior nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe...
Isn't this an example of, ahem, 'Connecting' with Fans?
(For certain interpretations of 'Connecting')
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.ma3comic.com/d/20100708.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he was under the weird impression that people use pictures of themselves as their avatars on forums and messenger apps......LOL
was quite funny he showed up and instead of a skinny little girl found a 6'1" erik the red looking mofo (big ginger viking lookin fellow) he suddenly went from rage to abject apology......his buddy he brought with him about pissed himself to.....it was a riot.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if...
And more importantly, would M. Night Shyamalan be there to film it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In All Seriousness
You can look at this as the boxer having a thin skin and getting offended enough to come to this guy's house... Or, you can look at it as the boxer knowing how to play the internet game, and specifically refusing to do physical harm to the name-caller. He clearly had the ability, and demonstrated he could, and then showed that he wouldn't and didn't. I believe everyone can agree that if the boxer ACTUALLY beat this guy up, this would deserve jail time or fines at the least.
Intent matters strongly, here. And honestly? I have no problem with what the guy did. If someone shows up at my door because of something I said online, I'd kinda be ok with it. I did it, I have to live with it. It's one reason why I'm careful and respectful in my discussions online, (usually, at least) despite the fact that I rarely give out my location information. It's not hard to find things on the internet for sufficiently motivated persons.
Overall I'm neutral to the article as a whole, despite usually enjoying Sir Helmet's work. There's no righteous indignation to be had here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In All Seriousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he was exhibiting transparency and showing a mastery of new media. Plus, he was connecting with fans. I'm with Woodhouse on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two minds
The problem is that most trolls do not think they will ever face any consequences for their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply put, if you are dumb enough to taunt and troll a professional boxer on Twitter...you shouldn't be allowed on the Internet...at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speech Versus Violent Acts.
Woodhouse admits to having offered, on the internet, a reward of a thousand British pounds to whoever would find his taunter, with the intention that he could go and beat him up. That is only incrementally different from paying for a contract killing. By American standards, that would probably make him liable to federal conspiracy charges. At any rate, I suppose one of "jimmyob88"'s cronies probably sold him. At any rate, Woodhouse proposed to rampage down the street, breaking into different houses until he found his man. Obviously, in a fair number of cases, the person answering the door would have been a little old lady, and presumably Woodhouse would have assaulted said old lady, and forced his way into the house, searching for "jimmyob88." Otherwise, how could he be sure that the old lady was not shielding her grandson, "jimmyob88"? He was engaged in a fundamentally criminal errand. If he had tried that in the United States, some innocent bystander would surely have "capped" him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/12/english-boxer-curtis-woodhouse-twitter-troll
http://storify.com/campbellwpaul/boxer-curtis-woodhouse-deals-with-twitter-troll
Provocation is that which of significant magnitude that the person provoked can claim it as a full or partial defense for his own crimes. At any rate, the claim of provocation does not cover entering into a conspiracy. Provocation means a case in which someone is insulted, and responds with a direct assault. It has long been established that dueling is murder, pure and simple. An American court might very well take the view that Woodhouse wanted, for pecuniary reasons to maintain his reputation as a "tough guy," and that his pursuit of the taunter was therefore motivated by the desire for profit. Similar arguments have been raised in cases where a neighborhood gangster killed someone for no apparent reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)
The Texas statute cited by Mikael (#46) , referring to Provocation as a limit of Self Defense, is obviously intended to cover the case where A calls B a name, they both draw their guns more or less simultaneously, and A survives the shootout.
Presumably, the Royal Police ought to be approaching Twitter to find out the names of the people who passed information to Woodhouse, so that they can be charged as accessories in R. v. Woodhouse. Curtis Woodhouse claims that his fists are superior to the law. The local Chief Constable either has to deal starkly with Curtis Woodhouse, or there will be no law. By observation in the next few days, I shall discover to what extent England has degenerated.
I've lived in some fairly rough places in my time, and on an occasion, or three, I've had to tell professional tough guys to get lost, to take a hike. It's always a bit scary, because you never quite know whether the bad boy is packing a "rodney," but there's generally no alternative. One incident will do: Once upon a time, I was accosted on a Philadelphia street corner by an obviously fit young man, dressed in the style of a pimp-dandy, who wanted me to "give him something." I thought to myself, "Oh, S--t"; tensed myself to move instantly, to slam into him faster than he could draw his gun; looked him in the eye; and retorted: "Why should I?" The young man looked at me, and saw Death looking back at him, and backed off rapidly, holding his hands up in the air where I could see them, saying "no reason, man, no reason!" Just as I didn't know whether he had a rod or not, he didn't know whether I had a rod or not (I didn't), and he decided rather quickly that the hundred or two hundred dollars which might be in my wallet wasn't worth a roll of the dice with death. It was a rather ambiguous encounter. It was in broad daylight, in front of a store, but I suppose he relied on witnesses being intimidated.
That said, I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for small-time boxers who think they can use their fists outside of the ring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speech Versus Violent Acts.
Lawyers can speculate and conjecture but unless there's cold, hard evidence to back it up it's nothing but smoke and mirrors (in reference to being motivated by profit) The Boxer was totally within his legal right, it would only be considered conspiracy if he actually made arrangements and even then, buying public information is not a crime but beating someone up without justification (such as self defense) is.
Sorry for the necropost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What purpose does it actually serve?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]