Man arrested for trolling on Facebook

[catalyst8]

Well let's see presumably he only posted those images like once on the victim pages.

Pages that were open to the public.
It's not really harassment until he keeps doing it over and over.

The harassment was ongoing over some years, two years previously Duffy had been cautioned for it. Perhaps you can answer the question I asked in the post you quoted:

Are you suggesting that it's a citizen's right to persecute & harass another?

EDIT:

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

have a good read at that because it's not quite government "shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" now is it ?

You've already got an answer to your question there.

the truth of the matter is depending on who you offend and what is aid you can find yourself in charged under near half a dozen laws if the authorities or attending law enforcement want to bang you up (you can be done with public order offence just swearing alone for example) and that's without going into civil law with the likes of "super injunctions", privacy law, slander, libel and defamation of character and as i've mentioned before when the topic has come up anyone from "the wrong side of the tracks" knows you watch your mouth when the law is around.

the vast majority of people who believe they have "the right to free speech" in the UK have never faced the law to test that theory and have picked up that belief through exposure to American popular culture rather than having any comprehensive understanding of their own countries laws.

Slander, libel, & defamation all contravene the rights of any citizen to live a life free from harassment & persecution. This was explained in the previous post. If someone doesn't know the laws of the land or the conventions of a society by which they are bound that is no one's fault but theirs. As I said previously:

"The freedom of speech does not give the freedom to harass or persecute others, & it never has done. Or are you suggesting that it's a citizen's right to persecute & harass another?"

Please answer my question: Do you think it's a citizen's right to persecute or harass another?

 

[RaikuFA]

This was discussed in detail yesterday.

First of all, he wasn't charged with "having an opinion" or "speaking his mind". Putting aside for a second that this happened in the UK, where freedom of speech laws are different than in North America, this wasn't a "Freedom of Speech" issue. He was charged under section 127 of the Malicious Communications Act, a law which has been on the books since 2003 in the UK. So all you slippery slopers positive that this means Big Brother has come at last, this is the first time you're hearing anything about the Act being used in this way.

So what did he do to get charged? He specifically targeted the families of dead teenagers for over two years and and bombarded them with taunts, jibes, and gruesome pictures of their dead loved ones. He was given a caution for a similar offense back in 2009 and chose to ramp his activities up. So anyone curious about where the line on "trolololololol" is legally, you might want to stop short of systematically taunting and harassing the families of the deceased for YEARS after a court has already warned you to stop. There's your line. Oh noes, our freedoms!

Would you defend a vicious physical assault on the grounds that a slippery slope might occur and you'll get tossed in jail for playfully punching your friend on the shoulder? The courts gave Sean Duffy all the rope in the world and he hung himself with it. Frankly, at the rate he was going, someone was going to find him and kill his loathsome ass. The courts probably did him a favor by locking him up.

THIS... this this this this this

and i have aspergers and seriously? QUIT USING IT AS A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD!!! it makes it into a cry wolf situation somewhat. its like the black guy who accuses people of being racist just to get free meals. cause when it actually happens, itll happen at a point where people are sick of this shit and not give a flying fuck

 

[4173]

I'm going by the American legal definition forgetting this was in the U.K. and in the U.S. stating an opinion can never be slander.

In this case, I'm not sure it is an opinion. Being a whore is something verifiable. Yes, the word is used in other contexts (having numerous or undesirable sexual partners etc.) but I'm not sure that meaning has enough cultural currency to say that was an opinion.

 

[Robert Ewing]

What the hell is this? I know its mean for him to do it in the first place. But bloody hell, That's like arresting everyone on youtube that have said 'lol.' It's absolutely stupid. Cyber police should sit the hell down.

 

[Happy_Mutant]

The legal question here is whether or not a facebook memorial page qualifies as public or private space. If we consider it a public space, then no, you cannot be stopped from saying something so miserable, anymore than anyone can stop those assholes who carry sign reading "Fags Burn in Hell!" near the funeral of a homosexual. If, however, this is considered a private space, then you can be arrested, the same way you could be arrested for standing on the bereaved family's lawn and yelling the insults rather than writing them, or inversely for crashing a wedding.

I would actually argue that this facebook page would be a private space; after all, it was created and registered to the friends and family of this girl. I would imagine a good lawyer could argue this for either side, depending on the privacy settings one set on the page. In any case, it is a good argument for our society to have, as we really haven't figured out where the legal line lies between private and public in cyberspace.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

What the hell is this? I know its mean for him to do it in the first place. But bloody hell, That's like arresting everyone on youtube that have said 'lol.' It's absolutely stupid. Cyber police should sit the hell down.

No. It's not like that at all. Try again.

 

[General Vagueness]

I thought this was what site admins and restraining orders were for.

 

[catalyst8]

The legal question here is whether or not a facebook memorial page qualifies as public or private space. If we consider it a public space, then no, you cannot be stopped from saying something so miserable

It's a libellous defamation of character & therefore illegal, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. In addition to that Duffy was cautioned for his campaign of harassment two years previously. Harassment is also illegal. He broke the law & he was convicted for it.

 

[thiosk]

the autistic loner was sentenced to 18 weeks behind bars and banned from using social networking sites for five years.

He's autistic. Remember that next time someone is trolling you. And I don't mean this new wave trolling where you declare anyone who disagrees with you a troll, but proper trolling like this bloke had been involved in.

 

[The SettingSun]

He's an autistic alcoholic. While it is wrong what he did I'm not sure a prison is the best place for him.

 

[Sayvara]

Freedom of speech is the right to make an arse of yourself, without the auhtorities trying to stop you.

Freedom of speech is not the right to not have the authorities making you take responsibility for making an arse out of yourself.

/S

 

[Vidi Kitty]

He's an autistic alcoholic. While it is wrong what he did I'm not sure a prison is the best place for him.

"Asperger?s Syndrome ? a form of autism"

Quoted from the article.

Alot of people seem to be hearing autism and thinking its more extreme than asperger's.

Not to say asperger's isn't bad or anything.

 

[Mike Laserbeam]

Right. Confusing standpoint here.

This guy is a prick and I think he does actually deserve his punishment.
However, I fucking hate the Daily Mail, which makes me not want to side with them on anything. Here's a lovely example of why:

In one of the first cases of its kind, the autistic loner was sentenced to 18 weeks behind bars and banned from using social networking sites for five years.

 

[catalyst8]

no i don't [think it's a citizen's right to persecute or harass another].

Then how can you argue that freedom of speech gives the right for someone to do that? It's precisely because that's what he was doing that he's been jailed.

you asked for a substantiated claim to back up what a previous poster (not i) said.
i feel i've given that.

The previous poster's claim being 'There's no freedom of speech in the UK'. My reply was 'The freedom of speech does not give the freedom to harass or persecute others, & it never has done.' Historically this arguably goes back to 130CE, but definitely since the seventeenth century it has been the right of the individual to live a life free from unfounded malicious accusation (libel & slander), persecution, & harassment.

if you feel like testing it go swear at a copper and here's a small tip for free: when he grabs the back of you neck and trys to smack your head against the body of the van or whatever as you are huckled don't fight against it and for gawd sake don't swear directly at him after you've been arrested.

That's not freedom of speech, it would be freedom to harass, & as we've already established that's illegal. Since you've already agreed that it isn't one's right to persecute or harass another, I'm confused as to whether you think that it should be legal. You seem to contradict yourself.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

This was discussed in detail yesterday.

First of all, he wasn't charged with "having an opinion" or "speaking his mind". Putting aside for a second that this happened in the UK, where freedom of speech laws are different than in North America, this wasn't a "Freedom of Speech" issue. He was charged under section 127 of the Malicious Communications Act, a law which has been on the books since 2003 in the UK. So all you slippery slopers positive that this means Big Brother has come at last, this is the first time you're hearing anything about the Act being used in this way.

So what did he do to get charged? He specifically targeted the families of dead teenagers for over two years and and bombarded them with taunts, jibes, and gruesome pictures of their dead loved ones. He was given a caution for a similar offense back in 2009 and chose to ramp his activities up. So anyone curious about where the line on "trolololololol" is legally, you might want to stop short of systematically taunting and harassing the families of the deceased for YEARS after a court has already warned you to stop. There's your line. Oh noes, our freedoms!

Would you defend a vicious physical assault on the grounds that a slippery slope might occur and you'll get tossed in jail for playfully punching your friend on the shoulder? The courts gave Sean Duffy all the rope in the world and he hung himself with it. Frankly, at the rate he was going, someone was going to find him and kill his loathsome ass. The courts probably did him a favor by locking him up.

Wow, you've really done your research, I've been reading your other responses on this thread and you seem to have this thing down. Just thought you should know

Original Topic: While I believe strongly that this man should be punished for his crimes, and that any sentence he receives will only be too light, I have the feeling that the media and lawyers are going to focus his mental disability. I used to think that autism was a terribly crippling disease, and anyone with it would barely function. But, after under a year at the Escapist, where a LOT of people do have Aspergers or some mild form of mental deficiency I have come to realize it's not that serious. Yes, it is indeed serious, but it is not enough to justify a crime, such as the one performed.

Alas, people are going to blame his mental illness and make him seem like a victim, it's damn disgusting to see something like this reduced to "Oh, he can't help himself, lets give him a chance" as if everyone with Aspergers Syndrome is totally incompetent.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

I'm going by the American legal definition forgetting this was in the U.K. and in the U.S. stating an opinion can never be slander.

USLegal » Legal Definitions Home » S » Slander Law & Legal Definition [http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/slander/]

Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

The basic elements of a claim of slander include;

a defamatory statement;
published to third parties; and
which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Slander is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. If the slander unjustly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages. For other types of slander you generally must prove some actual damage to be able to recover.

USLegal » Legal Definitions Home » L » Libel Law & Legal Definition [http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/libel/]

Libel refers to a false written and seen communication made about a person with the intention to defame that person. It is a written representation conveying an unjust and unfavorable impression prepared with the intention to damage a person's reputation. If the defendant is able to show that the defamatory statement is essentially true, then the plaintiff's claim for libel will fail.

USLegal » Legal Definitions Home » L » Libel on its Face Law & Legal Definition


Libel on its face or libel per se means a defamatory statement that does not require further explanation as to the statement is defamatory. In libel on its face, the statement will speak for itself.

Which one applies on the internet isn't clear to me. The libel definition depends on truth and intention. If it was false and he meant to harm her reputation, it's libel. There's no mention of opinion there. The slander definition does mention opinion and that it is protected, but I've put some bold and underline mark-up into the quote to highlight the parts that make that protection irrelevant here.

Even if it could be established that whether she was bullied and whether she was a whore were both "matters of public concern" he's still be SooL trying that defence because those both "contain or imply a provable factual assertion."

The legal dictionary offers no definition of "whore" so we must turn to the more general dictionary, as words must be taken to have their commonly accepted meanings ...

"In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787?88 (Alaska 1996);

... and fine this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whore

whore

noun
1.
a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.
verb (used without object)
2.
to act as a whore.
3.
to consort with whores.
verb (used with object)
4.
Obsolete . to make a whore of; corrupt; debauch.

In context, it was clearly meant as a noun, so he has asserted that she was at least one of:

a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse

1.
a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.
2.
a man who engages in sexual acts for money.
3.
a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.

That assertion can be investigated and found true or false, making it "a provable factual assertion." The protection of statements of opinion would therefore not apply.

 

[Viral_Lola]

There's a fine line between being a troll and harassing people. He wasn't using freedom of speech. He was harassing people and he's been doing it for years. I have Aspergers and he's just using that as an excuse to be a dick.

 

[Varrdy]

Personally I think he went beyond trolling and was in fact arrested for being a c*nt!

Wardy
PS And I use the "C" word only in very extreme circumstances...