Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Therumancer]

"Hence American ideas like "innocent until proven guilty" and putting the burden of proof on the prosecutor." Both of those ideas are English coming from the Magna Carta. As is Monty Python. Yet these exist within the system wherein the troll was punished and have survived. The Crown (what the prosecutor is called) would have had to prove this man's guilt and evidently did so within the same system.

Applying this law would do nothing to Monty Python because as satire it would be excluded. Secondly, making a joke in a film or tv show is completely different from telling someone something like I had sex with your dead child. In the joke the person being told would not be the actual victim, and the victim is not forced to listen - compared to telling it to them directly and as 'truth'.

Additionally, all laws have additions and exclusions, this is to clarify their intent. To exclude something is not to apply it differently, it is applying it better because it is doing an improved job at punishing only those it was intended to punish.

Really? So who is to say the troll is not also producing Satire? There are entire websites like "Encyclopedia Dramatica" dedicated to trolling people "for the lulz". I mean you did say he's an internet Troll. What makes him using that defense any differant from Monty Python except the size of the stage and audience?

See that's the point, who decides the exclusion? If it's the goverment doing it on it's own, well that in of itself is a problem. In the end it's just like what I said, YOU think Monty Python should be excluded because you like them, but you don't think the Troll should be because you don't like him. When laws become subjective that way it turns to tyranny.


In the end we're going to have to agree to disagre I'm sure. There have been a number of exchanges so far, and I don't think anyone in this thread is going to be changing their minds.

The bottom line here is that once you start making distinctions like this, you cease to have free speech. It's not free speech if you can't express hatred and negativity. Free speech but only so far as the goverment or society allows is not free speech at all.

The right to be a jerk is a fundemental human one, and a country that does not allow for that is not a free country but something approaching a police state. Ideally everyone shoud be nice, but the whole point of free speech is to allow people to say things that other people, especially the goverment, might object to, and not face persecution (at least legally, socially a jerk is going to be treated like a jerk). If the idea was for everyone to be nice to everyone all the time, there would be no reason to specify freedom of speech. Instead it would be "everyone will remain polite and civil at all times or face legal penelties as determined by the local authorities".

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

Well, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when it comes to other countries in various debates where I talk about how the US has the highest level of freedom and human rights in the world, then someone fires back that it's not true and points out how their nation (which will be something like the UK) is ahead of us according to some statistic or poll, and then something like this happens.

To be honest, I see both sides of the equasion, and why people want to curtail behaviors like this, but to be honest dealing with jerks is the lesser of two evils when it comes to putting people in jail for being jerks given that it opens so much room for abuse.

What's more, freedom of speech, doesn't just mean "freedom of speech you like or agree with" but the freedom to say what you want without these kinds of consequences. Once you start regulating the jerks, it turns into people simply wanting to regulate anyone they don't agree with.

There is no requirement that you have to be nice to anyone, that you have to like everyone, or that you have to remain silent about those you don't like. That's what freedom is all about.

Yes, words can hurt, and do a lot of damage, but as Heinlan put it "You can either have freedom or safety, never both".

That's simply my take on things. There is no doubt in my mind that this guy was an obnoxious trouble maker, indeed he reminds me vaguely of Fred Phelps without the religious overtones, but the police shoulx not have been involved, and sending him to jail was both overkill, and an affront to human rights.

He clearly crossed the line from freedom of speech to harassment. Freedom of speech allows for opinions and such to be voiced, it does not allow you to follow someone yelling 'fag' or to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater for kicks. The key is the harm principle - does the act intentionally cause harm to others and/or cause harm unintentionally that could have been reasonably avoided? In this case it clearly does, so the charges are justified.

All countries put people in prison for being jerks, you just have to be enough of one to start causing harm to others - spousal abuse, vandalism, hate speech, harassment, drink driving, fraud.

Incorrect actually. There is no doubt that this guy was an obnoxious trouble maker, but it's his right to be one.

In the case of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one, your acting to create a panic. In the case of saying you raped a dead body there is no such intent other than to disgust or offend. There is no chance people are going to be hurt by it. When it comes to harassment, that's a touchy subject, but for the most part there is little or no legal protection against it in a *practical sense*. This is why guys like Fred Phelps have gotten away with their behavior for so long. It's also why special laws needed to be passed to limit the actions of creditors in trying to collect money and so on.

Oh sure, there are tons of laws in the US that exist to protect people from harassment, but precedent has rendered most of them relatively toothless if you pay attention, and truthfully I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

Don't misunderstand my point here though, I'm not saying that this guy isn't a douchebag, and a trouble maker. Just that this kind of behavior is a lesser evil than the regulation it takes to prevent it.

The only cases where free speech are really limited is when it comes to acting to create an unfounded public panic, or when doing something like actually planning someone's death (conspiricy to committ murder, etc..) short of that there are very few limitations which is why (again) we had so much trouble with guys like Fred Phelps.

I just happen to think that trolls and idiots are the lesser of two evils... but just because it's a lesser evil does not mean it's not an evil.

The thing you have to remember is that laws can't be subjective. The same regulations that prevent this guy from harassing people in a situation like this, can be turned around and applied to various kinds of protesters, advocates, watchdog groups, and the like. The law by it's nature can't read intent into things. For the most part for something to be a crime you have to prove that there was both a chance, and an intent, to cause damage (like murdering someone, or starting a panic). Telling people at a funeral that you had sex with the corpse is liable to disgust them, and upset some people, but isn't going to cause much in the way of damage, nor would there be any reasonable expectation for it to.

I would argue that the actions caused emotional harm. If that doesn't come under US criminal law, I imagine they would have a strong civil case against the man, and manage to take him to the cleaners (though I doubt he would have much to take).

While laws cannot be subjective, they can have exemptions and conditions. Most laws have these added as the laws are used to fill holes and try to fix mistakes.

It seems there is a cultural divide here, since England has caveats about hate speech, while the US (from my information) does not. Neither works perfectly, with hate speech rules being abused to block viewpoints, and lack of such rules allowing harm to occur. I understand where you are coming from, and yes, in the US he would be probably allowed to do so. That is not to say he would be unpunished, since we already have a candidate to punch the guy.

[On a side note. this discussion seems ripe with John Stuart Mill's ghost.]

Well, it's obvious what the UK laws are given that this incident happened. The gist of the discussion is more or less about how the UK and other nations where this kind of thing can happen are definatly not as free as the US where such limitations do not exist (yet). The UK being well behind on the entire free speech issue, although (as I pointed out) the UK is one of those nations that frequently tries to claim it has a higher level of freedom than the US with people in internet debates occasionally pointing to studies and polls and stuff as "proof" despite things like this happening.

You either have free speech or you don't, when you start making distinctions like taking away a person's right to express hate or generally be a jerk, it seriously compromises how "free" that speech is.

I do indeed understand the dangers inherant in allowing unchecked hate speech and such, but feel that is the lesser of two evils. I earlier gave one of my favorite Heinlan quotes about how "A man can either have freedom, or he can have safety, never both"... which pretty much summarizes things in cases like this.

My point is pretty much that despite the UK being fairly close to the US on laws and a lot of things, this is a human rights violation even if the human in question is apparently a piece of toxic waste. Granted it's not as huge a violation as some of the things China does to surpress free speech and expression, but it's not a small one either.

In free speech the US is indeed ahead - as long as you are not a 'danger' and thus subject to infinite detainment, torture, and a removal of all rights, human or otherwise. Taking your Heinlan quote, I take it you are an anarchist since the state is in essence the greatest removal of freedom, since it has a monopoly of violence. I also imagine you must be vastly opposed to both the CIA, and the republican party because both have done massive amounts to undermine freedom both inside and outside the US. Likewise the founding father for they created a country instead of removing all such restrictions.

Personally, I don't mind giving up a little freedom for things like laws, health-care and sanitation because personally I think those allow me to enjoy my freedoms, instead of struggling to stay alive and being completely free.

 

[DestroytheTyrant]

I am so fucking glad I live in the U.S.

+1: Freedom is not just what you agree with you assholes.

Well in the case of what the troll said there was really nothing to agree too. This troll wasn't having a civil debate or expressing an opinion he was just harassing.

 

[Pilkingtube]

To be honest, even with all the bitching out of my country here, i'm still not siding with the American view of 'him harrassing bereaved people is his right'. I'm fine with not having total freedom to do everything, otherwise you could get away with murder. The laws aren't really 'behind' the curve, so much as different to the American style. Please note that just because something is different to American law doesn't make it automatically bad.

One of my flatmates is doing his law degree now and i've asked him to get me something on it and this is what i've come up with:

The Human Rights Act 2000 - Article 10, Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

(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.

You're free to express yourself, your opinions etc. your actual speech however is more Judicial law than an Act. What this guy did wasn't the expressing of himself, it was deliberate and malicious harrassment, which isn't covered as a freedom. Again, just because something is different doesn't make it bad! /flameshield on

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

"Hence American ideas like "innocent until proven guilty" and putting the burden of proof on the prosecutor." Both of those ideas are English coming from the Magna Carta. As is Monty Python. Yet these exist within the system wherein the troll was punished and have survived. The Crown (what the prosecutor is called) would have had to prove this man's guilt and evidently did so within the same system.

Applying this law would do nothing to Monty Python because as satire it would be excluded. Secondly, making a joke in a film or tv show is completely different from telling someone something like I had sex with your dead child. In the joke the person being told would not be the actual victim, and the victim is not forced to listen - compared to telling it to them directly and as 'truth'.

Additionally, all laws have additions and exclusions, this is to clarify their intent. To exclude something is not to apply it differently, it is applying it better because it is doing an improved job at punishing only those it was intended to punish.

Really? So who is to say the troll is not also producing Satire? There are entire websites like "Encyclopedia Dramatica" dedicated to trolling people "for the lulz". I mean you did say he's an internet Troll. What makes him using that defense any differant from Monty Python except the size of the stage and audience?

See that's the point, who decides the exclusion? If it's the goverment doing it on it's own, well that in of itself is a problem. In the end it's just like what I said, YOU think Monty Python should be excluded because you like them, but you don't think the Troll should be because you don't like him. When laws become subjective that way it turns to tyranny.


In the end we're going to have to agree to disagre I'm sure. There have been a number of exchanges so far, and I don't think anyone in this thread is going to be changing their minds.

The bottom line here is that once you start making distinctions like this, you cease to have free speech. It's not free speech if you can't express hatred and negativity. Free speech but only so far as the goverment or society allows is not free speech at all.

The right to be a jerk is a fundemental human one, and a country that does not allow for that is not a free country but something approaching a police state. Ideally everyone shoud be nice, but the whole point of free speech is to allow people to say things that other people, especially the goverment, might object to, and not face persecution (at least legally, socially a jerk is going to be treated like a jerk). If the idea was for everyone to be nice to everyone all the time, there would be no reason to specify freedom of speech. Instead it would be "everyone will remain polite and civil at all times or face legal penelties as determined by the local authorities".

Indeed we will have to honorably disagree. I think that societies should be able to put basic limits on free speech, to allow for protection of other citizens. I understand this can be dangerous, and that things can banned that shouldn't be, and views suppressed. However, despite these problems, I still think that it is the best current solution, and one that allows for the least amount of harm while giving the most freedom.

 

[Denamic]

There's retardation at every point of this story.
The troll's a retarded troll.
The law's retarded because he went to jail for being a dick.
And everyone involved are retarded because they felt it necessary to report such a stupid thing.

The correct response would be to ignore the troll and delete his posts.

 

[brunothepig]

I'm all for the guy getting punished. Free speech doesn't mean you can say absolutely anything you want.
What this guy said was disgusting, and easily qualifies as harassment. I do think the sentence was a little severe, but I'm glad he got punished.

 

[Ashendarei]

I still think he deserves it, personally.

This, twice over

When it comes to trolls I typically have zero tolerance.

 

[Sparrow]

Why is everyone going on about "freedom of speech"? Sure, we gots it here in England but we don't big it up as much as you Yanks do.

And now it's time for some audience participation. What do you think is most disturbing: The fact that being a troll is literally against the law in the U.K...

Psh, I'd rather it be that than having my next door neighbor being legally allowed to own a firearm considering they got a bunch of little kids.

[sup]I'm thinking more for my dogs safety here, he pretty much rugby tackled one of them once. They may want vengeance.[/sup]

Wait a second, this guy puts it better than I can:

To be honest, even with all the bitching out of my country here, i'm still not siding with the American view of 'him harrassing bereaved people is his right'. I'm fine with not having total freedom to do everything, otherwise you could get away with murder. The laws aren't really 'behind' the curve, so much as different to the American style. Please note that just because something is different to American law doesn't make it automatically bad.

One of my flatmates is doing his law degree now and i've asked him to get me something on it and this is what i've come up with:

The Human Rights Act 2000 - Article 10, Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

(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.

You're free to express yourself, your opinions etc. your actual speech however is more Judicial law than an Act. What this guy did wasn't the expressing of himself, it was deliberate and malicious harrassment, which isn't covered as a freedom. Again, just because something is different doesn't make it bad! /flameshield on

As a side note, whilst I don't completely disagree with the actions taken against him I don't believe it completely right. He needs to be punished, but maybe jail time is a bit much. I reckon taking away his internet access would be a much better and somewhat more just punishment. Either that, or a slap to the face.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Is a newspaper in the US allowed to post "Fuck You" on their front page? No.

Uh, what?

[Citation needed]

 

[VelvetHorror]

This seems like a breach of free speech (I know that it didn't happen in the US, but still)...
He does seem like a massive tool but that is what free speech is about. This could be concerning to people on the internet in the UK.

Free speech goes only so far. If it was absolute free speech, you could yell fire in a movie theater, or go up to someone and scream in their ear about how their mother was promiscuous with every guy in town.

However, such a case is different. I believe there is a difference between expressing one's opinions, and verbally abusing someone. I believe extreme cases of trolling SHOULD be considered verbal abuse, and as such be subject to legal punishment.

 

[VampiresDontSparkle]

I'm getting so sick of people waving the American constitution in the air like it's some sort of blueprint for the rest of the world, and that if you don't have it you're oppressed or backwards as a society... America is NOT THE WHOLE FREAKIN' WORLD. We get along just fine without a law specifically demanding "freedom of speech".

 

[geekRAGE]

wow people need to quit being such pussies. like omg he said some offensive stuff, big deal grow a pair. going to jail for "trolling" is rediculous go out and catch some real criminals.

 

[Maxman3002]

This seems like a breach of free speech (I know that it didn't happen in the US, but still)...
He does seem like a massive tool but that is what free speech is about. This could be concerning to people on the internet in the UK.

I know this post has been overly quoted already and ive tried to read as much of this thread as possible and from what I saw this hasnt been mentioned already, im sorry if im just repeating old comments though.

Freedom of speech is a view held through most countrys, but if freedom of speech is that strongly enforced in America then can a Man/Woman not be jailed for emotional abuse to their spouse?

When a person is verbally bullied and harrased by others do they not get punished by the state?

When someone is alone and being emotionally broken down by the people around them who can they turn to but the authoritys? If the authoritys tell them to suck it up its just words then who are they protecting?

This man targeted and abused specific people, and its not unlikely he made it clear to everyone he could both on and off the internet.

Can people really get away with all the hate speech and abuse they want in America? If so then why are you so proud of that?

 

[Dyp100]

Wow.

Seriously...that's all I have to say - wow.

I knew that the laws against free speech in the UK were stricter than most...but this?! And as Andy pointed out, the fact that a series chain of events brought this about is even more retarted. Whatever happened to people just shrugging their shoulders and saying "Pfft, yeah he's a troll - a douche, not worth much." rather than "OMGZ HE IS A CRIMINAL PREYING ON THE FEELINGZ OF OTHERS!"

Why don't they just compare them to the likes of China! I mean okay, sure the guy was an offensive slimeball, but by this logic you can find a lot less extreme things as 'offensive'. Like someone dying, then another person stating outright "You know what, fuck it. He wasn't a good guy, he had it coming." "OMG OFFENSIVE! U R PREYIN ON MAH FEELINGZ! JAILTIME!"

And it isn't just the fact he was found guilty...but 18 WEEKS?! Alright fine...1 or 2 weeks perhaps in jail, so that he has time to think it over...instead they give him 4 and a half months?!

I'll remember this well next time I travel to a 'free nation' as the UK I think.

God, you're being stupid.

The dude went onto a personal website and said he raped a dead four year old boy. That is harassment.

stop being such an idiot, you won't get arrested for saying anything, unless you're actually harassing people. The UK isn't China, this was just the rare extreme case.

I mean, you think you'd be so happy if you had a dead son and some guy called you up and told you he raped his corspe?

 

[quantumsoul]

My opinion on trolls is to kill them with fire.

But seriously that guy is a pathetic soulless husk of a human being and I doubt he'll learn his lesson. However, I don't like the law being involved. I'd rather he be shunned by the people in his life and die miserable and alone.

 

[Kekon3]

If you ask me, any place that sues someone for being a troll is full of win, fucking yes!

Now lets go to 4chan and sue their asses!

 

[Sewer Rat]

trolololol.
Now I must say that this guy did go rather far with his trolling, but jail time? Really?