Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[K_Dub]

Ya know, as cool as it is to see the government take action against a Troll (damn them all), it seems a tad unnecessary to actually place them in jail. I figure a proper knee to the groin is a strong enough punishment.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

This makes me absurdly happy. Until we have laws that don't protect turds of society as well as the good, a ruling like this scores my day. Shoot, I'd be all for trolls getting punished a LOT more often. Consider me an anti-fan of stretching good things into justifications to do evil.

 

[silver wolf009]

The cyber police, consequences will never be the same.

OT: While it was a bad thing what he did, does it really warrent imprisonment? Mabye a lesser sentence, but isnt that a tad bit extreme.

 

[Supp]

Christ. I'm an Australian with only the scantest knowledge of the US Constitution, but even I know that 'free speech' does not equal 'say whatever I want whenever and wherever I want'.


As for the jailed troller - yeah, finding any sympathy for him is a little difficult.

You're correct, but it needs to represent a "clear and present danger"

Don't be silly. Never heard of slander?

Libel only applies if you're the press.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

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?

If only people got paid for awesome quotes.

 

[Nikokvaj]

The guy is already a sad and lonely degenerate, what purpose is throwing him in jail gonna serve?

 

[MadMage]

Wow there is a lot of heated debate about this... personally I say a few punches to the face or some "un-seen" cop abuse and call it even. XD

 

[Lancer873]

There's a difference between respecting Free Speech and promoting harassment.

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".

....the police shoulx not have been involved, and sending him to jail was both overkill, and an affront to human rights.

So whose rights is more important, those of the man, or of those he harassed?

What about Article 5 -"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"? Or Article 29 section 2 -- "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

If you believe that he's entirely innocent of denying the grieving families their rights to Article 5 and 29.2, that there was no malevolence intended, then okay, I can respect YOUR right to that opinion. But I wouldn't go tell it to them, if I was you.

(As a side note, necrophilia IS illegal under UK law and holds misdemeanour/felony status in over 20 states in the US. He could be held on that charge alone, even if it was only an allegation.)

That... and UK doesn't have a written document of government at all.

Really though, I don't think we have to worry about this becoming a big trend. I personally think moderator action should be the number one anti-troll method, but I also think this guy had it coming to him, if not for being a total, unforgivable jackass on the internet, then for being stupid enough to actually announce who he was in real life.

Not that I completely agree with his sentence but moderator action is kind of...underwhelming. I mean what's the worst they can do? Ban the guy? Big whoop. Get I new IP address and you're back in business. On the other hand, throw people in jail for this kinda thing and people will cry oppression, but punch them in the face for it and we get anarchy. It seems like the only other option is to just ignore it to the point where we get so desensitized that nothing phases anyone. Ever.

Well I know that moderator action doesn't always work, but it's still the best thing for the /first/ line of defense, education on not feeding the trolls is best for when it's a repetitive troll, and if the troll is completely malicious beyond all reasonable levels of "for the lulz" then I could understand something happening like what happened here.
The biggest idiotic thing in this story though is that the guy was all like "Lolz, I'm an internet troll, look what I can do!" He was bragging about being such a great troll IRL, which is pretty much the stupidest thing anyone, yes, even for trolls, could do.

 

[thefrizzlefry]

Why a man is in jail for making fun of some talentless **** (read: Jade Goody) that just so happened to get an admittedly terrible disease is beyond me. Seriously. The closest US parallel I could think of is someone being jailed for trolling a Snooki memorial profile. And I think we can all agree that that would be really fucking stupid.

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

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.

Your freedom to speech does not guarantee you the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want without punishment. You are welcome to say whatever you like whenever you like, but if you say something you shouldn't you are still going to be punished. As a sort of example...
If you call someone a back-stabbing traitor Nazi-extremist pedophilic necrophiliac thief somewhere where it's going to be able to be seen by a lot of people, then you are exercising your right to free speech. However you have just committed a crime (assuming of course they aren't a back-stabbing traitor Nazi-extremist pedophilic necrophiliac thief and that you have don't have proof of this) that crime being of course slander. If that someone doesn't like what you said, they are fully within their rights to sue you.

[I think. Haven't really checked up on U.S law].

 

[soulsabr]

And if I read right it just recently got even EASIER to be held liable for saying something that might possibly offend somebody who wasn't present at the time. I really wish that were a joke, too.

Source and context please?

One link, from BBC News, coming up! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11453052

My favorite part is under the title Harassment Definition Extended.

 

[ThreeDogsToaster]

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.

Certain kinds of speech are NOT protected. "I fucked your dead child" is one of the unprotected ones.

Why?

 

[ThreeDogsToaster]

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.

Your freedom to speech does not guarantee you the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want without punishment. You are welcome to say whatever you like whenever you like, but if you say something you shouldn't you are still going to be punished. As a sort of example...
If you call someone a back-stabbing traitor Nazi-extremist pedophilic necrophiliac thief somewhere where it's going to be able to be seen by a lot of people, then you are exercising your right to free speech. However you have just committed a crime (assuming of course they aren't a back-stabbing traitor Nazi-extremist pedophilic necrophiliac thief and that you have don't have proof of this) that crime being of course slander. If that someone doesn't like what you said, they are fully within their rights to sue you.

[I think. Haven't really checked up on U.S law].

I believe "free speech" extends to "Free speech without punishment for what you say" other wise we could just say that killing people for speaking out against the government was totally cool with free speech
EDIT: and to answer your question they are within' their rights to sue you for anything, they just may not win.

 

[Dark Knifer]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Was my first reaction... Although this may be a bit much for a mere troll, punishing those who say stupidly inoffensive things just for attention should be punished somehow. There should be a line in the sand for stuff like this, and maybe small jail times would be a good move. Just a week or so.

 

[LittleChone]

ABOUT TIME PEOPLE BEGAN TO SEE TROLLS AS THE MENACES THEY ARE!!!!!!!!

 

[Palademon]

Trolling is illegal in the UK?
OH SHI-

 

[Priddo]

The ones who sent it to the cops are trolls... Cannibal trolls...

 

[Thorvan]

I'd agree upon it being harassment, but 18 weeks in jail for a, in the larger scale, fairly small bit of verbal abuse seems pretty steep. Drop him a fine and restraining order, this seems just way too overblown. There may be a certain issue with the freedom of speech bit, but I'm not going to go into that knowing little about British politics.