Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Logic 0]

Who knew trolling was a legal crime.

 

[The Rockerfly]

I think this is relevant to the guys he was trolling

I play the trap card, 'counter troll'

And I play Billie Mays.

His booming voice fills all traps with OxiClean, rendering them shiny and useless.
...

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, trolls.

While it is rather funny to see a troll get proverbially *****-slapped for being an ass, it seems a bit much to send him to jail for being a dick.

That's what I was hoping you would do, now I play

This is very off topic for a trolling news article...

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I say good on the UK courts for doing this.
Standard trolls are jerks, but this guy just seemed sadistically jerky.

 

[Yureina]

Not sure if that was prison-worthy... but it most certainly was sue-worthy at least. In any case, that guy also is definitely going to hell, if such a place exists.

 

[Squigie]

This is a pretty tough debate. Both sides have made some strong arguments. I wonder what Captain Picard has to say about it.


Terminus est.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

i think the anonimity (my spell check is out of action) of the net can turn certain people into horrible a##holes who boast about having sex with dead children.
good to finally see one of them get a satisfactory come upance.

although its a shame this infringes on free speech, its obvious from what this guy said, some people aint worthy of the right.
i agree with human rights, but only for those who act human

 

[Rack]

For those interested, The Communications Act (2003) [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents]. There is 411 pages of it though.

Then again, I don't think the U.K> constitution gives free speech and such... Since it's under a monarchy. So it's probably whatever the king or queen decides.

Uh...REALLY suggest you read this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom] Queen 'Beth doesn't really make the laws anymore.

Actually that's wrong, the UK is still a monarchy and all powers come from the crown. That's why the UK government was easily able to pass laws denying citizens the right to trial, the right to free speech, the right to remain silent as well as the same Internet censorship powers as China.

Anyone concerned that this shows a lack of civil liberties in the UK has no idea how messed up our laws are.

 

[JDKJ]

Banning content to minors? Sounds like banning content to me.

If you can say whatever you want due to free speech, then why ban minors from violent videogames? They surely can just go and get an adult to tell them all the swear words, tell them what happens in the videogame, and learn everything that the ban was meant to enforce.

You're banning the game manufacture from their right to free speech to minors... see where this road leads?

Thats free speech of course. You cant pick and choose what to deem free speech if you greenlight the entire thing as most americans browbeat on about (like Jmraziel)

If you're going to greenlight everything to some forms of "free speech" media but not others, then that just makes you hypocritical.

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

Is US TV even allowed to say the F word? No.

Its easy to get on a high horse and feel superior when you're seperating issues that basically come down to the same thing.

Free speech = freedom to communicate however you want. Does it not?

I can tell a kid to go F himself, but its suddenly wrong when a games developer includes it in a videogame?

This just proves my point of why *COMMON SENSE* is important in intelligent society.

And people looking at this issue as black and white just because they read the HEADline soundbite and dont see the real issue at hand, are exactly why the world is such a screwed up place right now.

And until people learn to empathize and put themselves into the position and feelings of the victim, all you do is greenlight hatred, evil, and intolerance.

If you scroll back, you'll see where I suggest that no freedom in any functional system of government can be absolute. And for you to suggest that because a freedom isn't absolute means that there's hypocrisy afoot is a ridiculous argument. The First Amendment has never been construed to mean that you're free to communicate whatever you want. There are whole classes of speech that are exempted from its protections, including hate speech, obscenity, fighting words, slander and libel, incitement to riot, etc., etc., etc. These exemptions aren't based on hypocrisy. They're based on the understanding that not all forms of speech are worthy of protection because some classes of speech do nothing to positively contribute to the robust discourse required to maintain a free society which is the underlying objective intended to be furthered by the First Amendment. And when the courts (who, under the US system of government, are responsible for construing the Constitution) have identify these classes of speech not intended to be granted the protections of the First Amendment, they have exempted them accordingly. Just like the right to bear arms granted by the Second Amendment has been construed to mean that you don't get to stockpile nuclear weapons in your backyard.

And the answer to your rhetorical question about a newspaper's ability to print "Fuck You" as a headline should, I believe, be "Yes." That's guaranteed by the first cousin of free speech: freedom of the press. As a practical matter and for any number of reasons, it's probably not the sort of thing a mainstream, self-respecting publication would do but if they did, there's nothing the US government can do to legally restrain them.

And the answer to your other rhetorical question about the ability to say "Fuck You" on US television is, I believe, a qualified "It depends." On broadcast television, which is subject to the FCC's power to regulate indecency, you can't. But on cable television, which isn't subject to that sort of regulation, you can. And the distinction isn't based on hypocrisy. It's based on the understanding that broadcast television (which is freely available to all) enjoys a so-called "captive audience" in need of protection from indecency while cable television (which is available only on a paid for basis) doesn't enjoy a captive audience and therefore has no need for similar protection.

Just as you've suggested that this issue shouldn't be viewed in "black and white," neither should you view the freedoms granted by the First Amendment -- or any other part of the Bill of Rights -- in black and white.

 

[not_the_dm]

Why did I feel that I could've just stopped reading after Manchester?

Oh yeah, I'd go low enough for English city insults. Go Yorkshire!

Sorry, but he does deserve to be jailed. Why is this not done everywhere in the world?

Agreed, on all counts. That's what happens when you live on the wrong side of the mountains!

 

[herpaderphurr]

Fuck it. I'm moving to Murrika. Goodbye Big Brother; police brutality here I come!

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Any society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed.

How so, exactly? People that cause unnecessary emotional pain and suffering to others should be punished. Trolling like he did is essentially internet bullying. I'm glad the judge locked him up.

 

[JDKJ]

Fuck it. I'm moving to Murrika. Goodbye Big Brother; police brutality here I come!

Or, if it's truly police brutality you seek, you could just reinvent yourself as a West Indian immigrant and move to Handsworth. I imagine that'll be a much shorter trek.

 

[Palwador]

Well, he is a 36 year old unemployed man. with nothing to do. I wouldn't give him jail time. how 'bout two years community service, and a 100 000 fine for being a gigantic asshole. also, If I where a judge, I would have issued a kick in the nuts later. off the record.

 

[RavingLibDem]

Then again, I don't think the U.K> constitution gives free speech and such... Since it's under a monarchy. So it's probably whatever the king or queen decides.

We don't have a constitution, technically its just a collection of every single piece of legislation passed ever... Also its hardly like the King of Queen do anything these days...