Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[TheGuy(wantstobe)]

Yes free speech in the US such a glorious ideal that sadly does not live up to the image painted by our glorious American overlords

I mean you've had the Smith Act, "Free speech zones", the punishment of students for making a speech with sexual innuendo in it, giving schools the power to move events off campus if they deem the speech there to be bad, parts of the Protect ACT, Son of Sam laws in many states remain unchallenged the list goes on and on and on.

Then of course you also have such glorious Supreme court rulings such as Boy Scouts of America vs Dale in 2000 which overturned a state action that said that BSOA had to readmit an openly gay member as it went against BSOA 1st ammendment rights.

And then of course if criminal action is not taken against people then you have civil action which has censored your speech far more than anything else as people are afraid that they'll be sued and have everything taken.

You have as many restrictions on your speech as the UK. The UK just doesnt act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when it comes to it.

 

[Palwador]

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...

well, Freddy Mercury is dead, so its hard to expect him to do anything anymore.

 

[lee1287]

I understand being senteced for the little boy, but Jade goody? Come on, everyone hated her untill she got Cancer, so what, as son as a racist gets cancer, the nation loves them? Fuck that.

 

[Buizel91]

YEEEEEAAAAAAH! [http://brachinus.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/csi_yeah_skyline.jpg]

Finally a troll gets jailed for his crimes! I wish they'd step this up all over the world!

Do you know how many bridges they would have to look under? XD

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

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

That almost all relates to the regulation bodies and businesses operating communications.
The bit he's getting done for is the 2006 amendment. In effect it states "Communications can be abused to commit other crimes. Repeated abuse = jail time"

Really it's aimed at crackers and file sharing types not at trolls, however he broke the law and used the internet as a way to do so without punishment.

Any society that doesn't put people in jail for cruel behaviour is a society that's in deep trouble indeed.

 

[AquaAscension]

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

Mr. Chalk, please explain.

I ask because I think I understand, but I'd like qualifications.

If you mean that a society who imprisons members for being dicks is in trouble because that society is being overly harsh, I think I can agree; however, this statement is nebulous. Pardon the sexual laughter and crap: but what is a dick?

I think this man deserves his time in jail. We have to put our foot down somewhere and say that our actions have consequences, even if those actions are just written or spoken words. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but a famous judge whose name escapes memory at the moment wrote that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Can't the same rule apply to people who are swinging their tongues like fists?

Yes, we can say all we want that words don't hurt, but words, dammit, lead to ideas which lead to actions, so words need to be, if not censored (for that's far too harsh a word) watched. A society overrun with dicks needs to get out the old ban hammer, and I think prison is the perfect place for them to get pounded by that hammer.

 

[PhiMed]

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.

According to what legal precedent? I don't think this case would pass appeal in the U.S.

 

[Aeriath]

This simply highlights one of the differences between the UK and US. Sure, we might look very similar on the surface, but beneath that we are very different countries.

Maybe jail was a bit too much, but you've gotta accept the consequences for your actions.

 

[PureChaos]

didn't know that was illigal to troll in the UK. can see why he went to jail though, what he did was just nasty

 

[Bon_Clay]

I don't like the wording of this at all. If they had of specified he was going to jail for repeated harassment after they told him to fuck off and stop communicating with them, fine. But you can't make being an asshole illegal. Not only are there too many assholes in the world for it to be enforceable, real freedom of speech is essential for you to not be in a dictatorship.

If you have the ability to avoid what offends you, it falls under freedom of speech. If comments are made on sites that are not yours, public places, etc then you can just go fuck off. If its facebook or something, make it private and don't add strange people.

But if the troll goes out of their way to bypass your attempts to block contact, keeps emailing you and such then it is harassment. This would be harassment whether they kept calling your phone and saying "Is your refrigerator running?!" or "I fucked your dead child".

Harassment is harassment no matter what, but being offended by something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Good, now we just need the death penalty for opinions that people find rude and we're all set.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes free speech in the US such a glorious ideal that sadly does not live up to the image painted by our glorious American overlords

I mean you've had the Smith Act, "Free speech zones", the punishment of students for making a speech with sexual innuendo in it, giving schools the power to move events off campus if they deem the speech there to be bad, parts of the Protect ACT, Son of Sam laws in many states remain unchallenged the list goes on and on and on.

Then of course you also have such glorious Supreme court rulings such as Boy Scouts of America vs Dale in 2000 which overturned a state action that said that BSOA had to readmit an openly gay member as it went against BSOA 1st ammendment rights.

And then of course if criminal action is not taken against people then you have civil action which has censored your speech far more than anything else as people are afraid that they'll be sued and have everything taken.

You have as many restrictions on your speech as the UK. The UK just doesnt act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when it comes to it.

But the UK did act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when, in the wake of World War II and the resulting shortage of human resources on the mainland, it encouraged all Her Majesty's treasured subjects in the colonies to emigrate to the Motherland so they could fill the pressing needs in public transportation, hospitals, civil service, etc., etc., etc. And then promptly commenced to treating them like interloping second-class citizens. It didn't take those recent immigrants long in figuring out that the notion of them being Her Majesty's treasured subjects was a glorious ideal that sadly didn't live up to the image painted by their glorious British overlords.

If look hard enough, you can always find the shortage between the stated ideal and the reality.

 

[Evilsanta]

What a prick...Should have been a longer sentence or atleast put him in a cell where he will become someones *****.

 

[webzu]

Soooo...Does this mean we can sue /b/ now?

I doubt it, /b/ is a thread for trolls trolling trolls, no one takes what happens on there seriously, also "http://dagobah.net/flash/successful_troll_2.swf" this is a flash on trolls, you have been warned

 

[TheGuy(wantstobe)]

Yes free speech in the US such a glorious ideal that sadly does not live up to the image painted by our glorious American overlords

I mean you've had the Smith Act, "Free speech zones", the punishment of students for making a speech with sexual innuendo in it, giving schools the power to move events off campus if they deem the speech there to be bad, parts of the Protect ACT, Son of Sam laws in many states remain unchallenged the list goes on and on and on.

Then of course you also have such glorious Supreme court rulings such as Boy Scouts of America vs Dale in 2000 which overturned a state action that said that BSOA had to readmit an openly gay member as it went against BSOA 1st ammendment rights.

And then of course if criminal action is not taken against people then you have civil action which has censored your speech far more than anything else as people are afraid that they'll be sued and have everything taken.

You have as many restrictions on your speech as the UK. The UK just doesnt act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when it comes to it.

But the UK did act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when, in the wake of World War II and the resulting shortage of human resources on the mainland, it encouraged all Her Majesty's treasured subjects in the colonies to emigrate to the Motherland so they could fill the pressing needs in public transportation, hospitals, civil service, etc., etc., etc. And then promptly commenced to treating them like interloping second-class citizens. It didn't take those recent immigrants long in figuring out that the notion of them being Her Majesty's treasured subjects was a glorious ideal that sadly didn't live up to the image painted by their glorious British overlords.

If look hard enough, you can always find the shortage between the stated ideal and the reality.

Now you're moving the argument away from freedom of speech and the limits it has in all societies which is what this story and everyone is commenting on. One would assume this is because you can't refute what I wrote so you seize on a throwaway line and use that to set up a strawman to knock over and feel proud.

People in the UK fully admit that we did not do enough to live up to the ideal of post war immigration and the whole thing was badly mishandled and ended up causing more pain to people who we really are thankful for now. The big thing is we admit it. We know we fucked up and dint live up to the promise we made and are not so overly proud or arrogant so as to say we didn't.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes free speech in the US such a glorious ideal that sadly does not live up to the image painted by our glorious American overlords

I mean you've had the Smith Act, "Free speech zones", the punishment of students for making a speech with sexual innuendo in it, giving schools the power to move events off campus if they deem the speech there to be bad, parts of the Protect ACT, Son of Sam laws in many states remain unchallenged the list goes on and on and on.

Then of course you also have such glorious Supreme court rulings such as Boy Scouts of America vs Dale in 2000 which overturned a state action that said that BSOA had to readmit an openly gay member as it went against BSOA 1st ammendment rights.

And then of course if criminal action is not taken against people then you have civil action which has censored your speech far more than anything else as people are afraid that they'll be sued and have everything taken.

You have as many restrictions on your speech as the UK. The UK just doesnt act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when it comes to it.

But the UK did act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when, in the wake of World War II and the resulting shortage of human resources on the mainland, it encouraged all Her Majesty's treasured subjects in the colonies to emigrate to the Motherland so they could fill the pressing needs in public transportation, hospitals, civil service, etc., etc., etc. And then promptly commenced to treating them like interloping second-class citizens. It didn't take those recent immigrants long in figuring out that the notion of them being Her Majesty's treasured subjects was a glorious ideal that sadly didn't live up to the image painted by their glorious British overlords.

If look hard enough, you can always find the shortage between the stated ideal and the reality.

Now you're moving the argument away from freedom of speech and the limits it has in all societies which is what this story and everyone is commenting on. One would assume this is because you can't refute what I wrote so you seize on a throwaway line and use that to set up a strawman to knock over and feel proud.

People in the UK fully admit that we did not do enough to live up to the ideal of post war immigration and the whole thing was badly mishandled and ended up causing more pain to people who we really are thankful for now. The big thing is we admit it. We know we fucked up and dint live up to the promise we made and are not so overly proud or arrogant so as to say we didn't.

[edited below]

 

[JDKJ]

Yes free speech in the US such a glorious ideal that sadly does not live up to the image painted by our glorious American overlords

I mean you've had the Smith Act, "Free speech zones", the punishment of students for making a speech with sexual innuendo in it, giving schools the power to move events off campus if they deem the speech there to be bad, parts of the Protect ACT, Son of Sam laws in many states remain unchallenged the list goes on and on and on.

Then of course you also have such glorious Supreme court rulings such as Boy Scouts of America vs Dale in 2000 which overturned a state action that said that BSOA had to readmit an openly gay member as it went against BSOA 1st ammendment rights.

And then of course if criminal action is not taken against people then you have civil action which has censored your speech far more than anything else as people are afraid that they'll be sued and have everything taken.

You have as many restrictions on your speech as the UK. The UK just doesnt act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when it comes to it.

But the UK did act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when, in the wake of World War II and the resulting shortage of human resources on the mainland, it encouraged all Her Majesty's treasured subjects in the colonies to emigrate to the Motherland so they could fill the pressing needs in public transportation, hospitals, civil service, etc., etc., etc. And then promptly commenced to treating them like interloping second-class citizens. It didn't take those recent immigrants long in figuring out that the notion of them being Her Majesty's treasured subjects was a glorious ideal that sadly didn't live up to the image painted by their glorious British overlords.

If look hard enough, you can always find the shortage between the stated ideal and the reality.

Now you're moving the argument away from freedom of speech and the limits it has in all societies which is what this story and everyone is commenting on. One would assume this is because you can't refute what I wrote so you seize on a throwaway line and use that to set up a strawman to knock over and feel proud.

People in the UK fully admit that we did not do enough to live up to the ideal of post war immigration and the whole thing was badly mishandled and ended up causing more pain to people who we really are thankful for now. The big thing is we admit it. We know we fucked up and dint live up to the promise we made and are not so overly proud or arrogant so as to say we didn't.

I don't think I am -- certainly not intentionally. I responded to your post which points out -- and perhaps correctly so -- the shortage between the American ideal of free speech and the reality by pointing out myself that the British also have ideals with realities that fall short of those ideals. The point being that no ideal is ever perfectly satisfied by its reality. I think my point is entirely germane to the topic under discussion. And to point to the fact that an ideal isn't satisfied by its reality isn't, in my opinion, a particularly compelling argument -- not when the same can be said for any and all ideals.

And I'm not so sure that the blot on your history is as far back in the past and as forgotten as you make it out to be. Aren't there still political parties and candidates for elected office in Britain who continue to make "interloping second-class immigrants" the main plank in their platform? I can't recall World War II from personal experience but I can recall all too clearly the National Front.

 

[willsham45]

look how is that any different that family in the states making fun of there nabor's dieing child and her dead mother who died from the same disease. with the use of photoshop and facebook.
The internet is a free place no matter what i do or say should have any consequence out side of it

Although the uk is now the home to I will sure you because you offend me.
What the hell happened to words will never heart me...words in my opionion only heart the weak and annoying but then again I now when too much is too much.

 

[TheGuy(wantstobe)]

Yes free speech in the US such a glorious ideal that sadly does not live up to the image painted by our glorious American overlords

I mean you've had the Smith Act, "Free speech zones", the punishment of students for making a speech with sexual innuendo in it, giving schools the power to move events off campus if they deem the speech there to be bad, parts of the Protect ACT, Son of Sam laws in many states remain unchallenged the list goes on and on and on.

Then of course you also have such glorious Supreme court rulings such as Boy Scouts of America vs Dale in 2000 which overturned a state action that said that BSOA had to readmit an openly gay member as it went against BSOA 1st ammendment rights.

And then of course if criminal action is not taken against people then you have civil action which has censored your speech far more than anything else as people are afraid that they'll be sued and have everything taken.

You have as many restrictions on your speech as the UK. The UK just doesnt act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when it comes to it.

But the UK did act like a swaggering teen full of piss and ale when, in the wake of World War II and the resulting shortage of human resources on the mainland, it encouraged all Her Majesty's treasured subjects in the colonies to emigrate to the Motherland so they could fill the pressing needs in public transportation, hospitals, civil service, etc., etc., etc. And then promptly commenced to treating them like interloping second-class citizens. It didn't take those recent immigrants long in figuring out that the notion of them being Her Majesty's treasured subjects was a glorious ideal that sadly didn't live up to the image painted by their glorious British overlords.

If look hard enough, you can always find the shortage between the stated ideal and the reality.

Now you're moving the argument away from freedom of speech and the limits it has in all societies which is what this story and everyone is commenting on. One would assume this is because you can't refute what I wrote so you seize on a throwaway line and use that to set up a strawman to knock over and feel proud.

People in the UK fully admit that we did not do enough to live up to the ideal of post war immigration and the whole thing was badly mishandled and ended up causing more pain to people who we really are thankful for now. The big thing is we admit it. We know we fucked up and dint live up to the promise we made and are not so overly proud or arrogant so as to say we didn't.

I don't think I am -- certainly not intentionally. I responded to your post which points out -- and perhaps correctly so -- the shortage between the American ideal of free speech and the reality by pointed out that the British also have ideals with realities that fall short of those ideals. The point being that no ideal is ever perfectly satisfied by its reality. I think my point is entirely germane to the topic under discussion. And to point to the fact that an ideal isn't satisfied by its reality isn't, in opinion, a particularly compelling argument -- not when the same can be said for any and all ideals.

And I'm not so sure that the blot on your history is as far back in the past and as forgotten as you make it out to be. Aren't their still political parties and candidates for elected office in Britan who continue to make "interloping second-class immigrants" the main plank in their platform?

That would be the BNP. And while we have to allow them to exist due to free speech laws they are pretty much the equivilant of the Tea Party, two parts crazy to one part bigot to one part idiot with an added dash of unelectability to UK parliament. The big exception is that they are pretty much despised by the British public and media, and you should have seen the outrage at allowing the leader onto QT.

My original post was made out of frustration at the posters who in this thread have done nothing but go "America fuck yeah" and hold up the ideal of American free speech as the reality instead of looking at it properly and seeing that it is just as restricted as what they are detracting. I can definately see where you're coming from though in that no ideal is ever completely realised in all facets and completely agree with you on that.