Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[JoshGod]

Surely by creating this thread you have fed the troll?

 

[JDKJ]

I can stand on the steps of the Congress and scream "I FUCKING HATE YOU" until I'm blue in the face at all 534 Members of Congress as they report for work in the morning. That's well within my rights of free of speech. And, coincidentally, well within my right to petition government for redress of grievances (a separated but related right granted me by the First Amendment).

Ever think that maybe it shouldn't be?

Every day. And, after I'm done ruminating, I fall to my knees and give thanks to the old, white guys in the powered wigs who came up with the US Constitution. Fucking geniuses, each and every one of them.

Boy, sure sounds great to be American.

It's got its fair share of drawbacks. As Molotov famously said, "The Americans are free. Free to sit on a curb and starve to death while everyone else is free to not throw them a crust a stale bread (paraphrased)." But I've yet to discover another system of government for which I'd swap.

Yeah, sorry for my somewhat callous comment. I do agree - quite strongly - with the idea of a constitution and the U.S. one, whatever you may think of the country, seems to be almost watertight. Still, could you really argue that expressing hatred for a congressman, noisily, in his face, is the same as milking some trauma he suffered for fun? I think I could argue that counts as harming someone. That's not protected, is it?

You may recall that during the health care reform debate, there were Tea Party supporters on Capitol Hill hoisting signs stating "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" (i.e., Senator Ted Kennedy, a life-long advocate for health care reform and who had recently died of brain cancer). Whether done as part of a political debate or for some sort of sick jolly and regardless of what I must assume to be hurt caused his family, loved ones, and colleagues, to do is entirely protected by the First Amendment. Reprehensible but nevertheless protected.

 

[Faine']

*snip*

Thank you, InterAirplay, for everything you've added to this thread. Also a thank you to everyone else who has expressed the same sentiments.

The right to free speech and the expression of an opinion is not the right to harrass or bully individuals. From reading this thread, it seems that it's a difference a lot of Americans (a lot, not all) don't see or understand. Publically expressing an unpopular or offensive view point is one thing; hatefully targetting individuals with the intent of causing them grief is another thing entirely. You have a right to say whatever you wish provided it is presented in a respectful manner without the deliberate intent to cause harm. You DO NOT have a right to hurt someone or encourage others to hurt someone, physically OR verbally. Frankly, that kind of behaviour is barbaric and uncivilised and if you want to protect it under a misguided sense of free speech, you're - intentionally or not - promoting a society that is devoid of a simple sense of COMMON DECENCY. It is not wrong to expect people to treat each other with respect, even if their opinions differ. The law does not exist to stifle us in this regard. It exists as a standard we are expected - and expect others - to live up to.

As for the story that started this thread: it can't even be argued he was expressing an opinion. Stating that he violated the corpse of a little boy has no purpose AT ALL but to cause further upset for an already grieving family. The prison time might be a little extensive, I think, but he sounds like a sick man and some form of consequence was definitely deserved. He was not 'just trolling' them. He was harrassing them and deliberately causing misery. Why should this be acceptable and dismissed as a man just having a bit of fun? The fact that he did it online does not make it any less wrong. If he'd been showing up on their door step, sending them letters, making telephone calls etc., then people wouldn't even think twice about the fact police should be involved. THE INTERENT IS STILL 'REAL LIFE'. What you say here is just as real as what you say offline; the only difference is the anonymity and even that isn't fool proof. People should wake up and take a bit of responsibility for themselves and their actions.

 

[Michael Logan]

*snip*

Thank you, InterAirplay, for everything you've added to this thread. Also a thank you to everyone else who has expressed the same sentiments.

The right to free speech and the expression of an opinion is not the right to harrass or bully individuals. From reading this thread, it seems that it's a difference a lot of Americans (a lot, not all) don't see or understand. Publically expressing an unpopular or offensive view point is one thing; hatefully targetting individuals with the intent of causing them grief is another thing entirely. You have a right to say whatever you wish provided it is presented in a respectful manner without the deliberate intent to cause harm. You DO NOT have a right to hurt someone or encourage others to hurt someone, physically OR verbally. Frankly, that kind of behaviour is barbaric and uncivilised and if you want to protect it under a misguided sense of free speech, you're - intentionally or not - promoting a society that is devoid of a simple sense of COMMON DECENCY. It is not wrong to expect people to treat each other with respect, even if their opinions differ. The law does not exist to stifle us in this regard. It exists as a standard we are expected to - and expect others - to live up to.

As for the story that started this thread: it can't even be argued he was expressing an opinion. Stating that he violated the corpse of a little boy has no purpose AT ALL but to cause further upset for an already grieving family. The prison time might be a little extensive, I think, but he sounds like a sick man and some form of consequence was definitely deserved. He was not 'just trolling' them. He was harrassing them and deliberately causing misery. Why should this be acceptable and dismissed as a man just having a bit of fun? The fact that he did it online does not make it any less wrong. If he'd been showing up on their door step, sending them letters, making telephone calls etc., then people wouldn't even think twice about the fact police should be involved. THE INTERENT IS STILL 'REAL LIFE'. What you say here is just as real as what you say offline; the only difference is the anonymity and even that isn't fool proof. People should wake up and take a bit of responsibility for themselves and their actions.

Well said sir!

 

[Faine']

Well said sir!

It's ma'am, actually, or miss... but thanks!

 

[Lullabye]

U.K is sounding like a better place to be every day.

 

[Faine']

U.K is sounding like a better place to be every day.

Heh. We're far from perfect but on matters like these I think it's important to make a stand.

 

[JDKJ]

*snip*

Thank you, InterAirplay, for everything you've added to this thread. Also a thank you to everyone else who has expressed the same sentiments.

The right to free speech and the expression of an opinion is not the right to harrass or bully individuals. From reading this thread, it seems that it's a difference a lot of Americans (a lot, not all) don't see or understand. Publically expressing an unpopular or offensive view point is one thing; hatefully targetting individuals with the intent of causing them grief is another thing entirely. You have a right to say whatever you wish provided it is presented in a respectful manner without the deliberate intent to cause harm. You DO NOT have a right to hurt someone or encourage others to hurt someone, physically OR verbally. Frankly, that kind of behaviour is barbaric and uncivilised and if you want to protect it under a misguided sense of free speech, you're - intentionally or not - promoting a society that is devoid of a simple sense of COMMON DECENCY. It is not wrong to expect people to treat each other with respect, even if their opinions differ. The law does not exist to stifle us in this regard. It exists as a standard we are expected to - and expect others - to live up to.

As for the story that started this thread: it can't even be argued he was expressing an opinion. Stating that he violated the corpse of a little boy has no purpose AT ALL but to cause further upset for an already grieving family. The prison time might be a little extensive, I think, but he sounds like a sick man and some form of consequence was definitely deserved. He was not 'just trolling' them. He was harrassing them and deliberately causing misery. Why should this be acceptable and dismissed as a man just having a bit of fun? The fact that he did it online does not make it any less wrong. If he'd been showing up on their door step, sending them letters, making telephone calls etc., then people wouldn't even think twice about the fact police should be involved. THE INTERENT IS STILL 'REAL LIFE'. What you say here is just as real as what you say offline; the only difference is the anonymity and even that isn't fool proof. People should wake up and take a bit of responsibility for themselves and their actions.

Interesting that you would place such emphasis on decency and civility given that the locus of this story is Great Britain. I often watch coverage of the British Parliament's proceedings on C-SPAN (I've got basic cable and limited channel choices) and am left convinced that the members of the British government (the elected representatives of its citizens) are anything but civil and decent to each other. The stuff they say and do to each other while expressing difference of opinions in the House of Commons would almost certainly result in censure if it was said and done by a member of the US Congress. They make Joe Wilson and his shouting of "You lie!!" at the President look like an alter boy.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Really, people like to have this idea that they are not personally responsible for their words and actions, and its good to see that people who go out of their way to make people miserable are made to pay for it. This is what the law is supposed to do, and the whole idea of freedom as it is in these different constitutions etc. is that you're free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others.

I'm pretty sure this is negatively effecting other people. And yet people are defending it.

Sigh.

 

[Irridium]

I think this is relevant to the guys he was trolling

Spoiler

I play the trap card, 'counter troll'

And I play Billie Mays.

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

Indeed. But it was fun. Probably good that we stopped early

 

[Faine']

*snip*

Thank you, InterAirplay, for everything you've added to this thread. Also a thank you to everyone else who has expressed the same sentiments.

The right to free speech and the expression of an opinion is not the right to harrass or bully individuals. From reading this thread, it seems that it's a difference a lot of Americans (a lot, not all) don't see or understand. Publically expressing an unpopular or offensive view point is one thing; hatefully targetting individuals with the intent of causing them grief is another thing entirely. You have a right to say whatever you wish provided it is presented in a respectful manner without the deliberate intent to cause harm. You DO NOT have a right to hurt someone or encourage others to hurt someone, physically OR verbally. Frankly, that kind of behaviour is barbaric and uncivilised and if you want to protect it under a misguided sense of free speech, you're - intentionally or not - promoting a society that is devoid of a simple sense of COMMON DECENCY. It is not wrong to expect people to treat each other with respect, even if their opinions differ. The law does not exist to stifle us in this regard. It exists as a standard we are expected to - and expect others - to live up to.

As for the story that started this thread: it can't even be argued he was expressing an opinion. Stating that he violated the corpse of a little boy has no purpose AT ALL but to cause further upset for an already grieving family. The prison time might be a little extensive, I think, but he sounds like a sick man and some form of consequence was definitely deserved. He was not 'just trolling' them. He was harrassing them and deliberately causing misery. Why should this be acceptable and dismissed as a man just having a bit of fun? The fact that he did it online does not make it any less wrong. If he'd been showing up on their door step, sending them letters, making telephone calls etc., then people wouldn't even think twice about the fact police should be involved. THE INTERENT IS STILL 'REAL LIFE'. What you say here is just as real as what you say offline; the only difference is the anonymity and even that isn't fool proof. People should wake up and take a bit of responsibility for themselves and their actions.

Interesting that you would place such emphasis on decency and civility given that the locus of this story is Great Britain. I often watch coverage of the British Parliament's proceedings on C-SPAN (I've got basic cable and limited channel choices) and am left convinced that the members of the British government (the elected representatives of its citizens) are anything but civil and decent to each other. The stuff they say and do to each other while expressing difference of opinions in the House of Commons would almost certainly result in censure if it was said and done by a member of the US Congress. They make Joe Wilson and his shouting of "You lie!!" at the President look like an alter boy.

To be honest with you, I agree in part. A lot of what goes on during their debates is actually quite embarrassing and I'm often left wishing they'd behave a bit more professionally. I've never felt that they've deliberately targetted an individual to the point of harrassment, however. The odd comment here and there during a heated argument is still a different piece of cake to if they started taking personal matters and smearing them all over the place. Case in point: David Cameron recently lost his little boy. The opposition would never dream of using this as an attack point, and if they did, I can guarantee it'd get a negative reaction from the public even though I think I can safely say that the majority of us dislike Cameron and his policies a great deal.

On a slightly unrelated note: that's one thing I find odd about the USA. You're all about freedom of speech and such, and yet you censor a lot more than the UK does, it seems, particularly when it comes to sex and sexuality. But yeah, I'm going off topic here... Back on point, I agree with you that members of parliament could be far more civil, yes, but they're not victimising one another to a degree that it warrants intervention and to be honest, very harsh comments are often later publically apologised for.

Really, people like to have this idea that they are not personally responsible for their words and actions, and its good to see that people who go out of their way to make people miserable are made to pay for it. This is what the law is supposed to do, and the whole idea of freedom as it is in these different constitutions etc. is that you're free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others.

I'm pretty sure this is negatively effecting other people. And yet people are defending it.

Sigh.

This, yes. The expectation that someone should simply be a good person seems to be being slowly lost to the "well I have a right to be an asshole and you should all just shut up and deal with it!" argument.

 

[wordsmith]

I don't understand the concept of one's freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Doesn't that presuppose that a freedom can be had only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the freedom of another? Which, in turn, presupposes that freedoms are never exclusive of or in tension with each other? I'm not so sure that either of those presuppositions are at all valid. If the "pursuit of happiness" is a freedom and "happiness" is of finite quantity, then my acquisition of "happiness" necessarily occurs at the expense of someone else's acquisition of "happiness."

I know I wasn't part of the build up here, but I feel the need to comment:

Freedom ending where another's begins presupposed that freedoms will always be in contention with each other. The right to freedom means you also have the duty to provide that freedom to others. That's how a civilised society works. Whilst an American may have the right to carry and use a firearm, people around them have the right to not be shot for no reason. Your duty to not shoot an innocent is in opposition to your right to use your firearm.

To use the earlier example of shouting at congress - Whilst you have the right to express your mind, you have the duty not to cause them to be anxious about their immediate safety.

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

Any society that is OK with people doing this is in worse trouble. To give some perspective, remember he told a dead child's parents that he had raped the corpse. That's not being a dick, that's asking to get laid out. Or, in a civilised society, it's asking to be judged by a group of your peers.

 

[Pilkingtube]

but what is a dick?

Yes, that is a good question, isn't it?

A dick is apparently someone we send to jail when he says something we don't like.

Andy, it's horrible seeing you being so closed minded to British customs, it really is. The concept is that your freedom ends where another's begins. If you draw a picture of Mohammed, then run into your local mosque and show it to everybody, yes, you are defiling the religion of another. However blastphemy against Islam isn't illegal in the UK, just the Anglican church.

What this man did was not 'freedom of speech', it was malicious and deliberate harrassment. One person's freedom does not override that of another. He was causing emotional harm to another person, which can never be protected in the UK.

I don't understand the concept of one's freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Doesn't that presuppose that a freedom can be had only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the freedom of another? Which, in turn, presupposes that freedoms are never exclusive of or in tension with each other? I'm not so sure that either of those presuppositions are at all valid.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? You can sit at home and scream 'I FUCKING HATE YOU' over and over to yourself. If you stand infront of somebody else and keep screaming it, it isn't protected. The law is freedom of expression, tempered by decency. Or is harrassment legal over in the USA now?

Your example isn't a clear-cut example of harassment as criminalized by American law. Yes, I can stand on the steps of the Congress and scream "I FUCKING HATE YOU" until I'm blue in the face at all 534 Members of Congress as they report for work in the morning. That's well within my rights of free of speech. And, coincidentally, well within my right to petition government for redress of grievances (a separated but related right granted me by the First Amendment).

But what a lot of people on here don't seem to understand is that this isn't your country that we're talking about, it's mine. In the UK we have strict liable and decency laws. We conform to the EU human rights declaration with our 2000 Human Rights Act. This allows us to express ourselves in any way, as such you could indeed go out into a public place without a specific target and scream all you want, you may get some funny looks and might be asked to move by the police for disturbing the peace, but it isn't strictly illegal. However if you specifically target one person or a group with intent to cause emotional/physical harm, we do not protect you in this country. That is just the way things are here, being different to what the American audience percieves as normal doesn't inherently make it bad.

Perhaps you shouldn't have placed the issue squarely within the context of American rights by asking if harassment is legal over in the USA now?

It's hard not to, because that seems to be your only point of reference with this, never the less, my last point still stands.

 

[andyallen123]

Ok people! Stop hating the UK! In the UK, the GOVERNMENT (Not the queen, she abdicated most of her power to the government) has a duty to protect its citizens from abuse and malicious activities. Continiouing and prolonged abuse is in breach of someone?s human's rights and the nature of this individual was to enjoy the suffering of others.

He was preying on the weak and emotionally venerable, therefore he needed to be punished! You would imprison a murderer for breaching someones right to live so what is the difference in imprisoning a psychological thug for what is essentially (if you actually read peoples human rights) torture!

In the USA you may be able to get away with causing untold emotional harm to people but in England, we actually have moral standards!

 

[Therumancer]

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.

I'm far from being an Anarchist as that untimatly develops into "might makes right" and people wind up with no freedom whatsoever unless they happen to be the strongest.

I'm actually very much a right wing, law and order kind of guy, however I believe that needs to be tempered by the people having inalienable rights along with those laws. One of those rights that I believe in is for the state not being able to regulate things like free speech and personal armament. It's sort of like how I support Capitolism, but agree with the American compromise that Capitolism is fine as long as there is competition and things like Monopolies and Cartels are not okay (with monopolies being the end game for any unregulated business).

-


Like everything there are however exceptions. Your comments about people who are viewed as a danger are the result of a time of crisis and warfare. Even from the beginning the goverment was given the abillity to declare martial law and invoke war powers. In numerous discussions on free speech I have mentioned that as an exception, and you'll notice I've pointed out the way World War II was conducted in this respect as a nessicary evil.

The odd thing about "The Patriot Act" is that arguably it was designed with giving the American People the most freedom possible in mind. It was designed as a middle ground between peacetime operation, and the outright declaration of Martial Law. The idea being for the goverment to declare a time of crisis and take some of the war powers, without invoking them all and effectively turning the US into a police state for the duration.

Basically the goverment started rounding up dangerous elements, much like we were dealing with Nazi sympathizers (something people tend to forget about, Hitler was hugely popular and an international man of the year. You don't hear about his following in the US because of the war the war was conducted. Just as isolationist and anti-war sentiments were also cracked down on when things actually got moving), but didn't take full contol of the press, institute a draft, or start major resource drives/seizures.

Given that the war is against a culture that doesn't have an active military to fight against and we shouldn't need that kind of material rally, the goverment didn't want to unleash that on the people.

Of course as we're seeing, wars (especially long wars) are never popular, and as an experiment it kind of failed because one of the biggest obstacles has been our own media which is exactly why when we go to war the goverment is supposed to gag it for the duration.... though it IS noteworthy that part of our policy is that after the war ends and a few decades have passed information that was surpressed by the goverment can come out, one of the reasons why you have all these criticisms about how the war department was lying about "Human Flesh Lampshades" out there nowadays, along with various reports of American atrocities and the like even if you have to dig for them.

Now do not misunderstand me, I think "The Patriot Act" was very much a slippery slope and while I agree with the principle, and the intent, I have held the opinion that the goverment should have actually invoked War Powers, because I feel "middle ground" resolutions that are easier to invoke encourages abuse.

As I've said before, I have no real issue with what The Patriot Act actually does, I think a lot of people really don't understand it (and for that I blame a lot of the rhetoric from the anti-war side of things), nor do they realize that these kinds of powers are things the goverment has always had, and it has employed them in the past. The big issue is the way it allows the goverment to more easily make use of those powers. I think when this was being drafted the goverment should have instead invoked full martial law. I personally think we would have been done with this war years ago if that was the case, because it's the media which has complicated things on a lot of levels and caused this to be dragged out.

 

[TheSanityAssassin]

srsly?
...i don't even....

 

[LadyRhian]

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., the fact that Coss' neighbors felt it necessary to inform the police that there was a troll living down the street or the fact that the police thought the matter was important enough to warrant an interview and then formal charges?

I don't like trolls. They're attention-seeking jerks who will say anything to get a rise out of people. When they get demolished in a forum thread, or banned, or even punched in the mouth, I don't mind at all. But I'm having a hard time believing that someone is going to jail for it. Any society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed.

Conversely, as a European, I have no idea why Americans think that being a total douche or an utter imbecile is a God given right of all mankind, that one should be able to be a jackass to the entire world, and that such behaviour should be constitutionally protected, even. A society is defined by civility; what does that say about a society in which the right of the individual to be an incivil, uncouth arsehole is worth more than society's right not to be bothered by him?

It certainly explains a lot about America, though, doesn't it, such as Glenn Beck and idiocy à la "is evolution 'real'?" being a part of political discourse.

I know that the American definition of liberty is the puerile notion of "I can do whatever I want, and everyone who tells me different is a mean old poopiepants"; but here, we tend to look at things in a slightly more sophisticated fashion. Your freedom ends where the other's begins - and I would definitely say that being an arsehole to the point of causing others actual anguish fits the idea of encroaching on another's liberty. So yeah, fuck that guy. I am happy to live in a country where insults are part of the penal code. Being a dick isn't a high good, or something worth protecting.

I would add to your statement that "a society is defined by civility" the oft-quoted words of Winston Churchill, who said that "you can measure the civilization of a society by the way it treats its prisoners." And to incarcerate someone for 18 weeks as an internet troll isn't, in my opinion, a particularly flattering measure of that society's civilization.

You need to rethink that. What you said has nothing to do with how this guy is being treated in jail. You just made a giant non-sequitur. The fact that they jailed him at all says nothing about he is being treated as a prisoner in said jail. Personally, I'd have said take away the guy's internet access for a few years, so if he's gonna make comments like that, he'd have to do it face to face, where payback can be immediate and In your face as well.

 

[JDKJ]

I would add to your statement that "a society is defined by civility" the oft-quoted words of Winston Churchill, who said that "you can measure the civilization of a society by the way it treats its prisoners." And to incarcerate someone for 18 weeks as an internet troll isn't, in my opinion, a particularly flattering measure of that society's civilization.

First of all, that quote is by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Also, it is not really relevant to this conversation, since it's not about the reasons for which people go to prison but rather about how they are treated once they are there - put simply, it's saying that a country which treats its prisoners in a decent manner is more civilised than one which tortures or otherwise abuses them.

Now, as far as I know, only one major Western country has a recent record of regularly imprisoning people without trial and torturing and abusing them once they're in those prisons. So by your own quote, America is not a civilised country.

What's the expression I'm looking for here?

Oh yeah, FAIL.

I assume that's the same fail which applies to your contention that Dostoevsky, not Churchill, said that "you can measure the civilization of a society by the way it treats its prisoners." Because, contrary to your ignorant assertion, Dostoevsky didn't. Churchill did (a fact of such common knowledge and popular acceptance to be beyond all reasonable dispute). What Dostoevsky did say was, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."

At least all your time spent searching for the expression wasn't in vain since you can now just apply it to yourself. And if you've already forgotten what that expression was, here let me remind you: FAIL