Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[JDKJ]

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.

If you want to spend the morning splitting hairs and debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, suit yourself. I'm game, if you are. That being said, length of incarceration is squarely a component of a prisoner's treatment at the hands of their government, if not among the defining components thereof. If he'd received a non-custodial sentence, he wouldn't be a prisoner.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

Hello? I'm the guy who regularly watches the proceedings of the British Parliament on C-SPAN. I'm willing to bet my dollar to your doughnut that 9 out of 10 Britons can't truthfully say the same thing.

Let's also ignore the fact that I was born and raised in a former British colony (in fact, if I had been born 4 months earlier than I was, I'd have been born prior to Independence and therefore a British subject). I can still recall being given a tuppence to spend at the school tuck shop (we didn't abandon pound sterling until several years post-Independence). And I can still field a wicked silly mid-off and am a half-decent spin bowler. Semi-British enough for you?

 

[Camarilla]

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."

Um, no, he didn't. It may be widely believed, but that doesn't make it true. His actual quote is:

"A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it."

Which he said during a speech as Home Secretary in the House of Commons, on July 20th, 1910.

 

[SilverZ]

Snip

I didn't even know goat was an insult. Thanks for that, I guess. As for whether or not I'm oppressed, I can guess you can argue that we're all oppressed in some way, you giraffe you. But I can see that this is making you angry for reasons that I can not explain, so for all intents and purposes you're right. I am any livestock you want me to be.

angry oh no not at all.
i just feel sorry for your misinterpretation of our right to free speech as Americans(maybe not you and maybe you) your still a goat with the media as your sheepdog.

 

[JDKJ]

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."

Um, no, he didn't. It may be widely believed, but that doesn't make it true. His actual quote is:

"A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it."

Which he said during a speech as Home Secretary in the House of Commons, on July 20th, 1910.

Oops. Lemme fix that: "Churchill effectively said that 'you can measure the civilization of a society by the way it treats its prisoners (paraphrased for brevity and clarity).'"

Thanks.

 

[Niccolo]

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

Well said.

Eh, I'm glad the twit's in prison. Anyone who is unhinged enough to tell people he's a paedonecrophiliac needs some time in the ass-stretch building. If only to make it clear to him that while we don't give a damn about his trolling, there really are some lines that should not be crossed.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Edit: Fun fact: The UK is basically the only country in the world without a written constitution. Think about it, there's been no massive revolution in the UK during which there was a sudden change in the political system (at least in a thousand years anyway), which is usually when a country writes a constitution.

No. The UK has an uncodified constitution, which means it isn't written down in one single authoritative document. Also, it's not the only country with an uncodified constituion; New Zealand and Israel have one as well. And the last major change was in 1649-60, which isn't 1,000 years ago.

Yeah this is pretty out of order. The title is somewhat misleading, because he's gone to prison for harassing the relatives of someone, including a minor, who have died. That's not your typical troll.

 

[milkkart]

wow, all those things listed in OPs post are quite disturbing but holy shit that guy is dumb.

 

[Korolev]

The reason he went to jail is because he purposefully targeted the families and the memorial webs sites to harass people. Free Speech is free speech, and you're welcome to not care about Jade Goody or that unfortunate child that was killed, but you're NOT allowed to harass others about it.

It's like with politicians - saying "I hate Politician X" or "I hate Politician Y" is VERY DIFFERENT from going to the house of that politician and banging on the door screaming obscenities, or constantly writing abusive/threatening letters and shoving them under the door.

This troll wasn't exercising his right to free speech - he was being abusive and hurtful, intentionally, for no reason other than to be hurtful. He was harassing people, and that's not acceptable behaviour.

Imagine if I, having heard that a relative or loved one of yours died, rang up your phone number and started slagging off at you. Would you consider that "free speech"? No. You wouldn't.

 

[andyallen123]

*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.

Wow. You actually think that the British house of commons, debating difficult political business, is some how the same as a prolonged and vicious psychological assault. I admit I dont watch a lot of my own political system at work but Im pretty sure that no politician has ever confronted a counter argument by saying he had just fornicated with the shadow ministers dead son!

People in the House of Commons do bring up personal comments however; they do it in a justified and civil manner and allow the other person to defend them selves, much like in a courtroom.

I also think comparing our politicians quarrels with a premeditated and malicious attack is a poor counterargument.

 

[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.

But the guy who went to jail in this case wasn't expressing anything. He was simply hurting people for fun.

Is that your personal construction of his intent and his state of mind? Or is there clear factual evidence to support that conclusion? At least one of his "victims" was undoubtedly a controversial public figure who drew more than her fair of public criticism because of her publicly stated views. Can we confidently say that he wasn't in his own special way adding his two cents to that public criticism?

 

[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.

Wow. You actually think that the British house of commons, debating difficult political business, is some how the same as a prolonged and vicious psychological assault. I admit I dont watch a lot of my own political system at work but Im pretty sure that no politician has ever confronted a counter argument by saying he had just fornicated with the shadow ministers dead son!

People in the House of Commons do bring up personal comments however; they do it in a justified and civil manner and allow the other person to defend them selves, much like in a courtroom.

I also think comparing our politicians quarrels with a premeditated and malicious attack is a poor counterargument.

I think no such thing nor do I make any counter-points by way of comparison. As I clearly stated in prefacing my response, I simply found it interesting that the poster to whom I responded would place great emphasis on civility and decency in British society when the British House of Commons isn't exactly the last remaining bastion of either. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I take the respondee's partial agreement with me as some sort of indication that the interest wasn't entirely misplaced.

 

[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.

If you want to spend the morning splitting hairs and debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, suit yourself. I'm game, if you are. That being said, length of incarceration is squarely a component of a prisoner's treatment at the hands of their government, if not among the defining components thereof. If he'd received a non-custodial sentence, he wouldn't be a prisoner.

It makes no difference. Talking about how one is treated as a prisoner while making a comment about the person even being a prisoner at all, is a non-sequitur. If the article mentioned how the soles of his feet were being beaten with a willow withe for an hour every day, then you could pull out the "treatment of prisoners" comment, as it is, it made no sense. I'm not "Splitting hairs", just pointing out you made a non-sequitur. From the nature of your comment, it seems that you are angry with me for merely pointing out it was a non-sequitur. Ramp down the attitude.

 

[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.

Wow. You actually think that the British house of commons, debating difficult political business, is some how the same as a prolonged and vicious psychological assault. I admit I dont watch a lot of my own political system at work but Im pretty sure that no politician has ever confronted a counter argument by saying he had just fornicated with the shadow ministers dead son!

People in the House of Commons do bring up personal comments however; they do it in a justified and civil manner and allow the other person to defend them selves, much like in a courtroom.

I also think comparing our politicians quarrels with a premeditated and malicious attack is a poor counterargument.

I think no such thing nor do I make any counter-points by way of comparison. As I clearly stated in prefacing my response, I simply found it interesting that the poster to whom I responded would place great emphasis on civility and decency in British society when the British House of Commons isn't exactly the last remaining bastion of either. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I take the respondee's partial agreement with me as some sort of indication that the interest wasn't entirely misplaced.

We do have a reputation as one of the loudest Parliaments in the EU, according to my ex Dutch boyfriend, and this doesn't really surprise me. Whilst I fully support vigorous and honest debate, they do sometimes come out with comments that quite simply make me face-palm.

Do I think that every single British citizen is an example of common decency? Absolutely not. Do I think that the majority of British citizens support such an ideal when they really stop to think about it? Yes, I do. We might generally be a crass and cynical bunch but there's still a line you don't cross and that line is intentional harm.

Ultimately, I suppose this thread has just high-lighted a divide in what people of different countries consider harrassment.

 

[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.

But the guy who went to jail in this case wasn't expressing anything. He was simply hurting people for fun.

Is that your personal construction of his intent and his state of mind? Or is there clear factual evidence to support that conclusion? At least one of his "victims" was undoubtedly a controversial public figure who drew more than her fair of criticism because of her publicly stated views. Can we confidently say that he wasn't in his own special way adding his two cents to that public criticism?

What publicly stated views would that be?

And if he was adding his own two cents, there is no reason not to do it civilly. I'm not singling him out, either - I remember hearing people laughing about her death, even teachers spouting callous bullshit along the lines of "good riddance!". I was obliged to then point out that they were talking about a deceased mother of two.

Not to speak ill of the departed, but it appears that the woman's frequently ill-informed public statements endeared her as a punching bag and an object of ridicule to the British tabloid press and public. Clearly she was the subject of much public criticism as a result. There's a link in the article to a wiki entry containing a choice sampling of those publicly stated views.

 

[andyallen123]

*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.

Wow. You actually think that the British house of commons, debating difficult political business, is some how the same as a prolonged and vicious psychological assault. I admit I dont watch a lot of my own political system at work but Im pretty sure that no politician has ever confronted a counter argument by saying he had just fornicated with the shadow ministers dead son!

People in the House of Commons do bring up personal comments however; they do it in a justified and civil manner and allow the other person to defend them selves, much like in a courtroom.

I also think comparing our politicians quarrels with a premeditated and malicious attack is a poor counterargument.

I think no such thing nor do I make any counter-points by way of comparison. As I clearly stated in prefacing my response, I simply found it interesting that the poster to whom I responded would place great emphasis on civility and decency in British society when the British House of Commons isn't exactly the last remaining bastion of either. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I take the respondee's partial agreement with me as some sort of indication that the interest wasn't entirely misplaced.

I except that British MPs do lack moral decency, just look at the expenses scandal! However our politicians, our media and our citizens all agree that "free speech" is not an excuse for that kind of behaviour, not just the government.

On a side note, the "free speech" part of the entire thread is just people assuming that was his defence. I doubt that was the case.

Anyway, sorry for any hostility in my last reply. Its just this kind of thing really gets on my nerves! There is no way to defend this guy! He is wrong; you cant attack people in that way. Thats why I tent to be... a tad annoyed with people who try to defend him. Sorry for any harsh remarks =)