Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Gigano]

Can't say I feel sorry for the guy, but having such law on the books seem incredibly strict and a complete overkill, at least when it only involve adults. And 4 ½ months in jail is positively draconian for a mere verbal offence, even if it was made unprovoked in an emotionally vulnerable situation. Ordinarily, physical violence won't net that much!

It's not like he was a subtle troll trying to smear the deceased in any plausible way. He went all-out with an absurd claim that everyone - family and casual onlookers alike - must have immediately known to be entirely untrue and designed only to offend.

Seems the UK government already out-trolled him way back in 2003. Not the best way to go about the problem I should think. Wasting resources and attention on self-proclaimed trolls is an exercise in futility, and cracking down on them that hard one in draconian measures to boot.

 

[WaderiAAA]

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.

And here, sir, our definitions part ways. (But may I say that I appreciate you taking time to respond to my criticism - this is how good conversations start and how better information may eventually be obtained, it's... what the current American political system lacks.)

I Would agree that the people who put this man in jail did not like what he said. I don't like what he said. I think I understand the logic flowing here: if we begin throwing people in jail for "sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive", then we could easily begin to throw people in jail for "malicious communications that were mildly offensive" next. In fact, there could presumably be no limit. We could easily find ourselves in a situation in which the almight government is abusing its power by putting people in jail for no reason. In this context, you are absolutely right, and this jailing would be more offensive than the bile this man posted to the internet.

Unfortunately, there is a flip side though, and this law may be like taking a samurai sword into the operating room and using it as a scalpel, but there seems to be a significant lack of respect (at least in American society). People no longer seem to have a good grasp on what is right and what is wrong. We could blame this on poor parenting, on television, on any number of things and we'd probably all be right, but that really won't matter. A government is only as strong as its people and if those people are all a bunch of dicks and other vulgar body parts, then the government will be too. And then this entire point is moot. It'll be cyclical. A bunch of dicks just going around doing what dicks do and fucking each other (sorry for the vulgarity, AND the reference to team America).

I'm a poet. I need my freedom of speech to be upheld because I deal with difficult issues, but dammit, I should be able to find a way to say the things I need to say without hurting other people with my words. And this opens up an entirely new discussion of "how much hurt is acceptable" and "you know, someone will get hurt regardless, so you won't be able to say anything at all after awhile" and I think those points are valid, and I don't have a good way to talk about them yet.

But, like I said, this is how good discussion starts.

I think there is one important line that will always distinguish your poetry from stuff like that guy said, and that is that it is thought-provocative. I think the moment someone says anything that is both offensive and thought-provocative and gets put in jail for it, people will protest and (at least in Europe with mostly cowardly goverments) they will stop putting people in jail for it. There is just nothing about that guys statements that anyone would find enriching in anyway - unless they are necrophiles - and that is where the line goes.

I for one do not believe the line will be pushed until freedom of speech is dead, and I do believe it is right to have a law against grossly offensive statements.

 

[pigmypython]

Someone got punished for being a social jerkoff? I'm actually OK with that. People (especially Americans) make too much of "so called" free speech. No speech is free and if you don't believe me then tell your boss what you really think of him...might cost you your job
Nothing free about that.

Indeed. But you can still tell him what you think of him and not be jailed for it. Important distinction between corporate justice and government justice. Free speech is a very nice right to have.

I do agree about that but what I am mainly getting at is there is always consequences for saying what you want to say...if a person is cool with that then go ahead. I just get really annoyed when people are publicly rude & disgusting and act all offended when people react. (obviously in his case that is what he wanted) Guy was a douche-bag and went to jail for it. I find that quite good.

 

[WaderiAAA]

Can't say I feel sorry for the guy, but having such law on the books seem incredibly strict and a complete overkill, at least when it only involve adults. And 4 ½ months in jail is positively draconian for a mere verbal offence, even if it was made unprovoked in an emotionally vulnerable situation. Ordinarily, physical violence won't net that much!

I agree with you that four and a half month is harsh (I'd say one month is fair), but I disagree with the rethoric when you compare it to physical violence. I mean, words can hurt more than punches so why is saying something about raping the courpses of someone's loved ones not worse than for instance punching them in the face?

 

[Frankster]

Andy, please explain the difference between your advocacy of physical violence to punish speech that you find distasteful and physical restraint by authorities for speech someone else finds distasteful. They seem pretty much equivalent to me.

I put some thought into this, wrote a reply, edited, went back and forth with it a bit, but then it struck me that it really comes down to a very simple concept: Sometimes violence is the answer. It may sound flippant, but there it is.

Well, even though I find your reason unsatisfying and lacking any supporting thoughts, I do appreciate the time you put in to responding. That you would think about it at all was my primary objective.

I think I could pick up from him if you are curious about an alternative point of view.
I too believe violence is sometimes the answer, an elegant (lol!) and timely way to resolve a minor slight then the cumbersome process that would be going through the legal system.

But then again, i'm off the opinion that words can hurt more then punches or a black eye can.
Back when i was a small lad, and well even today, i have trouble insulting or winning a verbal argument, i have trouble thinking quickly in the heat of a debate.
So had a little bullying going on there, and in each case ended the same, i'd end up snapping and charge without warning, on 2 occasions i put to flight (different) groups of 3 lads
Once the first punch started, often the taunting ones wouldn't have the bite to back their bark.
If i had the option to sue them though.... I don't think the outcome would have been as positive.

Same sort of situation can happen even as an adult, and were i part of the family of the deceased in this example, i'd much rather go and find the guy and knock his teeth out, then take him to court. It satisfies me, the family and punishes the ego of the troll while giving him a painful punishment for a month or so.

Now, i'm not saying this way of thinking is civilized or ideal at all, i just don't believe humans are that civilized to begin with :\

 

[brunt32]

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

The Queen has only the power to deny laws from becoming true. She can't make laws, it's not a total Monarchy.

The Queen in theory does have power to put laws in place but is advised and chooses not to. (Leave it to those trained I guess) Also I believe if she really wanted to she could give this man a pardon however the queen isn't going to do it over a issue like this.

 

[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."

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

Cute, but I do this stuff for a living, and don't just get pseudo-fitting quotes off Wiki.

What you mean was the quote about society being judged by the way in which it treats ITS WEAKEST MEMBERS. Which is only ATTRIBUTED to Winston Churchill. You are free to show me sources which prove otherwise, but I don't think you will...
Therefore, I presume that your "common knowledge" comes from the same source which makes 20% of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim, or that the sun revolves around the Earth. The prisons quote is from Dostoevsky's "Notes from the House of the Dead", trust me. You just don't know very much.

But it is telling that you would defend the sacrosanctity of internet trolling.

Again, FAIL. The day I get called ignorant by an American who does not have a degree from Stanford is the day that tea-baggers start making sense.

You'd be amusing if your ignorance and scant-supported arrogance wasn't so frightening.

Courtesy of the poster Camarilla, here are the actual word as stated by Churchill as Home Secretary in the House of Commons on July 20th, 1910:


"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."

Having read them, if you remain convinced and willing to assert that he's referring to society weakest members (which isn't at all what I either said or meant) and not clearly referring to society's accused and convicted criminals, then you, my friend, are not only ignorant but are more accurately an ignorant twit. I don't know what you do for a living and, truth be told, I don't particularly care. But if you bring to your vocation the same level of rhetorical skill and knowledge which you've brought to our discussion, I respectfully suggest that you shouldn't overreach in your vocational choices. I suspect that ticket-taker at your local cinema may be an entirely appropriate choice for you.

You're also a presumptuous twit. On what possible basis have you arrived at the conclusions that: (a) I am American and (b) I don't in fact hold a degree from Stanford? You know next to absolutely nothing about me and certainly nothing more than I'm willing to tell you. But I will correct your misapprehensions of me to the extent of informing you that: (a) I am not an American citizen and (b) I hold a degree not from Stanford but from Harvard (although I'm having difficulty seeing what relevance at all that should bear). Is there anything else about me that you're desirous of knowing? I'll try to indulge your feeble-minded inquisitiveness as best I can.

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

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

The Queen has only the power to deny laws from becoming true. She can't make laws, it's not a total Monarchy.

The Queen in theory does have power to put laws in place but is advised and chooses not to. (Leave it to those trained I guess) Also I believe if she really wanted to she could give this man a pardon however the queen isn't going to do it over a issue like this.

No, she couldn't make a law even if she wanted to. She can only stop laws from coming into existence in any countries still in The Commonwealth e.g. Britain, Canada, Australia.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

He won't. He's here to make a point (USA is #1 because it lets its citizens be as big a bunch of douche bags as they want to be), "quotes" wrongly and out of context to prove his "point", calls people ignorant when they laugh at the feeble attempts at intellectual superiority which he displays, and generally believes that half-known and quarter-understood slogans are an acceptable substitute for an actual informed opinion.

Do you think that he will be swayed by something as inconsequential as the truth? Common sense even?

Please.

Scroll back. I've already promised that I'd ramp down the attitude as commanded. Albeit conditioned on not being sent off to bed without supper. Fair exchange is no robbery.

 

[Chimichanga]

Meh, not really surprised: the UK is essentially a police state with a little less police brutality. Thought-crime is real across the pond: if you're 'too inappropriate' for the nanny state's taste you can get arrested. Bunch of easily-offended fascists IMO.

Say what you will about quality control, but I prefer freedom to be offensive over being confined to everyone else's oversensitivity.

 

[Gigano]

...
I agree with you that four and a half month is harsh (I'd say one month is fair), but I disagree with the rhetoric when you compare it to physical violence. I mean, words can hurt more than punches so why is saying something about raping the corpses of someone's loved ones worse than for instance punching them in the face?

Words can indeed be powerful, but unlike a punch their influence is entirely subjective. Some would care nothing if such obvious troll stumbled across their memorial site, while others would break down; all would suffer pain (and tissue damage) from a blow to the chin.

I believe great care must be exercised in law-making regarding intangible and subjective matters such as "emotional harm", also because there are quite often - if not really in the scenario at hand - free speech counter-concerns to be had in regard to "hurtful" statements, which does not exist with physical violence. Inane and childish provocations like the Muhammed Cartoons, which can however also be seen as criticisms of a religious world view with some very questionable norms on the books, should still be legal, if nothing else because some people know no other way to raise their voice in a societally relevant debate on ideology, from which none should be excluded.

Rather than a generalized punishment for statements, I'd go with awarding damages in the scenarios where great emotional harm - with consequences which can be diagnosed or measured - was actually inflicted, if we must take the legalistic route. Since informal social regulation is by far more useful in maintaining a civil level of debate, and since I feel impoliteness should as an absolutely dominant rule of thumb not lead to legal punishment in a free society, I'm generally not hooked on (punitive) laws being used to regulate verbal socializing; especially since all they can do in that regard is treat symptoms.

 

[WrathOfBanja]

He told his neighbors...?
I dont even...

 

[Afoxesfan]

I prefer freedom to be offensive over being confined to everyone else's oversensitivity.

So finding someone implying necrophilia with a child, on a website for said child a little disturbing,is just us being 'oversensitive'?

 

[Theninja'skatana]

Epic win for morality!

 

[Theninja'skatana]

I prefer freedom to be offensive over being confined to everyone else's oversensitivity.

So finding someone implying necrophilia with a child, on a website for said child a little disturbing,is just us being 'oversensitive'?

There's freedom and then there not F'ing with other people. Or their dead kids!

 

[WaderiAAA]

...
I agree with you that four and a half month is harsh (I'd say one month is fair), but I disagree with the rhetoric when you compare it to physical violence. I mean, words can hurt more than punches so why is saying something about raping the corpses of someone's loved ones worse than for instance punching them in the face?

Words can indeed be powerful, but unlike a punch their influence is entirely subjective. Some would care nothing if such obvious troll stumbled across their memorial site, while others would break down; all would suffer pain (and tissue damage) from a blow to the chin.

I believe great care must be exercised in law-making regarding intangible and subjective matters such as "emotional harm", also because there are quite often - if not really in the scenario at hand - free speech counter-concerns to be had in regard to "hurtful" statements, which does not exist with physical violence. Inane and childish provocations like the Muhammed Cartoons, which can however also be seen as criticisms of a religious world view with some very questionable norms on the books, should still be legal, if nothing else because some people know no other way to raise their voice in a societally relevant debate on ideology, from which none should be excluded.

Rather than a generalized punishment for statements, I'd go with awarding damages in the scenarios where great emotional harm - with consequences which can be diagnosed or measured - was actually inflicted, if we must take the legalistic route. Since informal social regulation is by far more useful in maintaining a civil level of debate, and since I feel impoliteness should as an absolutely dominant rule of thumb not lead to legal punishment in a free society, I'm generally not hooked on (punitive) laws being used to regulate verbal socializing; especially since all they can do in that regard is treat symptoms.

I agree that with stuff like the Muhammed drawings should be legal. You make some great points here. To me, the line between what should be legal or not goes between what can be called a "statement" and what can't. The Muhammed drawings are statements - which I personally think are ineffective, but whatever. However with the example from this article, I don't think it can be called a statement, just an insult.

By the way, how great do you think the emotional harm should be for it to make it punishable? Let's say the people involved were either crying or raging over it for an hour, and it ruined their day, but they got over it within a week and it had no long-term effect on their mental health. Would it then be punishable or not?

I would say that as long as it is something that is clearly very offensive and not a statement, and the offended is upset enough to report it to the police, then it should be illegal.

 

[Flac00]

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

We're ruled by a democratically elected government, you dumbass.

And the constitution for the UK is unwritten..... How the hell do you guys know what's in that thing?

...we don't have a constitution. Fun fact: the USA is not a blueprint for the rest of the world (thank god). We still have fucking laws, just because you call it a constitution and we don't, doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, no. You guys, or at least some of you guys, call it a constitution. Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world, the most powerful and dominant country in the world. We do have laws, though some I don't agree with. Don't make fun of the U.S. when your own problems are still big. Keep working on that corruption in Parliament!