Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Counterwise]

I don't know if anything he said is illegal, if pissing off people would be a crime, we would all be someone's prison *****.
"He was charged under the Communications Act 2003, for sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive."
Tough break Englanders, so much as flipping someone off may land you in jail.
"V for vendetta", just thought I'd add that.

 

[ebonyspiral]

Upon reading this article, I began hearing REM's 'End of the world as we know it' playing in my head.
Oh noes! I had to make myself a nice cup of tea to calm down, fearing the police would come knocking on my door at any minute, because I use teh internets and may have upset someone. HUR.

Yeah, I live in the UK and think the hysterical tone of the article only highlights the misunderstanding of other nations cultures and legal systems.

The thread has thrown up some pretty pathetic 'my country is better than your country' playground logic, but it's also made me very thankful that the UK doesn't subscribe to the notion that freedom of speech = freedom to be a complete prick.
What that guy did was vindictive and cruel. That was his only motivation. He wasn't fighting a cause; some poor martyr to be sympathised with. He wasn't saying those things on some random forum where nobody would care about his sickening comments; he deliberately targeted specific people with intent to cause distress.
To defend his motivation is to deny that respect is also an important right we all deserve. Respect is something I would much rather protect than the right to harass a grieving family. And the whole idea that this is going to cause the UK to turn into a censored police state is rather, ZOMGWTF!!1! over the top.

I'm also curious - the WBC has the right to picket soldiers' funerals, but the grieving families do not have the right to be left in peace, on what is already a painful enough occasion? I'm not saying that sarcastically either; I'm genuinely asking if that's the case with the situation.

 

[JDKJ]

Upon reading this article, I began hearing REM's 'End of the world as we know it' playing in my head.
Oh noes! I had to make myself a nice cup of tea to calm down, fearing the police would come knocking on my door at any minute, because I use teh internets and may have upset someone. HUR.

Yeah, I live in the UK and think the hysterical tone of the article only highlights the misunderstanding of other nations cultures and legal systems.

The thread has thrown up some pretty pathetic 'my country is better than your country' playground logic, but it's also made me very thankful that the UK doesn't subscribe to the notion that freedom of speech = freedom to be a complete prick.
What that guy did was vindictive and cruel. That was his only motivation. He wasn't fighting a cause; some poor martyr to be sympathised with. He wasn't saying those things on some random forum where nobody would care about his sickening comments; he deliberately targeted specific people with intent to cause distress.
To defend his motivation is to deny that respect is also an important right we all deserve. Respect is something I would much rather protect than the right to harass a grieving family. And the whole idea that this is going to cause the UK to turn into a censored police state is rather, ZOMGWTF!!1! over the top.

I'm also curious - the WBC has the right to picket soldiers' funerals, but the grieving families do not have the right to be left in peace, on what is already a painful enough occasion? I'm not saying that sarcastically either; I'm genuinely asking if that's the case with the situation.

The definitive answer to that question currently pends its issuance by the Supreme Court. But assuming it didn't and the current state of legal affairs would hold sway, then the short answer is that the rights of Westboro to do what they do outweigh the rights of the grieving families to hold funerals free of Westboro.

 

[ebonyspiral]

The definitive answer to that question currently pends its issuance by the Supreme Court. But assuming it didn't and the current state of legal affairs would hold sway, then the short answer is that the rights of Westboro to do what they do outweighs the rights of the grieving families to hold funerals free of Westboro.

See, I don't want to do the whole WTF is wrong with a country that would allow that, because I know no society is perfect, and I'll have a go at my own government with as much gusto as any other; but I just can't accept that as being fair.
To put the rights of a person or organisation, who are obviously there to cause distress and show great disrespect during a fundamental human occasion (it could be any cultures grieving ritual) I will always believe is wrong. There are many way to express cuckoo ideas and beliefs (such as the ones the WBC have) but that is not the time nor place. It makes me despair for humanity in some respect.

 

[JDKJ]

The definitive answer to that question currently pends its issuance by the Supreme Court. But assuming it didn't and the current state of legal affairs would hold sway, then the short answer is that the rights of Westboro to do what they do outweighs the rights of the grieving families to hold funerals free of Westboro.

See, I don't want to do the whole WTF is wrong with a country that would allow that, because I know no society is perfect, and I'll have a go at my own government with as much gusto as any other; but I just can't accept that as being fair.
To put the rights of a person or organisation, who are obviously there to cause distress and show great disrespect during a fundamental human occasion (it could be any cultures grieving ritual) I will always believe is wrong. There are many way to express cuckoo ideas and beliefs (such as the ones the WBC have) but that is not the time nor place. It makes me despair for humanity in some respect.

Just to play Devil's advocate (no pun intended), if you're Westboro and you -- in your insanity -- truly believe that soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan because God wants to use those deaths to demonstrate his disapproval of homosexuality in America, then what more approriate place to march around with the "God Hates Fags" signs than at the funerals of those soldiers? It's kinda like the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton answered when asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the all money is."

 

[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.

Here, courtesy of Camarilla, is the full text of Churchill's quote:

"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."

If after reading it, you remained convinced that Churchill intended his reference to treatment of criminals to refer only to post-incarceration treatment, then fine. Suit yourself. We'll just respectfully disagree on the point (after all, it's at best a niggling point).

And yes, Mum, I'll ramp down the attitude. Just don't send me off to bed without any supper, please.

Still not getting the point. Where did I say anything about "post-incaraceration treatment"? There are prisons where such beatings happen while you are in jail. And anyhow, your whole butthurt attitude about my comment is making you look ridiculous, especially the comments. Face it dude- you made a non-sequitur. Acting all pissy about it says more about you than I really wanted to know.

Where? Right about the point where you stated, "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." That'd be where. And Churchill's verbatim commentary speaks to pre-conviction and post-conviction issues of treatment and issues of treatment during incarceration. You don't see that? Or are you giving an overly strict construction to the word "treatment" and one that only encompasses "treatment" during incarceration?

Read it again. Nothing in there mentioned "Post-incarceration". That's your reading into it something that isn't there. Try again? People have had the soles of their feet beaten *while* they are in prison. If mention of his imprisonment had included such (and I doubt it does given that he's in a British Prison), it still makes no sense for you to use a quote about how someone is being treated in prison when your beef is that this guy got sent to prison in the first place. Once again, it remains a non-sequitur for you to put in a quote about how prisoners are treated when your real complaint is that he was imprisoned in the first place.

You don't see where "a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment" requires of those who impose punishments that their punishments fit the crimes? And how many posters here have opined that the punishment is this case nowhere near fits the crime? And where punishments that are disproportionate to the crimes reflect, as Churchill would argue, an uncivilized society? If you can't see any of this, then you're breeding suspicions in me that you're an ignorant twit. Either that or stone-cold blind.

Now you are just starting to look silly. In my first post on the subject, I said my punishment would have been taking his internet away. So once again, you missed the target, and are attempting to make your original quote had something to do with what you were complaining about, when it didn't. Therefore, it's a non-sequitur.

 

[The Journey]

Free speech means freedom of opinion. If your opinion makes you seem like an ass to someone, that's their problem. It does not, however, simply mean the freedom to be an ass, and it's about time that people who acted like it does started realizing that.

I agree. I also agree that idiots do deserve a good smack when they act up particularly stupidly, especially when they are fully aware of what they are doing to other people.

Otherwise, I think this guy deserved what he got. Being anonymous should not be the shield a lot of people tend to think it is. This is why Xbox Live is such a fucking tarpit of stupid people saying stupid things.

 

[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.

Because the speech caused emotional trauma. It's the equivalent of actually injuring someone.

No, it's not.

There are specific crimes unique to physical damage. They are not legally equivalent to hurt feelings.

"Emotional trauma" is typically the realm of civil court. It might be grounds for judgement in a lawsuit, but rude speech is almost NEVER criminalized in countries that care about freedom of speech (which the UK apparently does not).

If Westboro Baptist Church can demonstrate at funerals of dead GIs with huge signs that say the deceased are burning in hell for "loving fags" without even being threatened with jail time, I really don't see some rando ranting on an internet forum serving jail time. What he did was, at the absolute worst, the virtual equivalent of vandalism, not assault.

Edit: Most speech crimes that do cite emotional trama as a prerequisite for criminal intent require the injured to feel threatened physically or substantively. What he was saying was offensive, not threatening. He's a jerk. Maybe he should be fined, but he's not a criminal worthy of jail time.

 

[ebonyspiral]

Just to play Devil's advocate (no pun intended), if you're Westboro and you -- in your insanity -- truly believe that soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan because God wants to use those deaths to demonstrate his disapproval of homosexuality in America, then what more approriate place to march around with the "God Hates Fags" signs than at the funerals of those soldiers? It's kinda like the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton answered when asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the all money is."

It's not their point of view I'm criticising, that's just a given, or their choice of venue; it's the fact that their rights are put before the families attending the funerals.

The WBC aren't ever going to have the decency to give these families the opportunity and peace they deserve to mourn, and the fact they are allowed to deny something as basic as that to another human being is what I question. That their freedom of speech (which they could express in other ways; nobody would be denying them the right completely) is more valued than the right of someone to lay their loved one to rest without harassment, is what I question.

 

[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.

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.

Here, courtesy of Camarilla, is the full text of Churchill's quote:

"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."

If after reading it, you remained convinced that Churchill intended his reference to treatment of criminals to refer only to post-incarceration treatment, then fine. Suit yourself. We'll just respectfully disagree on the point (after all, it's at best a niggling point).

And yes, Mum, I'll ramp down the attitude. Just don't send me off to bed without any supper, please.

Still not getting the point. Where did I say anything about "post-incaraceration treatment"? There are prisons where such beatings happen while you are in jail. And anyhow, your whole butthurt attitude about my comment is making you look ridiculous, especially the comments. Face it dude- you made a non-sequitur. Acting all pissy about it says more about you than I really wanted to know.

Where? Right about the point where you stated, "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." That'd be where. And Churchill's verbatim commentary speaks to pre-conviction and post-conviction issues of treatment and issues of treatment during incarceration. You don't see that? Or are you giving an overly strict construction to the word "treatment" and one that only encompasses "treatment" during incarceration?

Read it again. Nothing in there mentioned "Post-incarceration". That's your reading into it something that isn't there. Try again? People have had the soles of their feet beaten *while* they are in prison. If mention of his imprisonment had included such (and I doubt it does given that he's in a British Prison), it still makes no sense for you to use a quote about how someone is being treated in prison when your beef is that this guy got sent to prison in the first place. Once again, it remains a non-sequitur for you to put in a quote about how prisoners are treated when your real complaint is that he was imprisoned in the first place.

You don't see where "a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment" requires of those who impose punishments that their punishments fit the crimes? And how many posters here have opined that the punishment is this case nowhere near fits the crime? And where punishments that are disproportionate to the crimes reflect, as Churchill would argue, an uncivilized society? If you can't see any of this, then you're breeding suspicions in me that you're an ignorant twit. Either that or stone-cold blind.

Now you are just starting to look silly. In my first post on the subject, I said my punishment would have been taking his internet away. So once again, you missed the target, and are attempting to make your original quote had something to do with what you were complaining about, when it didn't. Therefore, it's a non-sequitur.

OK. Fine. Enough of you. It's a non sequitur.

 

[JDKJ]

Just to play Devil's advocate (no pun intended), if you're Westboro and you -- in your insanity -- truly believe that soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan because God wants to use those deaths to demonstrate his disapproval of homosexuality in America, then what more approriate place to march around with the "God Hates Fags" signs than at the funerals of those soldiers? It's kinda like the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton answered when asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the all money is."

It's not their point of view I'm criticising, that's just a given, or their choice of venue; it's the fact that their rights are put before the families attending the funerals.

The WBC aren't ever going to have the decency to give these families the opportunity and peace they deserve to mourn, and the fact they are allowed to deny something as basic as that to another human being is what I question. That their freedom of speech (which they could express in other ways; nobody would be denying them the right completely) is more valued than the right of someone to lay their loved one to rest without harassment, is what I question.

Again, just to play the Devil's advocate:

Which one's of greater value to a free and democratic society: the rights of Westboro to do what they do or the rights of the bereaved to conduct their rites free of Westboro?

 

[ebonyspiral]

Just to play Devil's advocate (no pun intended), if you're Westboro and you -- in your insanity -- truly believe that soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan because God wants to use those deaths to demonstrate his disapproval of homosexuality in America, then what more approriate place to march around with the "God Hates Fags" signs than at the funerals of those soldiers? It's kinda like the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton answered when asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the all money is."

It's not their point of view I'm criticising, that's just a given, or their choice of venue; it's the fact that their rights are put before the families attending the funerals.

The WBC aren't ever going to have the decency to give these families the opportunity and peace they deserve to mourn, and the fact they are allowed to deny something as basic as that to another human being is what I question. That their freedom of speech (which they could express in other ways; nobody would be denying them the right completely) is more valued than the right of someone to lay their loved one to rest without harassment, is what I question.

Again, just to play the Devil's advocate:

Which one's of greater value to a free and democratic society: the rights of Westboro to do what they do or the rights of the bereaved to conduct their rites free of Westboro?

If Westboro are prevented from disrespecting a funeral (another basic and long established human right), they are not being denied freedom of speech. Their views can be expressed at other times and other places.
It doesn't have to be a case of there only being a black or white option; common sense, humanity and respect can live alongside a peoples right to voice their opinions. I think the ruling, in the OP, demonstrates that there are lines to be drawn, and I do not believe it threatens a free and democratic society. It is not the end of the world as we know it.

 

[VanityGirl]

No that was incredibly appropriate actually.

Internet anonymity is missused by too many people with little to no life of their own, so they get off on taking out all their lameness on people on line.

If you jump on an innocent family in the midst of a tragedy like that, then yup, I'm very happy with the idea that you butt goes to jail. It's abuse, and it's a behavior society should be punishing.

I totally agree with you.

I feel no pity if someone wants to be a TOTAL asshole and send what could be described as malicious mail to a family who has suffered a loss.
This wasn't simple "Omg hao r sukz!" trolling here people, this was something more.

It seems like malicious harassment....not simple trolling....is what was going on here. What he did is equivalent to mailing anonymous threats to someone in the mail (which I believe is also considered criminal harassment, though I could be wrong). Defense of free speech is one thing; defense of someone's right to stalk, harass and intimidate or threaten another individual is crossing a line that goes way beyond free speech; in the US, for example, the whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not mean at the expense of someone else (i.e. the bereaved and harassed families).

^This person has said it better than I ever could.

 

[JDKJ]

Just to play Devil's advocate (no pun intended), if you're Westboro and you -- in your insanity -- truly believe that soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan because God wants to use those deaths to demonstrate his disapproval of homosexuality in America, then what more approriate place to march around with the "God Hates Fags" signs than at the funerals of those soldiers? It's kinda like the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton answered when asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the all money is."

It's not their point of view I'm criticising, that's just a given, or their choice of venue; it's the fact that their rights are put before the families attending the funerals.

The WBC aren't ever going to have the decency to give these families the opportunity and peace they deserve to mourn, and the fact they are allowed to deny something as basic as that to another human being is what I question. That their freedom of speech (which they could express in other ways; nobody would be denying them the right completely) is more valued than the right of someone to lay their loved one to rest without harassment, is what I question.

Again, just to play the Devil's advocate:

Which one's of greater value to a free and democratic society: the rights of Westboro to do what they do or the rights of the bereaved to conduct their rites free of Westboro?

If Westboro are prevented from disrespecting a funeral (another basic and long established human right), they are not being denied freedom of speech. Their views can be expressed at other times and other places.
It doesn't have to be a case of there only being a black or white option; common sense, humanity and respect can live alongside a peoples right to voice their opinions. I think the ruling, in the OP, demonstrates that there are lines to be drawn, and I do not believe it threatens a free and democratic society. It is not the end of the world as we know it.

So then, for you, it is about an issue of appropriate venue? I understood you to previously say it wasn't. No?

And if it is for you an issue of venue, what pray tell would, in your opinion, be a more appropriate venue?

And would it matter to you that, as a matter of fact, Westboro isn't physically all up in the church or on the grounds of or all up in anyone's grill or anything of the like? They're actually down the road a little ways.

And now I've got REM going round and round in my head. Thanks a lot.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Can I just point out to anyone who thinks the sentence is too harsh, or to those who have descended hyperbolically into Orwellian allusions, that the accused is a 36 year old unemployed man. Which means the court probably imposed this punishment on him because it was deemed he did not have the finances to pay a fine, which is probably a more typical sentence in crimes of this nature. This in itself is not uncommon in legal cases. Hell, even something as simple as a parking fine can land you in prison if you can't or don't pay it: that's a standard feature of the legal system in Australia, where I'm coming from, at any rate. What's more, he wasn't being convicted of a single count, but multiple counts: hence the length of the sentence.

Also, for all the Americans touting their fantastic legal system, I hear today that a New York Judge ruled that a four year old girl who rode her bike into an old lady can be sued for negligence. Not a parallel example, but people in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[magicaxis]

I want it illegal to be a dick in my society! i live in australia and we are apparently the most racist nation towards everyone else in the world. Dunno if thats true or not, but the fact is i want to be able to get someone in prison if they start screaming racist slurs at someone.

actually your country's racism is the odd kind its internal, from what i hear theres massive prejudice against the Aboriginals . I apologise if my data is off this is just from what i have heard, the australians i know seem to have no trouble with other ntions anyway. And I highly respect your point of view

Yeah you're right, its disgusting. The most noticeable targets ive seen are aboriginals, germans, Lebanese and asians. I've never really been proud to be an australian, simply because of what a nasty label that has become. Wish i was british lol

 

[tyriless]

The only thing that bothers me is the shade of gray that this issue falls into, even if it is really close to being almost distinctly white (clear cut justice in this case). Seriously, I cheered when I read that this man was going to jail. However, this sets precedence for someone to go to jail for making any senseless or crude comment. I've been on the internet and been a jackass (mostly during inebriation). If I were to piss off some local politician, by suggesting he has sex with sheep on his website, I should not have to worry about the Fuzz coming for me, nor should anyone else for that matter.

 

[steeple]

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.

actually, it is'nt... Israel is another country which lacks a constitution... the more you know eh?

 

[CruentusMist]

If your gonna be a dick, sometimes your gonna get screwed.
It's roulette out there.

He did something blatently stupid.
He got screwed. Poor him.

 

[RivFader86]

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.

yeah free speech only exists in the US in every other country the government controlls what people say and think^^ I really do hate this "free speech exuses everything" crap...there is a line you know