Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[thegermanguy]

well thats the internet for you. brings out the worst of the human mind

 

[Charisma]

On this issue I have no real opinion. Free speech is important but this guy did go a little far.

If I had to make a choice, since I'm a "spirit of the law" kinda guy I'd have to say he deserved what he got. Freedom of speech was meant to protect those speaking their minds against their government, not jackasses who just want to get a rise out of people.

 

[JDKJ]

Sigh, yet more U.K. bashing from people who don't understand the law over here. Here's some education before you start jumping to conclusions.

Firstly, we do have "Freedom Of Speech" but we have it spread out through various documents that can be amended if the system used to uphold them proves faulty. Also, please note that America did NOT invent "Freedom of Speech", the ancient Greeks did.

Article 10, Freedom of Expression of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a qualified right, states everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This guarantees the right to pass information to other people and to receive information that other people want to give to you. It also guarantees the right to hold and express opinions and ideas.

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a "Convention Right". A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998 may, if he or she is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act either:

* bring proceedings in any appropriate court or tribunal against the authority under the Human Rights Act 1998; or
* rely on the Convention right concerned in any legal proceedings.

What this man did comes under a completely different law. This is a law against Anti-Social Behaviour and comes under the Anti-Social Behaviour Order Act (Miscellaneous) but more so the offence is created by Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

Since he failed both parts (b) and (c) when interviewed because this was a public forum and could be viewed by anyone and he had prior knowledge that what he was doing had intent to cause harm then the following course of action to arrest and try him under these laws is the next logical step.

The fact of the matter is that U.K. law is very nuanced in order to keep the peace in various situations that require addressing. No blanket law is applied in every circumstance otherwise the system would fail and people who deserve punishment will slip through the loopholes. I admit the system isn't perfect, but it's an old system that has been amended and reformed countless times throughout our history and sometimes the changes might not work as planned, but the intent is to make sure that everyone's rights are protected and that people do not come to any unnecessary harm.

There's a difference between being able to express yourself freely with an opinion that counters someone in a constructive fashion (i.e.: an atheist discussing why they don't believe what a theist does) and blatantly causing harm to innocent people with nothing other than the intent to do so.

The law here is viewed on a case-by-case basis and crimes are given the level of punishment suitable to the severity of the crime(s) presented in court. The law I mentioned above (Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) is not always enforced when the situation doesn't call for it. I could call you a name for no reason other than to annoy you and, unless you could prove that the name I called you had caused some severe harm in some way then the case would be thrown out. Nothing is as black and white as the OP seems to think so.

Please do not take everything at face value and remain ignorant of other people's culture, do your research beforehand before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.

Are there statutory guidelines which would inform "severity of the crime" and "level of punishment" similar to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines employed in the United States (which effectively reduces sentencing considerations to a near non-discretionary mathematical calculation) or does the Court in its sole discretion and by dint of its own judgment determine the appropriate sentence? And I ask because there seems to be among many posters here less concern that the defendant was in fact guilty as charged than that the sentence meted out was excessive.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

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?

Or option #4: The fact that people think that such abusive and derogatory comments are in some way acceptable or less upsetting just because they're posted online? Anyone, no matter what country who said the kind of things he's been saying just to further upset people who are already grieving, and then has the audacity to brag about it deserves to be punished.

I don't like trolls. 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.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say absolutely anything without accepting responsibility for the consequences our words have on others. There are laws within free speech, because free speech requires personal responsibility.
If we say something that threatens/slanders/blackmails/causes distress to others, we have to take responsibility for our own words and that can sometimes mean prosecution.

Am I the only UK resident to find it almost deliciously ironic that there's countless "lol, stupid UK laws... free speech 4 USA!!!1!!!11!!" type posts coming from escapists in the most litigious country in the world?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

Neither do New Zealand or Israel.

 

[mm2publish]

Is it just me that sees the irony that he's managed to be extremely succesful as a troll?
He 1) Got a rise out of people
2) Got a rise out of people affected by an issue, and
3) He got a rise out of the authorities.

You left out 4) He got publicity! It might have been negative, but he got his 5 min. of fame!
In Mexico the village would have dragged him into the street and beat him to death!

 

[mm2publish]

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.

Neither do New Zealand or Israel.

Well Hey! Let us send you some of our idiot politicians over and they screw up your countries too!

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

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.

Basically this. I think putting people in prison for that is going a teency bit too far. Especially in the UK where we don't actually have enough cells to house the actual criminals!

In my opinion, the current system is reaching breaking point, and I hope that there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Clunks]

It seems like the only mitigating factor people are taking into account is that the guy did all this online; as if threatening to fuck a mother's dead child is somehow less offensive when done over the internet. It's not. Grow up, people.

 

[Andy Chalk]

A society that holds its members accountable for harrassment, and intentional causing anquish is in store for 'deep trouble'? How so?

Because who gets to decide what's intentional and what's anguish? Dozens of people intentionally caused anguish to millions of Muslims around the world by drawing cartoons of Mo for no better reason to prove that they could, enough anguish that some of them actually went out and killed people, and nobody says shit. Hell, plenty of people applauded the move. Where does freedom of the press end and a criminal charge begin?

 

[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!

You can't tell me what we call it when I fucking live here dude. Nobody in this country refers to it as a 'constitution'. Keep working on those wars where you slaughter more innocent people than supposed enemies, really, you're helping the world so much. By the way, America only exists thanks to England. Look it up.

You do notice that those wars that you refer to are made and joined by the British. Also, that is what happens when the enemy hides behind its civilians. They aren't supposed enemies either, they are real and dangerous. Sure, America existed as a colony under British rule before. But the creation of our democracy, etc. was done by us. Also, don't say that the US is killing innocents despite YOUR history. The US does not slaughter civilians in massacres, nor do we try to kill them. Our enemies hide inside civilian homes, and collateral is unfortunate. Talk to me after you check up on your Indian (from india) history. Massacres a plenty.

 

[JDKJ]

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!

You can't tell me what we call it when I fucking live here dude. Nobody in this country refers to it as a 'constitution'. Keep working on those wars where you slaughter more innocent people than supposed enemies, really, you're helping the world so much. By the way, America only exists thanks to England. Look it up.

You do notice that those wars that you refer to are made and joined by the British. Also, that is what happens when the enemy hides behind its civilians. They aren't supposed enemies either, they are real and dangerous. Sure, America existed as a colony under British rule before. But the creation of our democracy, etc. was done by us. Also, don't say that the US is killing innocents despite YOUR history. The US does not slaughter civilians in massacres, nor do we try to kill them. Our enemies hide inside civilian homes, and collateral is unfortunate. Talk to me after you check up on your Indian (from india) history. Massacres a plenty.

I'm not sure that saying "the US does not slaughter civilians in massacres" and "Indians" in the same paragraph was the best rhetorical move you could have made.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Because who gets to decide what's intentional and what's anguish? Dozens of people intentionally caused anguish to millions of Muslims around the world by drawing cartoons of Mo for no better reason to prove that they could, enough anguish that some of them actually went out and killed people, and nobody says shit. Hell, plenty of people applauded the move. Where does freedom of the press end and a criminal charge begin?

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act might be used by the police if race riots are being incited in print or, say, if a Hollywood actor starts going off on an ugly anti-Semitic rant in public. It all depends on how the police choose to enforce the laws but I don't think that there is any law in the UK protecting atheists from hate speech.

 

[LCP]

Hehehe, sound like not such a nice place to live in. If anything he should be hit with a bat in the mouth

 

[The AtticWarrior]

HAH!!!!!!!.......sucker.

 

[Kelethor]

Thank you U.K, standing up to the troll's/Douche bag's of the world.

More power to these laws. Hopefully the little prick will get just what he deserves in jail.

 

[Flutterbrave]

To the many people making comparisons with the Westboro baptist church:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5767077.ece

We banned Fred Phelps, because we have a problem with assholes picketing dead soldiers funerals. Now, if that's protected in the USA, then fine. But don't expect this argument to win anything. It only proves how much shit the American public is willing to put up with in the name of freedom.

Well in all fairness, "He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither and shall have neither." Benjamin Franklin.

"He who would trade security for freedom deserves neither and shall have neither." Me.

 

[Squarez]

Yeah, except this isn't trolling, it's harassment. 'Pretty sure that's against the law in America as well. Just because some bastard harasses people, then calls it trolling, does not suddenly make harassing someone over an electronic medium excusable.

I don't think so. I'm not sure on this one but last I heard the Westboro Baptist Church - those are the God Hates Fags people - still have the right to picket the funerals of dead US soldiers. You can't tell me that's any worse than what this guy said.

Are you saying that you'd rather live in a society in which you could turn up to a funeral and harass the grieving family and friends for lolz and then hide behind free speech to be off scot free than somewhere where said family and friends could get you arrested for it.

Also, the WBC are totally different to this internet 'troll'. They're doing it cause they're crazy enough to believe what they're saying and this 'troll' is only doing it to upset the grieving families for shits and giggles.

I know where I'd rather live out of "Place where you can claim to have had sex with a dead 9-year-old's corpse to traumatised parents just to have a laugh and get away with it by claiming it's free speech" or "Place where you'd get arrested for that shit".

(Footnote: The Westboro Baptist Church people have been permabanned from the UK lol)

 

[Squarez]

The UK is so full of double standards it makes me queasy.

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!

You can't tell me what we call it when I fucking live here dude. Nobody in this country refers to it as a 'constitution'. Keep working on those wars where you slaughter more innocent people than supposed enemies, really, you're helping the world so much. By the way, America only exists thanks to England. Look it up.

You do notice that those wars that you refer to are made and joined by the British. Also, that is what happens when the enemy hides behind its civilians. They aren't supposed enemies either, they are real and dangerous. Sure, America existed as a colony under British rule before. But the creation of our democracy, etc. was done by us. Also, don't say that the US is killing innocents despite YOUR history. The US does not slaughter civilians in massacres, nor do we try to kill them. Our enemies hide inside civilian homes, and collateral is unfortunate. Talk to me after you check up on your Indian (from india) history. Massacres a plenty.

I'm not sure that saying "the US does not slaughter civilians in massacres" and "Indians" in the same paragraph was the best rhetorical move you could have made.

Also, I've studied the history of Britain in India. Apparently one massacre means "aplenty" nowadays.

Although I do agree with the killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, attacks on the WTC aplenty. /sarcasm