Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[quantum mechanic]

This is all just weird.

 

[GestaltEsper]

Agreed.

 

[JDKJ]

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?

Pray tell? Seriously? If you want to come across as patronising, at least call me sweetie, so I can call you sugah.

Anyway, sure, venue is up for debate, but I'd basically say, not in the face of the mourning family, such as outside a funeral or on a condolence website.
If they are down the road, around the corner, as you say, then that actually does show some sense on their part, and perhaps that is enough. Again, I don't believe it is ever simply that black and white, and there is merit in exercising common sense which in turn nurtures thoughtfulness and tolerance of other peoples rights in society.

My issue is with with people being able to sidestep basic respect in the name of free speech. I mean, allowing a fellow human being the chance to mourn in peace is just common decency, and if some people in society (and this is why we have laws and social boundaries) can't exercise that mutual respect of decency and morality, often because they don't have the capacity to understand it (sociopathic in nature), then that is where law and common sense can step in and say, look, you can be a prick, but do not ram it someones face in such a disrespectful and hateful way. Express your opinions, fine, but there is a line where your rights to speak out do not override another persons rights to mourn without harassment.
See compromise; see mutual respect.

Again, this highlights the difference between US and UK culture. Perhaps what some see as British people being very reserved or even oppressed by the law and government, is in fact simply our standards of acceptable behaviour in our society that we have established and wish to protect.

To allow someone to be a completely hateful prick without consequence, is to also encourage them to not think about their actions, ever question them or ever open their mind to another point of view. I think it is actually detrimental to society and breeds intolerance. I have seen a lot of misguided and ignorant statements from posters in this thread and I think the attitude of, I can do what I want because it's my right, tends to be an excuse for not actually thinking beyond your own selfish mindset. It encourages ignorance in a way. The freedom to learn, discuss and progress is what I believe the right of expressing opinion/free speech is inherently tied to. They need to work together.

My apologies if I came across as patronizing. To do so was the furthest thing from my mind. The "pray tell" is, I suspect, from force of professional habit. I was actually keen on hearing your opinions. Again, I wasn't in any way trying to play you and I'm sorry if it struck you that way.

Anyway . . .

Don't give them any credit for being somewhat removed from the immediate area. It was, I believe, a requirement of their permit.

 

[JDKJ]

The accusation of "hypocrisy" could perhaps be a valid accusation if being put on probation by a website was the "same thing" as being put in prison by your government, but I'm thinking one's an orange and the other's an apple.

I see your point, but I don't agree. You're saying that because the punishment is different, or the scale is different, it changes the crime? It doesn't.

To put it in a way that most people on this site would understand, it's like the current situation in California. People are claiming the first amendment (or whatever), saying the law infringes on their right to free speech. Another way to infringe on a humans right to free speech is to ban all literature outright, as well as the media and all religion. It's the same thing being impeded, but to vastly different scales. However it doesn't stop people having the right to claim this amendment is being breached in the first case

I see your point and, yes, in many respects it is perhaps only a matter of degree. But to play the other side of the field, too, I suspect that Andy Chalk -- and others -- may view the situation in an entirely different light if the defendant had received 5 months probation instead of 5 months jail time.

 

[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.

You really don't see the difference between trolling and harassing people at a funeral?

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.

No they are doing it because they are also attention whores.

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

I'm glad I live in a country where I cannot be thrown out for the opinions I express, if you wish to live in a country with no freedom of speech, fine. Don't complain when you can't use that argument to justify them not taking away something you enjoy.

Simply put, you're an idiot. There's a massive difference between freedom of speech and harassing grieving people for shits and giggles. Guess what? It's the same difference between me being able to have freedom on movement within my country and me driving on the "sidewalk" at 100mph.

EDIT: Also, you can't get "thrown out". But you can be banned from coming here. If you're gonna just come over here and incite hatred then why shouldn't we put you on a plane back home?

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

That's not how I remember typing it.

Sorry, my bad, I was going to respond to something you wrote, then changed my mind, (but obviously not the quote tags. Oops.)

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.

No, that is just wrong. Not even slightly true. The Queen has no real power whatsoever. The royal family is a figure head that is all.

That's not strictly speaking true... But it makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall much less than "King_Serpent"'s comment...

 

[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.

Indians: People from india

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.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

You really don't see the difference between trolling and harassing people at a funeral?

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.

No they are doing it because they are also attention whores.

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

I'm glad I live in a country where I cannot be thrown out for the opinions I express, if you wish to live in a country with no freedom of speech, fine. Don't complain when you can't use that argument to justify them not taking away something you enjoy.

Simply put, you're an idiot. There's a massive difference between freedom of speech and harassing grieving people for shits and giggles. Guess what? It's the same difference between me being able to have freedom on movement within my country and me driving on the "sidewalk" at 100mph.

EDIT: Also, you can't get "thrown out". But you can be banned from coming here. If you're gonna just come over here and incite hatred then why shouldn't we put you on a plane back home?

Think of it this way:

They banned Snoop Dogg!! S-N-Double-O-P D-O-Tothemotherfuckin'-Double-G. Now, how you gon' ban my man, Snoop? Huh? That's just some foul, stupid shit.

 

[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.

Indians: People from india

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.

Ah-ha. "Red dot," not "feather." I gotcha.

Just kidding. I meant "feather" and knew full well you meant "red dot."

And the list of Native Peoples who've been massacred at the hands of the Americans is long enough to circle the planet threes times over. Just simply not a good rhetorical move, in my opinion.

 

[ebonyspiral]

Pray tell? Seriously? If you want to come across as patronising, at least call me sweetie, so I can call you sugah.

Anyway, sure, venue is up for debate, but I'd basically say, not in the face of the mourning family, such as outside a funeral or on a condolence website.
If they are down the road, around the corner, as you say, then that actually does show some sense on their part, and perhaps that is enough. Again, I don't believe it is ever simply that black and white, and there is merit in exercising common sense which in turn nurtures thoughtfulness and tolerance of other peoples rights in society.

My issue is with with people being able to sidestep basic respect in the name of free speech. I mean, allowing a fellow human being the chance to mourn in peace is just common decency, and if some people in society (and this is why we have laws and social boundaries) can't exercise that mutual respect of decency and morality, often because they don't have the capacity to understand it (sociopathic in nature), then that is where law and common sense can step in and say, look, you can be a prick, but do not ram it someones face in such a disrespectful and hateful way. Express your opinions, fine, but there is a line where your rights to speak out do not override another persons rights to mourn without harassment.
See compromise; see mutual respect.

Again, this highlights the difference between US and UK culture. Perhaps what some see as British people being very reserved or even oppressed by the law and government, is in fact simply our standards of acceptable behaviour in our society that we have established and wish to protect.

To allow someone to be a completely hateful prick without consequence, is to also encourage them to not think about their actions, ever question them or ever open their mind to another point of view. I think it is actually detrimental to society and breeds intolerance. I have seen a lot of misguided and ignorant statements from posters in this thread and I think the attitude of, I can do what I want because it's my right, tends to be an excuse for not actually thinking beyond your own selfish mindset. It encourages ignorance in a way. The freedom to learn, discuss and progress is what I believe the right of expressing opinion/free speech is inherently tied to. They need to work together.

My apologies if I came across as patronizing. To do so was the furthest thing from my mind. The "pray tell" is, I suspect, from force of professional habit. I was actually keen on hearing your opinions. Again, I wasn't in way trying to play you and I'm sorry if it struck you that way.

No worries, I appreciate you explaining.

Anyway . . .

Don't give them any credit for being somewhat removed from the immediate area. It was, I believe, a requirement of their permit.

Oh, well I guess it is unlikely that a group so extreme would be reasonable enough to do so on their own. But that does in fact highlight my point that certain nutcases of society need to be shown boundaries in some situations. It might seem a small boundary, and I would imagine they would picket as close as they could otherwise, but it represents something very important. That permit is essentially saying, this is the line, don't cross it (metaphorically as well as physically).

 

[JDKJ]

Pray tell? Seriously? If you want to come across as patronising, at least call me sweetie, so I can call you sugah.

Anyway, sure, venue is up for debate, but I'd basically say, not in the face of the mourning family, such as outside a funeral or on a condolence website.
If they are down the road, around the corner, as you say, then that actually does show some sense on their part, and perhaps that is enough. Again, I don't believe it is ever simply that black and white, and there is merit in exercising common sense which in turn nurtures thoughtfulness and tolerance of other peoples rights in society.

My issue is with with people being able to sidestep basic respect in the name of free speech. I mean, allowing a fellow human being the chance to mourn in peace is just common decency, and if some people in society (and this is why we have laws and social boundaries) can't exercise that mutual respect of decency and morality, often because they don't have the capacity to understand it (sociopathic in nature), then that is where law and common sense can step in and say, look, you can be a prick, but do not ram it someones face in such a disrespectful and hateful way. Express your opinions, fine, but there is a line where your rights to speak out do not override another persons rights to mourn without harassment.
See compromise; see mutual respect.

Again, this highlights the difference between US and UK culture. Perhaps what some see as British people being very reserved or even oppressed by the law and government, is in fact simply our standards of acceptable behaviour in our society that we have established and wish to protect.

To allow someone to be a completely hateful prick without consequence, is to also encourage them to not think about their actions, ever question them or ever open their mind to another point of view. I think it is actually detrimental to society and breeds intolerance. I have seen a lot of misguided and ignorant statements from posters in this thread and I think the attitude of, I can do what I want because it's my right, tends to be an excuse for not actually thinking beyond your own selfish mindset. It encourages ignorance in a way. The freedom to learn, discuss and progress is what I believe the right of expressing opinion/free speech is inherently tied to. They need to work together.

My apologies if I came across as patronizing. To do so was the furthest thing from my mind. The "pray tell" is, I suspect, from force of professional habit. I was actually keen on hearing your opinions. Again, I wasn't in way trying to play you and I'm sorry if it struck you that way.

No worries, I appreciate you explaining.

Anyway . . .

Don't give them any credit for being somewhat removed from the immediate area. It was, I believe, a requirement of their permit.

Oh, well I guess it is unlikely that a group so extreme would be reasonable enough to do so on their own. But that does in fact highlight my point that certain nutcases of society need to be shown boundaries in some situations. It might seem a small boundary, and I would imagine they would picket as close as they could otherwise, but it represents something very important. That permit is essentially saying, this is the line, don't cross it (metaphorically as well as physically).

Problem is that despite being made to somewhat keep their distance, that wasn't enough to avoid affecting the decedent's father who claims to have caught a healthy dose of their special brand of speech both coming and going. Hence, his lawsuit.

 

[Lord_Kristof]

Totally deserves it. Freedom of speech? Freedom is this funny things which ends when it encroaches on another person's freedom. If a guy spends his free time being obnoxious, rude and pretty much an asshole, he infringes on everybody's right to have a calm time on the net. Also, here you've got very specific people which the guy was acting against.

I hope this gives the precedent needed for more similar rulings. Trolling should be universally banned, with prison terms as the consequence in those most obvious and extreme situations. There's one universal law - if you're not an asshole, you're ok. If you are an asshole - gtfo of any public space, and that includes the net.

 

[Tonimata]

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

So just now are we starting to realize. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD. Now the plane is half way through crashing and we haven't come up with any solutions.

 

[Dark Prophet]

served him right

 

[tzimize]

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.

Quoted for truth.

I mean who cares if it's the internet. He just went way, way too far.

Problem arises when you try to define "too far". That will differ GREATLY between people. I wouldnt so much mind a fine of some sort, or reparations paid to the family, but rob a man of his freedom because he does some extreme trolling? While I dont dispute the fact that it was WAY beyond insensitive, rude and just plain stupid...it was just words. Putting a man in prison for words...that path leads to darkness of all kinds imo.

 

[Verlander]

snipped

I agree that the punishment may seem harsh, but similarly people react negatively if harsh punishments aren't given out. In the UK, mainly due to recent financial crises, people are becoming instinctively conservative, and the same is happening in a lot of countries. While I'm relatively liberal, I believe personally that the internet needs restraint and consequences. While he could have been doing much worse, he could also not bullied and harassed people in the first place. If this is a way to reduce online disinhibition effect, I'm all for it

That would create more problems. We all ready have enough people in jail for stupid reasons (like weed smoking) we don't need more.

For the first item (which I accidentally deleted), I'm not American and didn't claim the first amendment. I pointed out that people who do claim it, are hypocrites.

As for people being sent to jail for stupid reasons, I agree with you. I don't agree that this is one of them. In the UK I don't know of a single person who has been sent to jail for smoking weed, and I think there are more important targets to deal with than a troll, but it's a start, and as with all laws, will need refining once it's taken off.

Most freedoms aren't absolute. You do not have freedom of religion because some religions require human sacrifice.

I know you don't. I never claimed that you/we have any freedom. Quite the opposite, I said we don't. Again this was pointed at the people who bang on about the first amendment and freedom of speech. I'm not sure if you disagreed with what I wrote, but you have just gone some way to assist my point.

Cheers for that cracked article, it was funny, but personally I wouldn't trust or believe anything they report on. Some of the crap they've published, it's a joke. Ain't a dig at you by the way

 

[Tipsy Giant]

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.

Funniest post on Escapist ever!

 

[ImprovizoR]

Now that is just stupid. Sending someone to jail jut because they're assholes is fucked up. People have the right to be assholes. Trolls should just be ignored. The good thing about internet is that you can ignore trolls and ban them. This is a fucked up world that we live in.

 

[RobCoxxy]

That's not how I remember typing it.

Sorry, my bad, I was going to respond to something you wrote, then changed my mind, (but obviously not the quote tags. Oops.)

No worries haha