Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[JDKJ]

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

"Some?"

 

[Magnalian]

...why did he tell people he was a troll? Doies that just come up in everyday conversation?

 

[JDKJ]

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.

Outta curiosity, who gets to determine who the "assholes" are and aren't and what standards do they get to employ in making those determinations?

 

[loc978]

I find it disturbing that such things are illegal in the UK (I also find seatbelt laws disturbing, but that's another can o' worms), and sad that someone would bother to report that sort of thing to the police... but then, I have no sympathy for people who lack emotional self-control. The world is a cruel place, life is unfair, blah blah blah... just be glad you weren't born in a war-torn third-world country and deal with it. If someone mocks something that causes you pain, ignore 'em or confront 'em, don't whine about it.

 

[k-ossuburb]

As it falls under Section 5 of the 1998 Public Order Act then it will fall under the category of a "summary offence" (petty crime). It is punishable with a fine of level 3 on the standard scale (£1,000 as of last year). As this man was unemployed and could not pay the fine, a prison sentence was given instead as determined by the standards within the Sentencing Act 1991 Section 63.

As it stands for many crimes, the law has strict guidelines (for lack of a better word) laid down to determine the severity of the sentencing in relation the the crime committed and and whether the defendant has had any previous convictions; which I think this man most likely has to warrant his conviction.

 

[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.

Funniest post on Escapist ever!

Completely agreed (although I haven't been around long). And it's generated soooo many replies that I've been sitting here waiting for the editors to sticky it or do something to somehow indicate the fact that it's a thoroughly flogged dead horse to explain that it isn't under a monarchy with a king and queen.

 

[JDKJ]

As it falls under Section 5 of the 1998 Public Order Act then it will fall under the category of a "summary offence" (petty crime). It is punishable with a fine of level 3 on the standard scale (£1,000 as of last year). As this man was unemployed and could not pay the fine, a prison sentence was given instead as determined by the standards within the Sentencing Act 1991 Section 63.

As it stands for many crimes, the law has strict guidelines (for lack of a better word) laid down to determine the severity of the sentencing in relation the the crime committed and and whether the defendant has had any previous convictions; which I think this man most likely has to warrant his conviction.

Thanks.

 

[wolf92]

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.

Yeah that seems like something you could get in trouble for sayin

 

[Hollock]

I'm mostly disurbed by how he's 36!

 

[SaintWaldo]

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.

The reality is that I'm not advocating violence in cases like these. I'm saying it's an understandable consequence - and yes, I'd prefer it to a legal system that puts people in jail for what they say. I'm not saying we need to take this guy out and kneecap him or put him in a wheelchair or wail on his skull until he can't feed himself anymore, but if he gets a punch in the head, maybe a knee in the nuts, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

What's wrong with civil courts? If what he did inflicted so much "emotional distress," and I'm not saying it didn't, then sue his ass off. Take him to court, show that the guy is a habitual shitbag and clean him out. I'm all for that. But criminalizing speech, even speech as abhorrent as this, is incredibly disturbing to me. "Malicious?" "Grossly offensive?" Who decides? Where's the line between being a jerkoff and being an inmate? If you get a little drunk one nice and rattle off a few racial jokes at the pub and the black guy you didn't notice in the seat behind you hears and is "grossly offended," should you go to jail?

I see where you guys are coming from and believe me, I'm all for a polite, respectful society. But I can't imagine ever supporting the imprisonment of assholes, even the biggest assholes in the country, if their only "crime" is being an asshole.

Well said, and I agree with pretty much the bulk of what you stated here. Especially the reservations towards having the state punish what amounts to unpopular speech, and your application of nuance in the form of "understandable consequence" on violent responses by individuals. I totally agree that it is understandable for a person to behave that way, yet completely wrong to hope for a calculated and deliberate apparatus of the state to take the place of hot blood.

I would posit that emotional distress is a poor standard even for civil courts, and the US Supreme Court seems to have agreed, not only against public figures like Jerry Falwell vs Larry Flynt, but also private individuals like military families vs Fred Phelps. It's sad and abhorrent that the world would foist real life trolls like Mr. Phelps or Mr. Cross on those already suffering, but I heartily believe it's also their right to demonstrate to anyone willing to watch. And everyone else's right (and if you're really complaining, sort of duty, right?) to surround and drown them out with better ideas and demonstrations of compassion and empathy. One of those cases where my particular principles lead me to defend behavior those same principles would never lead me to use.

Thanks for the follow-up thoughts.

 

[kouriichi]

Eh. He deserved it.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

The reality is that I'm not advocating violence in cases like these. I'm saying it's an understandable consequence - and yes, I'd prefer it to a legal system that puts people in jail for what they say. I'm not saying we need to take this guy out and kneecap him or put him in a wheelchair or wail on his skull until he can't feed himself anymore, but if he gets a punch in the head, maybe a knee in the nuts, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

What's wrong with civil courts? If what he did inflicted so much "emotional distress," and I'm not saying it didn't, then sue his ass off. Take him to court, show that the guy is a habitual shitbag and clean him out. I'm all for that. But criminalizing speech, even speech as abhorrent as this, is incredibly disturbing to me. "Malicious?" "Grossly offensive?" Who decides? Where's the line between being a jerkoff and being an inmate? If you get a little drunk one nice and rattle off a few racial jokes at the pub and the black guy you didn't notice in the seat behind you hears and is "grossly offended," should you go to jail?

I see where you guys are coming from and believe me, I'm all for a polite, respectful society. But I can't imagine ever supporting the imprisonment of assholes, even the biggest assholes in the country, if their only "crime" is being an asshole.

Well said, and I agree with pretty much the bulk of what you stated here. Especially the reservations towards having the state punish what amounts to unpopular speech, and your application of nuance in the form of "understandable consequence" on violent responses by individuals. I totally agree that it is understandable for a person to behave that way, yet completely wrong to hope for a calculated and deliberate apparatus of the state to take the place of hot blood.

I would posit that emotional distress is a poor standard even for civil courts, and the US Supreme Court seems to have agreed, not only against public figures like Jerry Falwell vs Larry Flynt, but also private individuals like military families vs Fred Phelps. It's sad and abhorrent that the world would foist real life trolls like Mr. Phelps or Mr. Cross on those already suffering, but I heartily believe it's also their right to demonstrate to anyone willing to watch. And everyone else's right (and if you're really complaining, sort of duty, right?) to surround and drown them out with better ideas and demonstrations of compassion and empathy. One of those cases where my particular principles lead me to defend behavior those same principles would never lead me to use.

Thanks for the follow-up thoughts.

Agreed. Allow for free placement of rotten ideas in the marketplace for ideas and trust that the smart consumers of ideas will give them a squeeze, quickly determine that they're rotten, and move on to those that aren't. And if the not so smart consumers of ideas want to consume rotten ideas, then that's also good for them, too.

Goods in a marketplace rise to their highest value.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Are you kidding me? I love this! It's not like he's being put away for years or anything, a few months in prison for an internet troll sounds perfectly fair to me.

 

[Master Taffer]

Something about the law (Malicious Communications Act of 1988, not the Communications Act 2003) does not sit well with me. I can understand why it would be appealing, but at the end of the day it feels like a law that was passed based on hot headed outrage rather than calm and methodical thinking. The man in question is a grade A bastard, but...

Something isn't right about it. I can't really pin it down, but it's just unsettleing.

 

[Raiha]

while i disagree with what he says, i'll defend to the death his right to say it.

 

[Tomo Stryker]

Its good to see that the people who think that they can hide behind the internet for their rash and uncanny behavior aren't protected anymore. I mean this is just disgusting, "I f***ed your four year old boys dead body" isn't funny or in anyway sarcastic. The UK is different than the US for sure but maybe we should start adopting these laws slowly, I'm sick of these people that get a rise out of others displeasure.

 

[viciouspen]

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?

Well unfortunately society doesn't function without lines.
Why?
Because of people precisely like this sad little douchebag. This guy is essentially a perfect example of the type of "example" that needs to be set for this type of thing. This is the type of person that should be sent to jail, and put on probation with mandatory psychological assesment and anger management work, also, community service would seem pretty applicable.
Society has to slap people across the face every so often with a rolled up newspaper and say "NO, DOWN!" because if not, you get people like this, and when they get away with this, they just push harder for some new "high".
I mean sure, Andy, it would be awesome if we could all just live in the kind of world where we didn't have to be policing pathetic dips like this, but, we unfortunatetly dont' live in that world.

This isn't some gray area we're talking about here, this is someone that purposefully targeted a vulnerable bereaved family, who had a complete lack of conscious or consideration for any other human being than himself, and then set to reap his troll high of of them by wreaking as much havoc as possible. This is sociopathic behavior, borderline at the least, but still, this level of disconnection with reality, consequences, and empathy for other's pain is disturbing, not "lawlz".
This freakish attitude that people have developed on the interwebz that "hey man it's all cool, you shouldnt' care about anything and anyone should be able to do whatever they want to if they can do it and get away with it" is just, well, pathetically inhuman.

We've been letting this kind of stuff slide for way too long. It needs to be taken more seriously. A line needs to be shown. Society really needs to pull out the rolled up newspaper more often, because if people are going to act like puppies peeing over and tearing everything up, they need to be treated precisely like that.

This is just a debate that's come up over and over, and it's played out the same two ways everytime.
Either we go too loose on it and things always get worse because the morally inept of society end up taking advantage of the situation.
or
We have some manner of boundaries.

 

[Andy Chalk]

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.

Not at all. The penalty is irrelevant. Hurting someone's feelings should not be a crime.