Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[charlie226]

I completely support that he went to jail. Frankly, I can't believe that you're so incredulous that his neighbors reported him to the police, Andy. I see a lot of people on the forum are talking about this in a freedom-of-speech frame of reference and--even though this happened in the UK--I can only respond to it as if it happened in the US.

Look, the first amendment says that the government can't make a law restricting our freedom of speech. But what this guy did is akin to falsely shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre, which puts people in serious danger. It's been talked about in Supreme Court cases, most notably Schenck v. United States. He was toying with the emotions of distraught individuals, and he could have done (or perhaps even DID) some serious psychological and emotional damage.

I really DON'T think this action is going to lead down some slippery slope where the British government throws people in jail for cracking jokes about sensitive subjects. This was harrassment towards a specific target.

 

[Crystalgate]

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

I bet that besides from posting in a forum or two, you neither are, nor will, defend his supposed right to say what he said.

 

[Torrasque]

Think he'll troll his cell mate(s)?
This is kinda funny, but sad at the same time.

Pretty sure if that kind of thing happened here in Canada, the police would sigh, tell the guy to stop being a douchebag, and give him a slap on the wrist, not slap him in irons...

 

[Simriel]

dear Andy Chalk, do not use this case as some kind of statement against action being taken on the internet. This guy was not a "troll" in the sense of the word that we all use it, he was harassing these poor people and in my world - the real world - that is not only disgusting and immoral behaviour, it's also illegal. This jackass got exactly what he deserved.

Just because it's the Internet it doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Maybe it's that attitude that gives rise to so many god damn trolls and internet bullies in the first place.

Pretty much took the words out of my mouth.
While I love this site, it does on occasion try to apply American ideals to British stories, a country which does not follow the same laws or common ideals. In Britain the point of view is that, sure you can say whatever you want, but doing it to harass someone is gonna have consequences.

 

[Simriel]

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.

This is somewhat more than 'hurting someones feelings', this is malicious harassment of people in a vulnerable state. Also Britain =/= America guys. Different place, different rules and ideals.

 

[electric discordian]

To be honest stating that you had sex with the corpse of someone's child who was mauled to death by a dog is quite a bit sick. There is no freedom of speech in the U.K. we never enshrined anything in the constitution because we don't have one at all.

I have two opposing views number one people need to be less precious about their feelings no one in a truly working society has the right to not be offended. People need to man up the two and a half year rule from south park is a good one!

But he did publicly state he had carried out necrophiliac paedophilia on a public forum, it's not like here where people know how to deal with trolls, these are normal people after paying their condolences to a family who experiences a tragedy. If you stand in the middle of your town and shout at the top of your voice "I have sex with dead children!" You are (a) a moron (b) a mental case and you deserve being arrested and hauled off to prison for breach of the peace. This is what this chap did, I live in Manchester and have been following the case, he deserves it. Certainly given the paranoia about sex crimes, it costs me money to prove I am not a pervert every time I need to apply for a teaching job. Why should this "guilty until proven innocent" not extend to people who actually commit acts which hurt people as opposed to dedicated educators?

It does not set a dangerous precedent for freedom it shows that our society is still quite good at dealing with dick heads!

 

[JDKJ]

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.

This is somewhat more than 'hurting someones feelings', this is malicious harassment of people in a vulnerable state. Also Britain =/= America guys. Different place, different rules and ideals.

And the Award for Stating the Obvious goes to . . . .

 

[ShadowsofHope]

..Who?

Also, that is a little too far for comfort. A public beratement, sure. But prison? No, I don't think that's deserved in this case. Despite the guy being a very offensive dick.

Edit: In jail because he could not pay the fine otherwise. Fair enough. He's still an offensive dick to the highest degree for doing what he did, though jail still seems a little over-the-rail for this one to me, personally. *Shrug*

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

3 fucking words:
FREEDOM OF SPEACH!

just throw that up in the court appeal, and he should go free.
even though he might be a dick, its still his right to speak his mind

Hell, the system even protects Nazis or racist, then a troll should get protected as well.

They might delete our posts, but they'll never take our TROLLDOM!

 

[Chewster]

Jade Goody wasn't very nice and got mocked all the time it seems, but the parents of the kid didn't really deserve it. I guess her family didn't either.

Still, they were words on a page. Couldn't they have just banned the guy or deleted his comments or whatever? And don't the cops have chavs to be after? Seriously. I don't have much empathy for the guy, but this seems a bit bloody silly.

 

[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.

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?

That's to be determined. I'm not passing legislation now, so don't expect I have it all figured out.
Obviously, there is a fine line between what's 'being you' and what's crossing into pure and simple douchebaggery. But I personally now some people who, for what they used to do on the net, should have been penalised in some way - prison would be too much, obviously, but they crossed the line at points and felt NO consequences of that.
But from this case we can see that somebody did decide this guy was bad enough to be arrested. So somebody IS making those decisions, and good for them.
I don't want to theorise here, but I have some ideas for such laws. However, I know almost nothing about laws as such, so I just don't want to stir up discussion on a topic I don't feel 'safe' about.

 

[JDKJ]

..Who?

Also, that is a little too far for comfort. A public beratement, sure. But prison? No, I don't think that's deserved in this case. Despite the guy being a very offensive dick.

Edit: In jail because he could not pay the fine otherwise. Fair enough. He's still an offensive dick to the highest degree for doing what he did, though jail still seems a little over-the-rail for this one to me, personally. *Shrug*

Which is why I found k-ossuburb's contribution to the discussion to be quite useful. Putting aside considerations of whether or not the defendant's conduct rises to the level of a criminal offense, it is informative that a fine was most likely the first sentencing option and the poor schmuck ended up in the pokey only because his no-job-having-broke-ass couldn't pay it. And also that the length of his custodial sentence was likely influence upwardly by the distinct possibility that this wasn't his first time looking up at the Bench. And that he was convicted on multiple counts. All that could go a long way in explaining how he ended up with 18 weeks jail time.

I wonder how he's gonna respond when the other guys ask him the inevitable "What they got you in here for?" "Trolling" may not be his best possible response.

 

[Udyrfrykte]

Free speech, rights, blablabla...

Society has become so sissified. Really, let's sum up the guy:

- Unemployed, not contributing to society in that area (of course, might not be his fault)
- Hobby: Being a dick on the internet
- Being as offensive as he possible can
- ... And doing it to already deeply traumatized families
- Feels no remorse about it

Lock him up, longer. Call me over to feed him daily, with knucklesandwiches.
He's a bastard and scum of the earth.
Think if it was your dead child he stated he had fucked?

Personally, I almost want him dead based on what I've read, but then again I know I'm very much a angry overzealous internetfighter of crime.

 

[Martin Clarke]

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

'Cept he wasn't just being a dick, he was inflicting emotional stress on a personal level. This goes beyond simply getting a rise out of people, this firmly falls into the region of emotional abuse. You could say that is synonymous with "normal" internet trolling, but then that would be akin to saying punching someone in the face is the same as cutting off a person's legs.

We do not have a binary justice system and what this man did goes beyond the standard mickey taking of your forum-variety troll. He took his actions to a personal, and frankly, evil level.

He deserves everything he gets.

 

[Auric]

3 fucking words:
FREEDOM OF SPEACH!

Freedom of "speach" is rather loose in its interpretation. And isn't an instant "i can be a wanker" card.

 

[buhee]

http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155046863

I think this article has a much better grasp of the situation that this one here on the escapsit.

 

[The_Prophet]

Free speech, rights, blablabla...

Society has become so sissified. Really, let's sum up the guy:

- Unemployed, not contributing to society in that area (of course, might not be his fault)
- Hobby: Being a dick on the internet
- Being as offensive as he possible can
- ... And doing it to already deeply traumatized families
- Feels no remorse about it

Lock him up, longer. Call me over to feed him daily, with knucklesandwiches.
He's a bastard and scum of the earth.
Think if it was your dead child he stated he had fucked?

Personally, I almost want him dead based on what I've read, but then again I know I'm very much a angry overzealous internetfighter of crime.

Yes, this was basically what I was going to say.
Look at yourself, people. The guy was a wanker and he stated he fucked the corpse of a child which was mauled to death by a bloody dog, and he also, as someone said, was inflicting emotional stress on a personal level, and you dare to pull out the freedom of speech bollocks?

 

[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.

Wow, you couldn't have missed the point of that quote harder if you tried.

I get the point. But the point is not that freedom of speech overrules all else, as you seem to think

Yeah but it does rule over the non-existant right to not be offended or disgusted.

I'm not saying there's a right to not be offended or disgusted. But there are certain laws regarding what is and isn't appropriate to say. This, surprisingly, is not appropriate. If he'd gone up to one of the grieving parents in real life and said it to their face, who would still be defending him?

k-ossuburb made a lengthy post detailing how this broke the law on page 16 of this thread, I reccomend you read it.

And, putting the law to one side for a moment, do you really honestly believe that a man should be able to say to a bereaved mother that he raped her dead child and get away with it? If you do...well, then I guess there's really nothing I can say.

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

Well, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when it comes to other countries in various debates where I talk about how the US has the highest level of freedom and human rights in the world, then someone fires back that it's not true and points out how their nation (which will be something like the UK) is ahead of us according to some statistic or poll, and then something like this happens.

To be honest, I see both sides of the equasion, and why people want to curtail behaviors like this, but to be honest dealing with jerks is the lesser of two evils when it comes to putting people in jail for being jerks given that it opens so much room for abuse.

What's more, freedom of speech, doesn't just mean "freedom of speech you like or agree with" but the freedom to say what you want without these kinds of consequences. Once you start regulating the jerks, it turns into people simply wanting to regulate anyone they don't agree with.

There is no requirement that you have to be nice to anyone, that you have to like everyone, or that you have to remain silent about those you don't like. That's what freedom is all about.

Yes, words can hurt, and do a lot of damage, but as Heinlan put it "You can either have freedom or safety, never both".

That's simply my take on things. There is no doubt in my mind that this guy was an obnoxious trouble maker, indeed he reminds me vaguely of Fred Phelps without the religious overtones, but the police shoulx not have been involved, and sending him to jail was both overkill, and an affront to human rights.

Your freedom to speech does not guarantee you the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want without punishment. You are welcome to say whatever you like whenever you like, but if you say something you shouldn't you are still going to be punished. As a sort of example...
If you call someone a back-stabbing traitor Nazi-extremist pedophilic necrophiliac thief somewhere where it's going to be able to be seen by a lot of people, then you are exercising your right to free speech. However you have just committed a crime (assuming of course they aren't a back-stabbing traitor Nazi-extremist pedophilic necrophiliac thief and that you have don't have proof of this) that crime being of course slander. If that someone doesn't like what you said, they are fully within their rights to sue you.

[I think. Haven't really checked up on U.S law].

I believe "free speech" extends to "Free speech without punishment for what you say" other wise we could just say that killing people for speaking out against the government was totally cool with free speech
EDIT: and to answer your question they are within' their rights to sue you for anything, they just may not win.

Ah, see there is a difference there. You are entitled to your free speech, so long as what you do doesn't break any laws. Speaking out against the government isn't breaking a law. Speaking out and traumatizing a family that is already traumatized is. [As is slander].

 

[JDKJ]

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.

Wow, you couldn't have missed the point of that quote harder if you tried.

I get the point. But the point is not that freedom of speech overrules all else, as you seem to think

Yeah but it does rule over the non-existant right to not be offended or disgusted.

I'm not saying there's a right to not be offended or disgusted. But there are certain laws regarding what is and isn't appropriate to say. This, surprisingly, is not appropriate. If he'd gone up to one of the grieving parents in real life and said it to their face, who would still be defending him?

k-ossuburb made a lengthy post detailing how this broke the law on page 16 of this thread, I reccomend you read it.

And, putting the law to one side for a moment, do you really honestly believe that a man should be able to say to a bereaved mother that he raped her dead child and get away with it? If you do...well, then I guess there's really nothing I can say.

In most all of the continental EU nations, there are laws prohibiting Holocaust denial as something "inappropriate" to publicly state and providing for imprisonment and/or fine. Do you honestly believe that a man should be imprisoned and/or fined for nothing more than publicly stating a belief that the Holocaust never occurred?