Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[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.

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?

I'm not sure if this counts as Godwin's law or not, seeing as you didn't say the name Hitler.

On topic - this is really just a vaguely ridiculous point. I'm not defending the law of the continental EU nations, I'm defending the UK law and pointing that what this guy did was morally wrong as well as illegal.

 

[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?

I'm not sure if this counts as Godwin's law or not, seeing as you didn't say the name Hitler.

On topic - this is really just a vaguely ridiculous point. I'm not defending the law of the continental EU nations, I'm defending the UK law and pointing that what this guy did was morally wrong as well as illegal.

Can we, por arguendo and since you've place great weight on the relevant law in existence and which controls the conduct in question, assume that the UK has its own Holocaust denial law? Given that assumption, would you honestly believe that a subject of the UK should be imprisoned and/or fined for nothing more than publicly stating a belief that the Holocaust never occurred?

And I'll agree with you that, given the controlling law and weighing the defendant's conduct against it, what he did was illegal.

EDIT: And I'm not attempting to cloak some point I'm trying to make in the form of a rhetorical question. I'm actually asking you the question out of curiosity.

 

[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.

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?

I'm not sure if this counts as Godwin's law or not, seeing as you didn't say the name Hitler.

On topic - this is really just a vaguely ridiculous point. I'm not defending the law of the continental EU nations, I'm defending the UK law and pointing that what this guy did was morally wrong as well as illegal.

Can we, por arguendo and since you've place great weight on the relevant law in existence and which controls the conduct in question, assume that the UK has its own Holocaust denial law? Given that assumption, would you honestly believe that a subject of the UK should be imprisoned and/or fined for nothing more than publicly stating a belief that the Holocaust never occurred?

And I'll agree with you that, given the controlling law and weighing the defendant's conduct against it, what he did was illegal.

Well..no, no we can't assume that. It's irrelelvant. I don't agree with that law, but it doesn't apply in the UK. The Eu tried to get it passed, but, to quote wikipedia "Full implementation was blocked by Britain and the Nordic countries because of the need to balance the restrictions on voicing racist opinions against the freedom of expression." I'm defending the law against this man's "trolling" because I agree with it, not because it applies in the UK. If holocaust denial was illegal, I would disagree with that law.

The point is, my moral views coincide with the law on the issue of what this man did, but not in the case of holocaust denial (if we were to assume that it is illegal in the UK). So the two situations are incomparable.

 

[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?

I'm not sure if this counts as Godwin's law or not, seeing as you didn't say the name Hitler.

On topic - this is really just a vaguely ridiculous point. I'm not defending the law of the continental EU nations, I'm defending the UK law and pointing that what this guy did was morally wrong as well as illegal.

Can we, por arguendo and since you've place great weight on the relevant law in existence and which controls the conduct in question, assume that the UK has its own Holocaust denial law? Given that assumption, would you honestly believe that a subject of the UK should be imprisoned and/or fined for nothing more than publicly stating a belief that the Holocaust never occurred?

And I'll agree with you that, given the controlling law and weighing the defendant's conduct against it, what he did was illegal.

Well..no, no we can't assume that. It's irrelelvant. I don't agree with that law, but it doesn't apply in the UK. The Eu tried to get it passed, but, to quote wikipedia "Full implementation was blocked by Britain and the Nordic countries because of the need to balance the restrictions on voicing racist opinions against the freedom of expression." I'm defending the law against this man's "trolling" because I agree with it, not because it applies in the UK. If holocaust denial was illegal, I would disagree with that law.

The point is, my moral views coincide with the law on the issue of what this man did, but not in the case of holocaust denial (if we were to assume that it is illegal in the UK). So the two situations are incomparable.

It may be irrelevant to and incomparable with the particular case under discussion and the specific facts and law of that case. But I don't think it is irrelevant to and I certainly think it is informative of a discussion of the wisdom of placing weight on a given law as controlling of given conduct. But for you to say, as you have, that you wouldn't agree with my hypothetical law is a response sufficient to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks.

And I must also thank you for providing a reference to "the need to balance the restrictions on voicing racist opinions [and all other restrictions] against the freedom of expression" because it has been repeated here ad nauseam (but not by you, so don't take it personally) that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. Which is, in my opinion, simply not the most true case. Personal rights are often -- if not always -- in competition with each other for existence rather than simply ending and beginning at some clear line of demarcation. And, therefore, any well-though out system of laws requires a careful balancing of those competing interests. And, as is the case when two quantities are placed in the balances, rarely do they hang in equilibrium.

 

[scott91575]

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?

From a legal standpoint how do you define wanker? You going to suddenly start locking up all wankers? What if someone decides you are a wanker? Maybe I think calling someone a wanker is being a wanker? Guess what, you are getting locked up.

The problem with all of this is trying to define laws. Certainly the guy is an ass, yet he does not need to be locked up.

Now, I am a US citizen. So am a speaking from the point of view of US free speech. Yet what this guy did would never be something he could go to jail for in the US. Speech in the US is not entirely free. You can't show child porn, and treason is also illegal. You also cannot incite a riot with your speech. Yet being an unemployed worthless dick is ok, and making people feel bad is also ok. Certainly what the guy did is reprehensible, but how do you define reprehensible? It's a slippery slope. Once you start denying speech to people like him it's only a matter of time that precedent causes someone less reprehensible to be jailed.

To make a completely hypothetical argument (sorry, again US based), let's say one of JFK's old lovers comes out with the truth on a message board. Maybe that person gets graphic, and even tells some half truths or maybe even lies. Do you put that person in jail? Very close to this scenario, but in no way reprehensible. People's feelings may get hurt, including JFK's loved ones. How do you draw a legal line there. With treason, or child porn, or inciting a riot there are some pretty clear lines. Yet in this case it's such a gray area you are opening up a can of worms.

The guy is an ass. There is no doubt about that. Yet dispatching justice in this manner can clear up one wrong, while in the mean time create hundreds if not thousands of much bigger wrongs.

Honestly, you people want to suppress speech that causes people's feelings to be hurt? I don't care if it is over a dead loved one. Hurt feelings, no matter how bad, should not be the basis for suppressing speech.

 

[Carl Anderson]

When the word "freedom" is simply used as an excuse to treat other people horribly, I'd argue that a person doesn't deserve to have freedom. Heck - no functioning society has complete freedom, and for good reason.

If you can't be civil, at least learn to keep your (virtual) mouth shut, and if you can't do that, well, accept there will be consequences. And as for the original article, I would argue that any society that doesn't look out for its own people, and doesn't try to at least moderate their suffering when bad things have happened, all in the name of unlimited 'freedom', is the one that's in truly deep trouble.

Good job, UK.

 

[scott91575]

When the word "freedom" is simply used as an excuse to treat other people horribly, I'd argue that a person doesn't deserve to have freedom. Heck - no functioning society has complete freedom, and for good reason.

If you can't be civil, at least learn to keep your (virtual) mouth shut, and if you can't do that, well, accept there will be consequences. And as for the original article, I would argue that any society that doesn't look out for its own people, and doesn't try to at least moderate their suffering when bad things have happened, all in the name of unlimited 'freedom', is the one that's in truly deep trouble.

Good job, UK.

Really? Really? People treat other people horribly all the time. How do you define horrible. People get fired (aka sacked) from their job, sometime unfairly. That is horrible. Do you lock them up? People cheat on their spouses all the time. That is horrible. Do you lock them up?

I can pretty much guarantee you were mean and horrible to someone in your life. Heck, by that rule almost everyone would spend some time in jail.

No offense, but people that are ok with this are the same people that have allowed governments to walk over people and allow some of the greatest atrocities in the history of the world to occur. It all starts out with thinking you are doing something right, but then you start giving up freedoms, and before you know it those precedents cause good people to be locked up, or worse.

 

[scott91575]

To clarify my point before people bring up civil matters, I am speaking from a purely criminal law standpoint. This in no way should be a criminal matter. If the families want to pursue this in a civil case based on mental anguish, I am fine with that. Yet this should in no way be a criminal matter.

 

[Carl Anderson]

When the word "freedom" is simply used as an excuse to treat other people horribly, I'd argue that a person doesn't deserve to have freedom. Heck - no functioning society has complete freedom, and for good reason.

If you can't be civil, at least learn to keep your (virtual) mouth shut, and if you can't do that, well, accept there will be consequences. And as for the original article, I would argue that any society that doesn't look out for its own people, and doesn't try to at least moderate their suffering when bad things have happened, all in the name of unlimited 'freedom', is the one that's in truly deep trouble.

Good job, UK.

Really? Really? People treat other people horribly all the time. How do you define horrible. People get fired (aka sacked) from their job, sometime unfairly. That is horrible. Do you lock them up? People cheat on their spouses all the time. That is horrible. Do you lock them up?

I can pretty much guarantee you were mean and horrible to someone in your life. Heck, by that rule almost everyone would spend some time in jail.

No offense, but people that are ok with this are the same people that have allowed governments to walk over people and allow some of the greatest atrocities in the history of the world to occur. It all starts out with thinking you are doing something right, but then you start giving up freedoms, and before you know it those precedents cause good people to be locked up, or worse.

So... no bad deed should be punished, ever? Any punishment for anything bad is simply enabling governmental atrocities? How about we take responsability for our governments, and if they abuse the power they have by acting in an over-the-top fashion, we don't vote for them when the next election comes. We trust that sometimes punishments are necessary for people to learn how to function in society... I've been bad to some people during my life, and often I got punished in one way or another for it, and I feel I'm a better person for it, now. Believing in punishments to fit crimes (and apparently, in the UK, what this person did was a crime, whether people in N. America agree with it or not) is not the same as allowing atrocities. That person had the freedom to move to a country that would allow or encourage his behaviors if he so desired. It was his responsiblity to know the laws of the country he chose to live in and follow them. By breaking them (and then bragging of them to neighbours), he chose to accept that there might be consequences, but he didn't feel that they would apply to him.

He was wrong. He was punished in accordance with the laws where he chose to live. Again - kudos to the UK police.

 

[ssgt splatter]

He a 36-year-old unemployed man, I don't think he had anything better to do. But yeah, he really shouldn't have been such a dick to the people whose son was mauled to death by a dog.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

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.

Sorry, Andy, but that's a crock.

Humans are like any other species of social animal. Emotional abuse (which is a much better decription for Cross's acts than merely "hurting someone's feelings") has physiological repercussions; a dog constantly screamed at and berated will develop eating disorders, probably get gastro-intestinal problems, have trouble sleeping, show elevated stress hormone levels, and will have a lower quality-of-life as a result even without beatings or starvation or other physical hardship. Humans will experience similar effects.

Plus, lack of empathy as demonstrated by that level of trolling (or other abuse) is often an indicator for other criminal tendencies. That doesn't mean that Cross was going to go out and mutilate kittens as a precursor to becoming the next Hannibal Lechter, but it does mean that society cannot condone that conduct.

I know you're personally inclined to prefer that these issues be resolved by the parties themselves, but given what I've seen in history that results in feuds or vendettas... the less-constraining option, IMO, is to allow a neutral party to intercede and as things stand today that means state intervention.

-- Steve

 

[Carl Anderson]

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.

Sorry, Andy, but that's a crock.

Humans are like any other species of social animal. Emotional abuse (which is a much better decription for Cross's acts than merely "hurting someone's feelings") has physiological repercussions; a dog constantly screamed at and berated will develop eating disorders, probably get gastro-intestinal problems, have trouble sleeping, show elevated stress hormone levels, and will have a lower quality-of-life as a result even without beatings or starvation or other physical hardship. Humans will experience similar effects.

Plus, lack of empathy as demonstrated by that level of trolling (or other abuse) is often an indicator for other criminal tendencies. That doesn't mean that Cross was going to go out and mutilate kittens as a precursor to becoming the next Hannibal Lechter, but it does mean that society cannot condone that conduct.

I know you're personally inclined to prefer that these issues be resolved by the parties themselves, but given what I've seen in history that results in feuds or vendettas... the less-constraining option, IMO, is to allow a neutral party to intercede and as things stand today that means state intervention.

-- Steve

Well-said

 

[Andy Chalk]

But what this guy did is akin to falsely shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre, which puts people in serious danger.

I don't see how. I think it's more akin to saying something like "Thank god for dead soldiers" at funerals for dead soldiers - which, for the moment at least, is protected speech.

In Canada (where, for the record, we don't have First Amendment-style protection of free speech either) Maclean's magazine and author Mark Steyn were dragged before three separate "human rights commissions" by the Canadian Islamic Congress for publishing "Islamophobic" articles, such as one entitled "The Future Belongs to Islam" in which Steyn talked about, among other things, demographics and the birth rate of "Islamic" versus Western nations. (Maclean's, by the way, isn't some third-rate nutbar rag but the premier news magazine in Canada, rather like Time magazine but older and better.) All matters of record, but it nonetheless resulted in three separate, expensive show trials before "human rights commissions," all of which ended with dismissals, but not before the Ontario HRC essentially declared Steyn and the magazine guilty even though it couldn't make it stick.

"When the media writes, it should exercise great caution that it's not promoting stereotypes that will adversely impact on identifiable groups," Commissioner Barbara Hall said in a statement following the dismissal. "I think one needs to be very careful when one speaks in generalities, that in fact one is speaking factually about all the people in a particular group."

In other words, they got away with it this time but you can believe the commissions will be looking out for other cases and if you don't want to get nailed you better watch what you say - because even if what you say is "factual," if it's unpleasantly factual or causes distress to certain individuals, you could be next.

We have "free speech" in Canada, of course. But we have to be careful, you know?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Good job, UK.

Whichever country you call home, every damn one of us has recently violated human rights and freedom for the "greater good".

Blaming (or Condoning) the UK for the actions of one of its court cases is hardly a rational case when you could equally shoot down any other country in the world for one of its past decisions.

 

[scott91575]

When the word "freedom" is simply used as an excuse to treat other people horribly, I'd argue that a person doesn't deserve to have freedom. Heck - no functioning society has complete freedom, and for good reason.

If you can't be civil, at least learn to keep your (virtual) mouth shut, and if you can't do that, well, accept there will be consequences. And as for the original article, I would argue that any society that doesn't look out for its own people, and doesn't try to at least moderate their suffering when bad things have happened, all in the name of unlimited 'freedom', is the one that's in truly deep trouble.

Good job, UK.

Really? Really? People treat other people horribly all the time. How do you define horrible. People get fired (aka sacked) from their job, sometime unfairly. That is horrible. Do you lock them up? People cheat on their spouses all the time. That is horrible. Do you lock them up?

I can pretty much guarantee you were mean and horrible to someone in your life. Heck, by that rule almost everyone would spend some time in jail.

No offense, but people that are ok with this are the same people that have allowed governments to walk over people and allow some of the greatest atrocities in the history of the world to occur. It all starts out with thinking you are doing something right, but then you start giving up freedoms, and before you know it those precedents cause good people to be locked up, or worse.

So... no bad deed should be punished, ever? Any punishment for anything bad is simply enabling governmental atrocities? How about we take responsability for our governments, and if they abuse the power they have by acting in an over-the-top fashion, we don't vote for them when the next election comes. We trust that sometimes punishments are necessary for people to learn how to function in society... I've been bad to some people during my life, and often I got punished in one way or another for it, and I feel I'm a better person for it, now. Believing in punishments to fit crimes (and apparently, in the UK, what this person did was a crime, whether people in N. America agree with it or not) is not the same as allowing atrocities. That person had the freedom to move to a country that would allow or encourage his behaviors if he so desired. It was his responsiblity to know the laws of the country he chose to live in and follow them. By breaking them (and then bragging of them to neighbours), he chose to accept that there might be consequences, but he didn't feel that they would apply to him.

He was wrong. He was punished in accordance with the laws where he chose to live. Again - kudos to the UK police.

Yep, and being Jewish in Germany was horrible. So was being Jewish in Spain for centuries. Being black in America was horrible.

Sorry, but making someone feel bad is no basis for criminal law. There is just way too much gray area that can be used to persecute innocent people. You need to defend the assholes of the world, because if you don't, guess who is next in line. Plus, how do you define what is horrible? People feel bad all the time for things that are in no way meant to be malicious.

I am also willing to bet your comeuppance for being "bad" was not dealt from the government. The government has no right, and should never have the right, to create criminal issues out of hurt feelings. Otherwise you run down that slope to Stalin, Hilter (Godwin's Law!), Mussolini, The Inquisition, Slobodan Milosevic, Mou Se Tung, Pol Pot, etc. Once you make exceptions on free speech, you open up the ability to persecute people on other grounds masked in that ambiguous law.

I am not saying no bad dead should not be punished, but hurt feelings is not one of them. Murder, rape, assault, etc. need to be prevented. Yet once you start infringing on speech due to the feelings of someone, you are running down a slope that leads to much more horrible things. Plus you are putting more and more power in the hands of the government. You can say all you want about "well, we will vote them out." What if that bad thing happening to you is fine with the majority? These basic truths, built into things like a Constitution, are meant to be pure truths that protect the minorities. Once you eliminate them, you may very well find yourself in that minority. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Plus, lack of empathy as demonstrated by that level of trolling (or other abuse) is often an indicator for other criminal tendencies. That doesn't mean that Cross was going to go out and mutilate kittens as a precursor to becoming the next Hannibal Lechter, but it does mean that society cannot condone that conduct.

Are you seriously suggesting that what he might do is justification, even in part, for putting this guy in jail?

And this isn't emotional abuse. Based on what I've read, he went from site to site, posted his spew and then moved on. If there was actual harassment involved the situation would be different, but this looks like nothing more than drive-by assholery.

I know you're personally inclined to prefer that these issues be resolved by the parties themselves, but given what I've seen in history that results in feuds or vendettas... the less-constraining option, IMO, is to allow a neutral party to intercede and as things stand today that means state intervention.

Civil courts. As I've stated previously, let that be your state intervention.

What I'd really like to know (and never will, because at this point the true believers will never admit it) is what sort of reaction we'd be seeing if he'd done this just to Jade Goody. After all, there have been a number of posts on here saying that she more or less deserved to be called names but you just can't talk that way about an innocent child, and that makes me wonder if maybe a lot of this support isn't just about clamping on being a dick, but clamping down very specifically on who you can be a dick to.

 

[scott91575]

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.

Sorry, Andy, but that's a crock.

Humans are like any other species of social animal. Emotional abuse (which is a much better decription for Cross's acts than merely "hurting someone's feelings") has physiological repercussions; a dog constantly screamed at and berated will develop eating disorders, probably get gastro-intestinal problems, have trouble sleeping, show elevated stress hormone levels, and will have a lower quality-of-life as a result even without beatings or starvation or other physical hardship. Humans will experience similar effects.

Plus, lack of empathy as demonstrated by that level of trolling (or other abuse) is often an indicator for other criminal tendencies. That doesn't mean that Cross was going to go out and mutilate kittens as a precursor to becoming the next Hannibal Lechter, but it does mean that society cannot condone that conduct.

I know you're personally inclined to prefer that these issues be resolved by the parties themselves, but given what I've seen in history that results in feuds or vendettas... the less-constraining option, IMO, is to allow a neutral party to intercede and as things stand today that means state intervention.

-- Steve

and there are civil courts for that. They are there to make someone whole for those type of infringements. Yet allowing the government to put someone in jail for hurting someone's feelings is letting the government control thoughts and speech. That NEVER ends well.

BTW... Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character.

 

[clankwise]

hang all the trolls

 

[Carl Anderson]

Ultimately, a lot of the debate on this is gonna come down to how each side views things... to some, this is gonna be nothing more than "hurting feelings", while others will view this as closer to "emotional abuse". Both sides have the capability to reduce the entire issue to over-simplified examples that 'prove' their points. None of us knows the whole story behind what happened, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, be grateful that most of us were able to stay civil, and trust that justice, as the man's nation of choice defines it, will be done.

 

[JDKJ]

When the word "freedom" is simply used as an excuse to treat other people horribly, I'd argue that a person doesn't deserve to have freedom. Heck - no functioning society has complete freedom, and for good reason.

If you can't be civil, at least learn to keep your (virtual) mouth shut, and if you can't do that, well, accept there will be consequences. And as for the original article, I would argue that any society that doesn't look out for its own people, and doesn't try to at least moderate their suffering when bad things have happened, all in the name of unlimited 'freedom', is the one that's in truly deep trouble.

Good job, UK.

Really? Really? People treat other people horribly all the time. How do you define horrible. People get fired (aka sacked) from their job, sometime unfairly. That is horrible. Do you lock them up? People cheat on their spouses all the time. That is horrible. Do you lock them up?

I can pretty much guarantee you were mean and horrible to someone in your life. Heck, by that rule almost everyone would spend some time in jail.

No offense, but people that are ok with this are the same people that have allowed governments to walk over people and allow some of the greatest atrocities in the history of the world to occur. It all starts out with thinking you are doing something right, but then you start giving up freedoms, and before you know it those precedents cause good people to be locked up, or worse.

So... no bad deed should be punished, ever? Any punishment for anything bad is simply enabling governmental atrocities? How about we take responsability for our governments, and if they abuse the power they have by acting in an over-the-top fashion, we don't vote for them when the next election comes. We trust that sometimes punishments are necessary for people to learn how to function in society... I've been bad to some people during my life, and often I got punished in one way or another for it, and I feel I'm a better person for it, now. Believing in punishments to fit crimes (and apparently, in the UK, what this person did was a crime, whether people in N. America agree with it or not) is not the same as allowing atrocities. That person had the freedom to move to a country that would allow or encourage his behaviors if he so desired. It was his responsiblity to know the laws of the country he chose to live in and follow them. By breaking them (and then bragging of them to neighbours), he chose to accept that there might be consequences, but he didn't feel that they would apply to him.

He was wrong. He was punished in accordance with the laws where he chose to live. Again - kudos to the UK police.

I don't know if no bad deed should ever be punished but I do know that no good deed ever goes unpunished.