Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Stormz]

I don't care, I think the prick deserved what he got.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

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.

Which is why it's all the more amazing that the WBC haven't been sentenced to life for corrupting children, spreading hate and dishonouring dead soldiers, as well as grieving their families.

 

[ThreeDogsToaster]

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].

But what if traumatizing the family is only a bi-product of you speaking your mind and your viewpoint freely? Then what? Because if you begin judging weather or not something is allowed based on if it offends someone or not, then we have a problem.

 

[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.

No but its a promise from the state that you will never be legally prosecuted for expressing your opinion.
That is what we have forum mods for.

If my opinion is that my neighbour is a pedophile, if i spout that out to everyone i meet and ruin his reputation its called defamation, and yes, you can be sued.

 

[Omega500]

this is awesome Also at a music fest last year (2009) there was these guys

[http://img29.imageshack.us/i/jdlol.jpg/]

This been done weeks after she died

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Essentially he got what he wanted: the spotlight.
Though this should be protected by freedom of speech in the US (doubtful that it is anyway, I think there's some rule about going to funerals and acting up).

 

[JDKJ]

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.

No but its a promise from the state that you will never be legally prosecuted for expressing your opinion.
That is what we have forum mods for.

If my opinion is that my neighbour is a pedophile, if i spout that out to everyone i meet and ruin his reputation its called defamation, and yes, you can be sued.

[Edited below]

 

[JDKJ]

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.

No but its a promise from the state that you will never be legally prosecuted for expressing your opinion.
That is what we have forum mods for.

If my opinion is that my neighbour is a pedophile, if i spout that out to everyone i meet and ruin his reputation its called defamation, and yes, you can be sued.

But if your neighbor is in fact a pedophile and you can prove that fact, you'll be immune to successful suit. The perfect defense to a claim of defamation is Truth.

And there's a lurking argument to be made that if your neighbor is in fact a pedophile and you've spouted that fact from the hilltops for all to hear, you've done society a public service.

 

[illas]

Freedom of speech is a misunderstood concept. You can say whatever you like, but should your words have direct consequences you are legally responsible for those consequences. This is true in the USA, too.

In the the UK we have identified certain areas as being almost indefensible; for example, incidents of "inciting racial hatred" or "intentional endangerment of others" receive no freedom of speech protection whatsoever. The US has a similar policy: the first amendment directly states that there is no protection for "obscene material", for example.

Serendipitously, the US Supreme Court is about to rule on whether videogames deserve first amendment (free speech) protection or whether, as a potentially dangerous medium, they need controlling. (see Extra Credits' "Free Speech" episode)

In short, 100% free speech is impossible and undesirable. Civilizations and societies are only as good as the things they allow, but also only as good as the things they disallow. Total freedom would only work if all humans were perfect, and given that evolution tends to favor selfish jerks... that's unlikely.

 

[Random berk]

Anyone on that Jade Goody forum other than people who personally knew her are idiots. She did nothing of value when she was alive, so why do they celebrate her life now that we shouldn't have to hear about her any more? But saying he violated a childs corpse, no right to free speech should cover that, and I'm glad to see it didn't.

Incidentally, if freedom of speech laws don't protect guys like this, how come Westboro Baptist Church can hide under them so easily?

 

[ramboondiea]

what do you mean by his mental state?
and i think this is a pretty clear case of emotionally assaulting a bereaved family as he has playing with there emotions and is making them suffer further just to amuse himself

I could say it's the person's cognitive condition at the time in question but lemme try it this way:

Ever fucked up royally and had someone, like your parent, ask you, "What the Hell were you thinking!?" That's one way of asking you what was your mental state.

oh i see what you meant, i thought id missed something with this story, but yeah, that is what the courts will attempt to look at when deciding things such as what the intentions of the defendant was at the time of committing the act,
looking at your example, yeah people have said that to me on occasion, but afterwards its very unlikely i will do whatever i did again, in this man's case he has done this on numerous occasions so its not really a fuck up, more of an intention

 

[illas]

-snip-

But what if traumatizing the family is only a bi-product of you speaking your mind and your viewpoint freely? Then what? Because if you begin judging weather or not something is allowed based on if it offends someone or not, then we have a problem.

In the example you cite, the people who are offended sue the offender and the case goes to trial. There is no blanket judgment stating that "anything that offends anyone is illegal" - each incident is considered individually, and even then, only if the offended party sues. Furthermore, unless the claims made by the offender can be proven to be untrue the is very little legal recourse.

"Universally wrong" speech (unlawful endangerment of others, etc) is of course prohibited.

TL;DR - don't worry. Self-expression is protected, it's only targeted maliciousness that is subject to legal retribution (though, as mentioned, even then not necessarily subject to a punishment). I know this kind of legislation *seems* like an impediment to personal/artistic development etc, but it intentionally and intrinsically has no bearing on it.

 

[JDKJ]

what do you mean by his mental state?
and i think this is a pretty clear case of emotionally assaulting a bereaved family as he has playing with there emotions and is making them suffer further just to amuse himself

I could say it's the person's cognitive condition at the time in question but lemme try it this way:

Ever fucked up royally and had someone, like your parent, ask you, "What the Hell were you thinking!?" That's one way of asking you what was your mental state.

oh i see what you meant, i thought id missed something with this story, but yeah, that is what the courts will attempt to look at when deciding things such as what the intentions of the defendant was at the time of committing the act,
looking at your example, yeah people have said that to me on occasion, but afterwards its very unlikely i will do whatever i did again, in this man's case he has done this on numerous occasions so its not really a fuck up, more of an intention

I'll agree (somewhat) with you that doing something repeatedly could (and I emphasis "could") in some circumstances be useful in determining mental state. But I'll also say that, as a general rule, attempting to look deep within the recesses of a person's mind and confidently determining "what the Hell they were thinking" is no easy undertaking and one fraught with the distinct potential for mistaken determinations.

 

[ramboondiea]

what do you mean by his mental state?
and i think this is a pretty clear case of emotionally assaulting a bereaved family as he has playing with there emotions and is making them suffer further just to amuse himself

I could say it's the person's cognitive condition at the time in question but lemme try it this way:

Ever fucked up royally and had someone, like your parent, ask you, "What the Hell were you thinking!?" That's one way of asking you what was your mental state.

oh i see what you meant, i thought id missed something with this story, but yeah, that is what the courts will attempt to look at when deciding things such as what the intentions of the defendant was at the time of committing the act,
looking at your example, yeah people have said that to me on occasion, but afterwards its very unlikely i will do whatever i did again, in this man's case he has done this on numerous occasions so its not really a fuck up, more of an intention

I'll agree (somewhat) with you that doing something repeatedly could (and I emphasis "could") in some circumstances be useful in determining mental state. But I will also state that, as a general rule, attempting to look deep within the recesses of a person's mind and confidently determining "what the Hell they were thinking" is no easy undertaking and one fraught with the distinct potential for mistaken determinations.

your right, it wouldnt be an easy task, but looking at it from a legal point of view, its the fairest method available, and id be willing to bet that when this case was brought to court, they used an objective approach, (i.e the reasonable man test)
also what you suggest as an alternative? and do you think it rally matters what his mental state was at the time?

 

[JDKJ]

what do you mean by his mental state?
and i think this is a pretty clear case of emotionally assaulting a bereaved family as he has playing with there emotions and is making them suffer further just to amuse himself

I could say it's the person's cognitive condition at the time in question but lemme try it this way:

Ever fucked up royally and had someone, like your parent, ask you, "What the Hell were you thinking!?" That's one way of asking you what was your mental state.

oh i see what you meant, i thought id missed something with this story, but yeah, that is what the courts will attempt to look at when deciding things such as what the intentions of the defendant was at the time of committing the act,
looking at your example, yeah people have said that to me on occasion, but afterwards its very unlikely i will do whatever i did again, in this man's case he has done this on numerous occasions so its not really a fuck up, more of an intention

I'll agree (somewhat) with you that doing something repeatedly could (and I emphasis "could") in some circumstances be useful in determining mental state. But I will also state that, as a general rule, attempting to look deep within the recesses of a person's mind and confidently determining "what the Hell they were thinking" is no easy undertaking and one fraught with the distinct potential for mistaken determinations.

your right, it wouldnt be an easy task, but looking at it from a legal point of view, its the fairest method available, and id be willing to bet that when this case was brought to court, they used an objective approach, (i.e the reasonable man test)
also what you suggest as an alternative? and do you think it rally matters what his mental state was at the time?

You bet you assets I think it really matters. The law he was convicted under requires the prosecution to prove that he had the intent to cause harm of the sort it prohibits (and intent relates to mental state). If Mr. Cross' primary intent wasn't to cause the harms prohibited by the law but, rather, was to express an opinion he held, then I don't think he deserves to be sitting where he currently sits. It's the difference between whether he's simply a vile, mean-spirit person, intent on doing nothing more than causing hurt to others for whatever sick pleasure he may find in doing so and whether he's simply exercising what I would like to think is his right to freely express his opinions (regardless of what we may think those opinions are worth). And if it's the latter and not the former, then the law is indeed criminalizing free speech. And, as has been said, a society that criminalizes what is primarily the expression of opinions is in deep, deep, deep trouble.

EDIT: And just because he might have been expressing his opinions in a rather peculiar way, doesn't make it any less the expression of his opinions. Scroll up to the photograph of the four gentlemen proudly sporting their T-shirts. I find them to be expressing their opinions in a rather peculiar way. But that doesn't mean I don't think their peculiar expression of opinion shouldn't enjoy protection. And if it doesn't, then let's just hurry up and get to throwing people in jail and prison for wearing peculiar T-shirts.

 

[ramboondiea]

what do you mean by his mental state?
and i think this is a pretty clear case of emotionally assaulting a bereaved family as he has playing with there emotions and is making them suffer further just to amuse himself

I could say it's the person's cognitive condition at the time in question but lemme try it this way:

Ever fucked up royally and had someone, like your parent, ask you, "What the Hell were you thinking!?" That's one way of asking you what was your mental state.

oh i see what you meant, i thought id missed something with this story, but yeah, that is what the courts will attempt to look at when deciding things such as what the intentions of the defendant was at the time of committing the act,
looking at your example, yeah people have said that to me on occasion, but afterwards its very unlikely i will do whatever i did again, in this man's case he has done this on numerous occasions so its not really a fuck up, more of an intention

I'll agree (somewhat) with you that doing something repeatedly could (and I emphasis "could") in some circumstances be useful in determining mental state. But I will also state that, as a general rule, attempting to look deep within the recesses of a person's mind and confidently determining "what the Hell they were thinking" is no easy undertaking and one fraught with the distinct potential for mistaken determinations.

your right, it wouldnt be an easy task, but looking at it from a legal point of view, its the fairest method available, and id be willing to bet that when this case was brought to court, they used an objective approach, (i.e the reasonable man test)
also what you suggest as an alternative? and do you think it rally matters what his mental state was at the time?

You bet you assets I think it really matters. The law he was convicted under requires the prosecution to prove that he had the intent to cause harm of the sort it prohibits (and intent relates to mental state). If Mr. Cross' primary intent wasn't to cause the harms prohibited by the law but, rather, was to express an opinion he held, then I don't think he deserves to be sitting where he currently sits. It's the difference between whether he's simply a vile, mean-spirit person, intent on doing nothing more than causing hurt to others for whatever sick pleasure he may find in doing so and whether he's simply exercising what I would like to think is his right to freely express his opinions (regardless of what we may think those opinions are worth). And if it's the latter and not the former, then the law is indeed criminalizing free speech. And, as has been said, a society that criminalizes the expression of opinions is in deep, deep, deep trouble.

firstly id just like to point out, that you can (in certain circumstances) be convicted of a crime even if you had no intention of committing said crime. and what cross did was not to express an opinion, i have seen what he put and it was not an opinion it was just intended to harm,and it could not be held in any context to be expressing an opinion.
and this case literally as nothing to do with free speech, how its even entered this argument is behold me. this individual as on numerous occasions used the internet to berate insult and devastate people, but not through expression of an opinion but through comments that hold no incline of an opinion or ideas just insults. also he is facing a few weeks in prison, with they way people are talking about this you would think hes been given the death penalty, when infact he will be (most likely) held at his local police station holding cell. afterwards he will likely go back to being a dick and learn nothing from the experience, and what of the family who has been made to suffer? do they deserve no reparation?

 

[JDKJ]

what do you mean by his mental state?
and i think this is a pretty clear case of emotionally assaulting a bereaved family as he has playing with there emotions and is making them suffer further just to amuse himself

I could say it's the person's cognitive condition at the time in question but lemme try it this way:

Ever fucked up royally and had someone, like your parent, ask you, "What the Hell were you thinking!?" That's one way of asking you what was your mental state.

oh i see what you meant, i thought id missed something with this story, but yeah, that is what the courts will attempt to look at when deciding things such as what the intentions of the defendant was at the time of committing the act,
looking at your example, yeah people have said that to me on occasion, but afterwards its very unlikely i will do whatever i did again, in this man's case he has done this on numerous occasions so its not really a fuck up, more of an intention

I'll agree (somewhat) with you that doing something repeatedly could (and I emphasis "could") in some circumstances be useful in determining mental state. But I will also state that, as a general rule, attempting to look deep within the recesses of a person's mind and confidently determining "what the Hell they were thinking" is no easy undertaking and one fraught with the distinct potential for mistaken determinations.

your right, it wouldnt be an easy task, but looking at it from a legal point of view, its the fairest method available, and id be willing to bet that when this case was brought to court, they used an objective approach, (i.e the reasonable man test)
also what you suggest as an alternative? and do you think it rally matters what his mental state was at the time?

You bet you assets I think it really matters. The law he was convicted under requires the prosecution to prove that he had the intent to cause harm of the sort it prohibits (and intent relates to mental state). If Mr. Cross' primary intent wasn't to cause the harms prohibited by the law but, rather, was to express an opinion he held, then I don't think he deserves to be sitting where he currently sits. It's the difference between whether he's simply a vile, mean-spirit person, intent on doing nothing more than causing hurt to others for whatever sick pleasure he may find in doing so and whether he's simply exercising what I would like to think is his right to freely express his opinions (regardless of what we may think those opinions are worth). And if it's the latter and not the former, then the law is indeed criminalizing free speech. And, as has been said, a society that criminalizes the expression of opinions is in deep, deep, deep trouble.

firstly id just like to point out, that you can (in certain circumstances) be convicted of a crime even if you had no intention of committing said crime. and what cross did was not to express an opinion, i have seen what he put and it was not an opinion it was just intended to harm,and it could not be held in any context to be expressing an opinion.
and this case literally as nothing to do with free speech, how its even entered this argument is behold me. this individual as on numerous occasions used the internet to berate insult and devastate people, but not through expression of an opinion but through comments that hold no incline of an opinion or ideas just insults. also he is facing a few weeks in prison, with they way people are talking about this you would think hes been given the death penalty, when infact he will be (most likely) held at his local police station holding cell. afterwards he will likely go back to being a dick and learn nothing from the experience, and what of the family who has been made to suffer? do they deserve no reparation?

Again, how do we know what was in the mind of Mr. Cross? Although, now that I think about it, Mr. Cross may not be the best case study because he clearly isn't the sharpest knife in the cutlery cabinet, probably couldn't afford an attorney (given that he couldn't pay his fine), spoke voluntarily with investigating officers (which the dumbest of amateur criminals know better than to do), etc. etc., etc. But if we assume a case where the defendant is less likely to fashion his own noose for the hangman, how do we go about figuring out in an objective way what's in the minds of the Mr. Crosses of the world?

And, yes, I'm aware that there are criminal offenses of strict liability and which therefore require no showing of intent. But, in most all systems of criminal justice -- including that of the UK's -- they are few and far between because a fundamental tenet of criminal justice is that you don't penalize people for crimes which they had no intent to commit.

EDIT: And do you honestly want to tell me that if you were made to sit in your local police station's holding cell for 18 weeks, that you'd think it was no big deal? I've been there and, trust me, it didn't take 18 hours for me to find it quite a big deal. It's kinda weird, I think, that you have sympathy for and can empathize with Mr. Cross' victims but apparently can't do so for Mr. Cross.

 

[ramboondiea]

what do you mean by his mental state?
and i think this is a pretty clear case of emotionally assaulting a bereaved family as he has playing with there emotions and is making them suffer further just to amuse himself

I could say it's the person's cognitive condition at the time in question but lemme try it this way:

Ever fucked up royally and had someone, like your parent, ask you, "What the Hell were you thinking!?" That's one way of asking you what was your mental state.

oh i see what you meant, i thought id missed something with this story, but yeah, that is what the courts will attempt to look at when deciding things such as what the intentions of the defendant was at the time of committing the act,
looking at your example, yeah people have said that to me on occasion, but afterwards its very unlikely i will do whatever i did again, in this man's case he has done this on numerous occasions so its not really a fuck up, more of an intention

I'll agree (somewhat) with you that doing something repeatedly could (and I emphasis "could") in some circumstances be useful in determining mental state. But I will also state that, as a general rule, attempting to look deep within the recesses of a person's mind and confidently determining "what the Hell they were thinking" is no easy undertaking and one fraught with the distinct potential for mistaken determinations.

your right, it wouldnt be an easy task, but looking at it from a legal point of view, its the fairest method available, and id be willing to bet that when this case was brought to court, they used an objective approach, (i.e the reasonable man test)
also what you suggest as an alternative? and do you think it rally matters what his mental state was at the time?

You bet you assets I think it really matters. The law he was convicted under requires the prosecution to prove that he had the intent to cause harm of the sort it prohibits (and intent relates to mental state). If Mr. Cross' primary intent wasn't to cause the harms prohibited by the law but, rather, was to express an opinion he held, then I don't think he deserves to be sitting where he currently sits. It's the difference between whether he's simply a vile, mean-spirit person, intent on doing nothing more than causing hurt to others for whatever sick pleasure he may find in doing so and whether he's simply exercising what I would like to think is his right to freely express his opinions (regardless of what we may think those opinions are worth). And if it's the latter and not the former, then the law is indeed criminalizing free speech. And, as has been said, a society that criminalizes the expression of opinions is in deep, deep, deep trouble.

firstly id just like to point out, that you can (in certain circumstances) be convicted of a crime even if you had no intention of committing said crime. and what cross did was not to express an opinion, i have seen what he put and it was not an opinion it was just intended to harm,and it could not be held in any context to be expressing an opinion.
and this case literally as nothing to do with free speech, how its even entered this argument is behold me. this individual as on numerous occasions used the internet to berate insult and devastate people, but not through expression of an opinion but through comments that hold no incline of an opinion or ideas just insults. also he is facing a few weeks in prison, with they way people are talking about this you would think hes been given the death penalty, when infact he will be (most likely) held at his local police station holding cell. afterwards he will likely go back to being a dick and learn nothing from the experience, and what of the family who has been made to suffer? do they deserve no reparation?

Again, how do we know what was in the mind of Mr. Cross? Although, now that I think about it, Mr. Cross may not be the best case study because he clearly isn't the sharpest knife in the cutlery cabinet, probably couldn't afford an attorney (given that he couldn't pay his fine), spoke voluntarily with investigating officers (which the dumbest of amateur criminals know better than to do), etc. etc., etc. But if we assume a case where the defendant is less likely to fashion his own noose for the hangman, how do we go about figuring in an objective way what's in the minds on the Mr. crosses of the world.

And, yes, I'm aware that there are criminal offenses of strict liability and which therefore require no showing of intent. But, in most all systems of criminal justice -- including that of the UK's -- they are few and far between because a fundamental tenet of criminal justice is that you don't penalize people for crimes which they had no intent to commit.

actually you will find strict liability cases are very common, and they will, by majority, be used in situations where it is fairer to do so (see vicarious liability) and you seem to be pretty focused on this notion of what he was thinking? but the fact is a person is responsible for his own words and actions, and will be held accountable for them. also mr. cross would have had a solicitor available to him, and it works in a defendants favour when they do cooperate with police (there are circumstances courts will look at when deciding punishment)
i must also disagree with you about him not being a good example, anomalous examples like these allow people to look at the diverse issues that stem from them. but if you would really like to know what was going on in his head at the time, my i suggest you look into some of the comments Mr.cros said during the case, he said on numerous occasions how he "enjoyed" and "found pleasure" in tormenting these peoples.
also the objective way the courts look at cases is the reasonable man rule, and its a system that was work for a long time, and i see no reason it needs revising for this case as it suits the purpose perfectly

 

[JDKJ]

what do you mean by his mental state?
and i think this is a pretty clear case of emotionally assaulting a bereaved family as he has playing with there emotions and is making them suffer further just to amuse himself

I could say it's the person's cognitive condition at the time in question but lemme try it this way:

Ever fucked up royally and had someone, like your parent, ask you, "What the Hell were you thinking!?" That's one way of asking you what was your mental state.

oh i see what you meant, i thought id missed something with this story, but yeah, that is what the courts will attempt to look at when deciding things such as what the intentions of the defendant was at the time of committing the act,
looking at your example, yeah people have said that to me on occasion, but afterwards its very unlikely i will do whatever i did again, in this man's case he has done this on numerous occasions so its not really a fuck up, more of an intention

I'll agree (somewhat) with you that doing something repeatedly could (and I emphasis "could") in some circumstances be useful in determining mental state. But I will also state that, as a general rule, attempting to look deep within the recesses of a person's mind and confidently determining "what the Hell they were thinking" is no easy undertaking and one fraught with the distinct potential for mistaken determinations.

your right, it wouldnt be an easy task, but looking at it from a legal point of view, its the fairest method available, and id be willing to bet that when this case was brought to court, they used an objective approach, (i.e the reasonable man test)
also what you suggest as an alternative? and do you think it rally matters what his mental state was at the time?

You bet you assets I think it really matters. The law he was convicted under requires the prosecution to prove that he had the intent to cause harm of the sort it prohibits (and intent relates to mental state). If Mr. Cross' primary intent wasn't to cause the harms prohibited by the law but, rather, was to express an opinion he held, then I don't think he deserves to be sitting where he currently sits. It's the difference between whether he's simply a vile, mean-spirit person, intent on doing nothing more than causing hurt to others for whatever sick pleasure he may find in doing so and whether he's simply exercising what I would like to think is his right to freely express his opinions (regardless of what we may think those opinions are worth). And if it's the latter and not the former, then the law is indeed criminalizing free speech. And, as has been said, a society that criminalizes the expression of opinions is in deep, deep, deep trouble.

firstly id just like to point out, that you can (in certain circumstances) be convicted of a crime even if you had no intention of committing said crime. and what cross did was not to express an opinion, i have seen what he put and it was not an opinion it was just intended to harm,and it could not be held in any context to be expressing an opinion.
and this case literally as nothing to do with free speech, how its even entered this argument is behold me. this individual as on numerous occasions used the internet to berate insult and devastate people, but not through expression of an opinion but through comments that hold no incline of an opinion or ideas just insults. also he is facing a few weeks in prison, with they way people are talking about this you would think hes been given the death penalty, when infact he will be (most likely) held at his local police station holding cell. afterwards he will likely go back to being a dick and learn nothing from the experience, and what of the family who has been made to suffer? do they deserve no reparation?

Again, how do we know what was in the mind of Mr. Cross? Although, now that I think about it, Mr. Cross may not be the best case study because he clearly isn't the sharpest knife in the cutlery cabinet, probably couldn't afford an attorney (given that he couldn't pay his fine), spoke voluntarily with investigating officers (which the dumbest of amateur criminals know better than to do), etc. etc., etc. But if we assume a case where the defendant is less likely to fashion his own noose for the hangman, how do we go about figuring in an objective way what's in the minds on the Mr. crosses of the world.

And, yes, I'm aware that there are criminal offenses of strict liability and which therefore require no showing of intent. But, in most all systems of criminal justice -- including that of the UK's -- they are few and far between because a fundamental tenet of criminal justice is that you don't penalize people for crimes which they had no intent to commit.

actually you will find strict liability cases are very common, and they will, by majority, be used in situations where it is fairer to do so (see vicarious liability) and you seem to be pretty focused on this notion of what he was thinking? but the fact is a person is responsible for his own words and actions, and will be held accountable for them. also mr. cross would have had a solicitor available to him, and it works in a defendants favour when they do cooperate with police (there are circumstances courts will look at when deciding punishment)
i must also disagree with you about him not being a good example, anomalous examples like these allow people to look at the diverse issues that stem from them. but if you would really like to know what was going on in his head at the time, my i suggest you look into some of the comments Mr.cros said during the case, he said on numerous occasions how he "enjoyed" and "found pleasure" in tormenting these peoples.
also the objective way the courts look at cases is the reasonable man rule, and its a system that was work for a long time, and i see no reason it needs revising for this case as it suits the purpose perfectly

Off topic, but in criminal law, strict liability is extremely rare. You can damn near count strict liability criminal offenses on one hand. Feel free to list some if you know otherwise. And unless I'm sorely mistaken, vicarious liability is a concept found almost exclusively in civil tort matters.

The court-appointed solicitor? Hah!! You might as well just hurry up and stick your own head in the noose for all that's worth.

And Mr. Cross' numerous statements against his own interests don't disprove my point that his is not the best case study -- they support the point.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

Which is why it's all the more amazing that the WBC haven't been sentenced to life for corrupting children, spreading hate and dishonouring dead soldiers, as well as grieving their families.

They didn't claim to have sex with your dead child, they said your child was going to Hell for being American. Most people don't believe Hell exists. That's probably why they're still around.