Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Fireyredmullet]

The second you start regulating offensive speech, your society is slipping into facism and totalitarianism. I dont care how offensive, unnecessary or stupid YOU think his speech was, it is protected speech. The "Communications Act" violates this basic human right to voice dissent and protest.

In short, eat a dick, UK politicians, trolling is protected speech.

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

Then again, I don't think the U.K> constitution gives free speech and such... Since it's under a monarchy. So it's probably whatever the king or queen decides.

The Queen doesn't rule the UK anymore she's just there to take our taxes.

OT: With the prisons getting over crowded and murderers still out there, they put an internet troll in prison .......... seems kind of silly to me.

 

[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

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 torts 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.

a court appointed solicitor is mealy a solicitor from a local office, they are just as trained as any other solicitor, and yeas i know vicarious liability is in tort law (with the occasional dip into criminal matters) but i put it as an example of intent not being so important, the courts look to punish wrongs in the fairest way possible, and strict liability can on occasion be unfair, but it still a valuable system.
and to date there has been thousands of cases involving strict liability (to varying degrees)
to name a few:
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda)
R. v Zahid (Nasir).R. v Hall (Audrey). R. v Wolverson (Timothy David). Flynn v Lothian and Borders Police. Abbey Forwarding Ltd (In Liquidation) v Hone. Nintendo Co Ltd v Playables Ltd.Wallace v Glasgow City Council. Johnstone v AMEC Construction Ltd.R. v Lee (Elizabeth.) Seadrill Management Services Ltd v Oao Gazprom.Abbey Forwarding Ltd v Hone.TTM v Hackney LBC. Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd, too name a few cases involving strict liability

 

[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 torts 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.

a court appointed solicitor is mealy a solicitor from a local office, they are just as trained as any other solicitor, and yeas i know vicarious liability is in tort law (with the occasional dip into criminal matters) but i put it as an example of intent not being so important, the courts look to punish wrongs in the fairest way possible, and strict liability can on occasion be unfair, but it still a valuable system.
and to date there has been thousands of cases involving strict liability (to varying degrees)
to name a few:
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda)
R. v Zahid (Nasir).R. v Hall (Audrey). R. v Wolverson (Timothy David). Flynn v Lothian and Borders Police. Abbey Forwarding Ltd (In Liquidation) v Hone. Nintendo Co Ltd v Playables Ltd.Wallace v Glasgow City Council. Johnstone v AMEC Construction Ltd.R. v Lee (Elizabeth.) Seadrill Management Services Ltd v Oao Gazprom.Abbey Forwarding Ltd v Hone.TTM v Hackney LBC. Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd, too name a few cases involving strict liability

Did you not see where I said that a fundamental tenet of criminal justice is an abhorrence of penalizing people for crimes -- emphasis on "crimes" -- they did not intend to commit? They same tenet doesn't apply with equal force to civil matters and vicarious liability. And there are any number of good reasons why it doesn't, including the presence of principal-agent relationships, parent-child relationships, landlord-tenant relationships, etc., etc., etc., the nature of any one and every one of these relationships making in eminently fair and equitable that the sins of the Son be visited upon the Father -- so to speak -- because the Father is fairly held responsible for the harmful conduct of the Son. Nor does the concept of strict liability as found in civil law bear much relevance to criminal law. Similarly, a reluctance to impose liability for unintended harm doesn't apply to strict liability, which is frequently imposed on civil defendants because a judicial or legislative determination has been made that it's of greater good to allow victims of harm greater access to recompense than it is to concern ourselves on a case by case basis with whether or not the defendant intended to cause the harm to occur. This is why, for example, it frequently applies to manufacturers of goods and those who have been harmed by their goods. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[ramboondiea]

you can not say that civil law and criminal law are wholly separate agencies, they are so interlinked that to say the fundamental aims differ can not be justified. also to id have to disagree with you on your idea of cjs "abhorrence of penalizing", you will find they try to be as fair as possible, but they will only go as far as is reasonable. and you believe that strict liability is fairer when it comes to civil matters? because i cannot agree with that, and infact the courts hate using strict liability in civil matters more then in criminal matters, if you look at the disenting judgements in some of those cases i put before, you will see that they favour strict liability in criminal cases due to the standard that is required compared to criminal cases

 

[JDKJ]

you can not say that civil law and criminal law are wholly separate agencies, they are so interlinked that to say the fundamental aims differ can not be justified. also to id have to disagree with you on your idea of cjs "abhorrence of penalizing", you will find they try to be as fair as possible, but they will only go as far as is reasonable. and you believe that strict liability is fairer when it comes to civil matters? because i cannot agree with that, and infact the courts hate using strict liability in civil matters more then in criminal matters, if you look at the disenting judgements in some of those cases i put before, you will see that they favour strict liability in criminal cases due to the standard that is required compared to criminal cases

While I fear that we've gone horrifically off-topic, I just gotta ask:

Are you referring to a particular country's legal system? And if so, which one? Because in the legal systems of most countries of which I'm aware, criminal law is thought to be so separate and apart from civil law, that they've established two separate and apart court systems for dealing with the two.

 

[ramboondiea]

you can not say that civil law and criminal law are wholly separate agencies, they are so interlinked that to say the fundamental aims differ can not be justified. also to id have to disagree with you on your idea of cjs "abhorrence of penalizing", you will find they try to be as fair as possible, but they will only go as far as is reasonable. and you believe that strict liability is fairer when it comes to civil matters? because i cannot agree with that, and infact the courts hate using strict liability in civil matters more then in criminal matters, if you look at the disenting judgements in some of those cases i put before, you will see that they favour strict liability in criminal cases due to the standard that is required compared to criminal cases

While I fear that we've gone horrifically off-topic, I just gotta ask:

Are you referring to a particular country's legal system? And if so, which one? Because in the legal systems of most countries of which I'm aware, criminal law is thought to be so separate and apart from civil law, that they've established two separate and apart court systems for dealing with the two.

im referring to the uk legal system, and what i meant by interlinked is how contact law is involved in land law and how tort is involved in contract and how they all can all overlap with criminal proceedings, yes criminal and civil courts are seperate but the laws they use overlap with each over, people could be found guilty in civil court and still face criminal proceedings for the same crime if you get what i mean? (my constitutional tutor puts it so much better ha)
the to get back on topic, do you believe that MR cros was unjustly punished?

 

[Madara XIII]

It's more then trolling in this case, it's enjoying the act of traumatizing traumatized people. If he was trolling somewhere else on the same idea, he wouldn't have been arrested.

What this dude said times 1000

He crossed line and most of what he said far exceeds the standard for Harassment.

 

[Madara XIII]

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.

*Claps Wildly* FINALLY!!! *Sobs* Finally somebody gets it!!!

 

[JDKJ]

you can not say that civil law and criminal law are wholly separate agencies, they are so interlinked that to say the fundamental aims differ can not be justified. also to id have to disagree with you on your idea of cjs "abhorrence of penalizing", you will find they try to be as fair as possible, but they will only go as far as is reasonable. and you believe that strict liability is fairer when it comes to civil matters? because i cannot agree with that, and infact the courts hate using strict liability in civil matters more then in criminal matters, if you look at the disenting judgements in some of those cases i put before, you will see that they favour strict liability in criminal cases due to the standard that is required compared to criminal cases

While I fear that we've gone horrifically off-topic, I just gotta ask:

Are you referring to a particular country's legal system? And if so, which one? Because in the legal systems of most countries of which I'm aware, criminal law is thought to be so separate and apart from civil law, that they've established two separate and apart court systems for dealing with the two.

im referring to the uk legal system, and what i meant by interlinked is how contact law is involved in land law and how tort is involved in contract and how they all can all overlap with criminal proceedings, yes criminal and civil courts are seperate but the laws they use overlap with each over, people could be found guilty in civil court and still face criminal proceedings for the same crime if you get what i mean? (my constitutional tutor puts it so much better ha)
the to get back on topic, do you believe that MR cros was unjustly punished?

I'm more concerned about the law used to convict him than I am Mr. Cross. Although, obviously, the two can't be easily divorced. But for the existence of the law, Mr. Cross wouldn't have been convicted under it.

 

[ramboondiea]

you can not say that civil law and criminal law are wholly separate agencies, they are so interlinked that to say the fundamental aims differ can not be justified. also to id have to disagree with you on your idea of cjs "abhorrence of penalizing", you will find they try to be as fair as possible, but they will only go as far as is reasonable. and you believe that strict liability is fairer when it comes to civil matters? because i cannot agree with that, and infact the courts hate using strict liability in civil matters more then in criminal matters, if you look at the disenting judgements in some of those cases i put before, you will see that they favour strict liability in criminal cases due to the standard that is required compared to criminal cases

While I fear that we've gone horrifically off-topic, I just gotta ask:

Are you referring to a particular country's legal system? And if so, which one? Because in the legal systems of most countries of which I'm aware, criminal law is thought to be so separate and apart from civil law, that they've established two separate and apart court systems for dealing with the two.

im referring to the uk legal system, and what i meant by interlinked is how contact law is involved in land law and how tort is involved in contract and how they all can all overlap with criminal proceedings, yes criminal and civil courts are seperate but the laws they use overlap with each over, people could be found guilty in civil court and still face criminal proceedings for the same crime if you get what i mean? (my constitutional tutor puts it so much better ha)
the to get back on topic, do you believe that MR cros was unjustly punished?

I'm more concerned about the law used to convict him than I am Mr. Cross. Although, obviously, the two can't be easily divorced. But for the existence of the law, Mr. Cross wouldn't have been convicted under it.

so you dont agree with the communication act?
and your last statement almost seems redundant?

 

[The Ambrosian]

I never could troll, but I've always found trolls to be really funny. It's a shame he had to go to jail for it, though. Especially being that he's 36, he should have grown out of that immature phase by now. Perhaps he needed a wake-up call?

I troll the Youtube simple folk, literally anything will set them off, but aside from that trolling can be annoying, but when it's about people being dead, it's kinda gone a bit too far by that point. At least he wont do it again.

 

[Kinguendo]

Is it just me that sees the irony that he's managed to be extremely succesful as a troll?
He 1) Got a rise out of people
2) Got a rise out of people affected by an issue, and
3) He got a rise out of the authorities.

And prison beatings and butt rape will be his reward... I bet he is so happy that he is a successful troll right now.

Last time I checked even people in prison dont take kindly to people screwing around with kids, especially dead kids. People can claim he was successful all they like, I am sure he doesnt see it that way.

 

[Kinguendo]

I dont troll, I dont like trolls, I am glad they now know they arent untouchable which is what gave them the balls to say what they do in the first place. I dont say things about dead kids or anything that could get me arrested as far as I am aware... so yay.

 

[De-Moti]

/b/ would be proud.

 

[gphjr14]

Be nice to see people physically punished for stupid business propositions from Nigerian royalty.

This guy had it coming, adults should realize their words hold weight and they should be held responsible. I'm all for free speech but when you go out of your way to torment and harass people, there needs to be some consequence.

 

[InnerRebellion]

Successful troll is successful.

Sure, it's a bit harsh, but prison? Come on, that's over the top too.

 

[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.

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.

Thats not the point im making. The point is that freedom of speech does not give actual complete freedom of speech.

 

[JDKJ]

you can not say that civil law and criminal law are wholly separate agencies, they are so interlinked that to say the fundamental aims differ can not be justified. also to id have to disagree with you on your idea of cjs "abhorrence of penalizing", you will find they try to be as fair as possible, but they will only go as far as is reasonable. and you believe that strict liability is fairer when it comes to civil matters? because i cannot agree with that, and infact the courts hate using strict liability in civil matters more then in criminal matters, if you look at the disenting judgements in some of those cases i put before, you will see that they favour strict liability in criminal cases due to the standard that is required compared to criminal cases

While I fear that we've gone horrifically off-topic, I just gotta ask:

Are you referring to a particular country's legal system? And if so, which one? Because in the legal systems of most countries of which I'm aware, criminal law is thought to be so separate and apart from civil law, that they've established two separate and apart court systems for dealing with the two.

im referring to the uk legal system, and what i meant by interlinked is how contact law is involved in land law and how tort is involved in contract and how they all can all overlap with criminal proceedings, yes criminal and civil courts are seperate but the laws they use overlap with each over, people could be found guilty in civil court and still face criminal proceedings for the same crime if you get what i mean? (my constitutional tutor puts it so much better ha)
the to get back on topic, do you believe that MR cros was unjustly punished?

I'm more concerned about the law used to convict him than I am Mr. Cross. Although, obviously, the two can't be easily divorced. But for the existence of the law, Mr. Cross wouldn't have been convicted under it.

so you dont agree with the communication act?
and your last statement almost seems redundant?

Yep. That would be the "law" to which I refer.

Horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

[Yokai]

I'm sorry, but I just can't really feel any sympathy for the guy. Sure, it's an overreaction on the part of the police, but if some asshole wants to go off and horribly offend grieving families on the internet, four months in prison won't hurt him. I'm well aware that the First Amendment and whatever its UK equivalent is give you the right to say whatever you want, but I don't mind looking the other way if someone is reprimanded for being an utter douchebag. Over here in the US, if the police finally get sick of Westboro's bullshit and put them away for a few weeks, I won't complain.