Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Wargamer]

I agree that we should not be arresting Trolls.

We should be burning the fuckers alive instead.

2. I don't think he should go to jail. This man was a total prick, but he didn't harm anyone. If we consider emotional harm a crime, even if it's intentional and malicious, then we are walking down a dark road. This kind of trolling should never be illegal, just greatly frowned upon by free citizens.

No doubt some ignorant Yank from the Freedumb of Speech brigade is about to announce that we have the right to say whatever the fuck we want. That's fine, because we do.

What said Freedumbers forget is we do NOT have the right to say it WHEREVER we want.

For example, if I were to say to you "I'm going to come over there and fucking kill you!" and you or anyone else had reason to believe I meant it, that is a crime.

What this asswipe did was also a crime, and he deserves no sympathy.

As such, I humbly suggest we add "Freedumbers" to the list of people to burn alive. If we're quick, we can get them torched on Guy Fawkes night.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

You can easily have 99.99% free speech unless it causes direct harm, if it dose not cause direct harm it should not be blocked because society is to childish and over sensitive to get over it... the UK is merely heading in the age old direction of an authoritarian state, the US is a decade or 2 behind you its something modern society(or really any democratic government) falls to if corruption in government is not treated as treason(IE lobbying pre,post and during office).

I agree with you re: governments making self-serving laws/judgements, but I would suggest that although "99.99% free speech unless it causes direct harm" is easily possible it isn't desirable.

As I mentioned in my OP, people aren't perfect, and while allowing everyone to express their imperfection is important; so is limiting the negative consequences of that imperfection/experimentation. The old JS Mill principle of "let everyone of sound judgement do whatever they want with their lives as long as they don't directly harm others'" needs updating, IMO. Emotional/mental harm are just as significant as physical harm even if they're more difficult to quantify and/or qualify.

In the case of the guy mentioned in this article, his self-expression was directly and intentionally (by his own admission) motivated by a desire to cause emotional pain to others. An artist challenging people's expectations and standards of decency as a result of expressing themselves is one thing; a man or woman having a similar effect with said effect being the intention all along... very much a different case, to me.

Furthermore, one has to *choose* to see the artist's work (in the main), whereas here the guy was *forcing* his work(?!) on them.

What's your source for the assertion that Coss' "self-expression was directly and intentionally (by his own admission) motivated by a desire to cause emotional pain to others?" As far as I can tell (at least from Mr. Chalk's article and the BBC's article linked thereto, all he admitted to was being an internet "troll" (and to best of my knowledge, a "troll" is nowhere popularly defined as one "motivated by a desire to cause emotional pain to others").

If you have a source with a link thereto, I'd appreciate its receipt. Thanks.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

The government represents men with guns. The moment the government sends its men with guns to arrest someone for posting some words online is the moment information and thought control has begun.

"Only the Sith (and angsty forum-goers) deal in absolutes."

I'd explain further, but the office just got busy. Back later.

-- Steve

 

[JDKJ]

I agree that we should not be arresting Trolls.

We should be burning the fuckers alive instead.

2. I don't think he should go to jail. This man was a total prick, but he didn't harm anyone. If we consider emotional harm a crime, even if it's intentional and malicious, then we are walking down a dark road. This kind of trolling should never be illegal, just greatly frowned upon by free citizens.

No doubt some ignorant Yank from the Freedumb of Speech brigade is about to announce that we have the right to say whatever the fuck we want. That's fine, because we do.

What said Freedumbers forget is we do NOT have the right to say it WHEREVER we want.

For example, if I were to say to you "I'm going to come over there and fucking kill you!" and you or anyone else had reason to believe I meant it, that is a crime.

What this asswipe did was also a crime, and he deserves no sympathy.

As such, I humbly suggest we add "Freedumbers" to the list of people to burn alive. If we're quick, we can get them torched on Guy Fawkes night.

Guy Fawkes night. Isn't that what they celebrate in Detroit as Devil's Night?

 

[1nfinite_Cros5]

Oh come on. If it weren't for internet trolls, we wouldn't have this!

 

[JDKJ]

Is that the Fat Oprah or the Not So Fat Oprah? It's kinda hard to tell.

 

[illas]

What's your source for the assertion that Coss' "self-expression was directly and intentionally (by his own admission) motivated by a desire to cause emotional pain to others?" As far as I can tell (at least from Mr. Chalk's article and the BBC's article linked thereto, all he admitted to was being an internet "troll" (and to best of my knowledge, a "troll" is nowhere popularly defined as one "motivated by a desire to cause emotional pain to others").

If you have a source with a link thereto, I'd appreciate its receipt. Thanks.

""He found the comments amusing, and ... said that they gave him no sexual arousal but that he enjoyed the comments made in reaction."
http://tinyurl.com/3265957 - Manchester Evening News.

Sorry for not including anything more direct, my claim that he enjoyed causing pain to the victims was based on a TV (channel 4, I think) news report where they read press-released sections of the letter that the above link refers to.

However, the original (BBC) link does feature:
"Chairwoman of the bench Pauline Salisbury said: "You preyed on bereaved families who were suffering trauma and anxiety. We know you gained pleasure and you aren't sorry for what you did."
While this is essential conjecture, the fact that it was said by the Chair of the bench during sentencing implies it's veracity, as (iirc) they cannot include such deductions in formal sentencing without the judge's approval.

While I agree that Troll doesn't have to harbor intent to cause emotional pain to others, I would venture that in the opinion of the court (who have all the evidence) this particular person, in this specific incident, did.

 

[JDKJ]

I appreciate the time you've taken to provide your sources. However, I'm not entirely convinced. With all due respect to the Bench, the post-conviction statements of a court officer during sentencing probably aren't the most objective source. Not to say that they aren't accurate, just not being made in the most objective of circumstances. And, as you've noted, they could well be -- and most likely are -- nothing more than the Court's own deductions. Which doesn't at all mean that Coss said out his own mouth that he preyed on bereaved families who were suffering trauma and anxiety and gained pleasure and isn't sorry for what he did. That's not necessarily what Coss said. All I think we can say with any degree of certainty is that those words were said by Chairwoman Salisbury.

But, again, thanks for the response. Much appreciated.

P.S.: And someone should tell the Evening News that a publication interested in reporting the news with any semblance of objectivity shouldn't begin their article with "A pervert who left sick messages on tribute sites for dead people has been jailed." But I doubt the News is much interested in the niceties of journalistic integrity.

P.P.S: And that photograph of Coss leaves me wondering if he didn't have a good diminished capacity defense. He doesn't look entirely right in his head.

 

[tsb247]

This really isn't a free speech issue. This wasn't a guy trying to tell you his religious beliefs are correct or saying how are going to be the end of the world.

He speech was meant to delibrately hurt a grieving family for only his personal amusement.

This wasn't a guy talking about how Halo or Half-Life sucks and how we are all dumb for enjoying it.

When you tell a grieving family on the internet that you had sex with their kids corpse, and the only reason you are doing it is because you think you're anonymous and it gives you LOL's. There's a line there, it's blurry and wavy mind you. I think this guy crossed that line.

I think the punishment is a bit over the top. 18 weeks in jail is a lot. I would have preferred a fine and community service. Granted if this guy was that big of a douche then maybe he deserved what he got.

It very much is a free speech issue. As horrifying as his behavior was, he does have the right to say it.

It's no different that Fred Phelps and Westborough Baptist. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them around, and very few people agree with them, but they do the same thing (or something similar), and they are protected by their right to free speech. However, it is apparent that England has some ridiculous laws that were introduced in the Communications Act of 2003.

What should have happened, is that he should have suffered a civil suit. The family could sue in civil court and win a LOT. Well, in the U.S. anyway...

It's the internet. People should be able to say what they want; not matter how offensive. Everyone else has the right to not agree.

Trolling is idiotic and stupid, but it is not, nor should it be, a criminal offense.

I don't approve of what this guy did, but I don't think he deserves jail time. He deserves to pay a HEFTY fine and have his act highly publicized (moreso than it is).

I disagree with you on this on the basis of how this individual acted. Had he posted what he said on his own blog or a general internet chat forum then I would agree that he has protected free speech. What he did was go to a very specific forum where he found or knew these people to be and wrote what he wrote with the intention to harass, abuse and or harm the family. That shows a malicious intent that could be taken as an attack.

The U.S. supreme court has ruled that not all speech is acceptable. For instance and while I understand this isn't a perfect example, you can't walk into a movie theatre and yell "Fire!" because doing so could cause a panic and personal and property damages as a result.

As I stated previously I don't agree with the guy being thrown in jail for what he did, and I also think the courts tred on a very blurry line. In this case, I think they did the right thing.

Fair enough. I can concede that some speech is indeed not appropriate anywhere or at any time, and intent should be taken into consideration.

 

[tsb247]

I agree that we should not be arresting Trolls.

We should be burning the fuckers alive instead.

2. I don't think he should go to jail. This man was a total prick, but he didn't harm anyone. If we consider emotional harm a crime, even if it's intentional and malicious, then we are walking down a dark road. This kind of trolling should never be illegal, just greatly frowned upon by free citizens.

No doubt some ignorant Yank from the Freedumb of Speech brigade is about to announce that we have the right to say whatever the fuck we want. That's fine, because we do.

What said Freedumbers forget is we do NOT have the right to say it WHEREVER we want.

For example, if I were to say to you "I'm going to come over there and fucking kill you!" and you or anyone else had reason to believe I meant it, that is a crime.

What this asswipe did was also a crime, and he deserves no sympathy.

As such, I humbly suggest we add "Freedumbers" to the list of people to burn alive. If we're quick, we can get them torched on Guy Fawkes night.

Please, define, "Freedumbers," for me.

 

[JDKJ]

This really isn't a free speech issue. This wasn't a guy trying to tell you his religious beliefs are correct or saying how are going to be the end of the world.

He speech was meant to delibrately hurt a grieving family for only his personal amusement.

This wasn't a guy talking about how Halo or Half-Life sucks and how we are all dumb for enjoying it.

When you tell a grieving family on the internet that you had sex with their kids corpse, and the only reason you are doing it is because you think you're anonymous and it gives you LOL's. There's a line there, it's blurry and wavy mind you. I think this guy crossed that line.

I think the punishment is a bit over the top. 18 weeks in jail is a lot. I would have preferred a fine and community service. Granted if this guy was that big of a douche then maybe he deserved what he got.

It very much is a free speech issue. As horrifying as his behavior was, he does have the right to say it.

It's no different that Fred Phelps and Westborough Baptist. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them around, and very few people agree with them, but they do the same thing (or something similar), and they are protected by their right to free speech. However, it is apparent that England has some ridiculous laws that were introduced in the Communications Act of 2003.

What should have happened, is that he should have suffered a civil suit. The family could sue in civil court and win a LOT. Well, in the U.S. anyway...

It's the internet. People should be able to say what they want; not matter how offensive. Everyone else has the right to not agree.

Trolling is idiotic and stupid, but it is not, nor should it be, a criminal offense.

I don't approve of what this guy did, but I don't think he deserves jail time. He deserves to pay a HEFTY fine and have his act highly publicized (moreso than it is).

I disagree with you on this on the basis of how this individual acted. Had he posted what he said on his own blog or a general internet chat forum then I would agree that he has protected free speech. What he did was go to a very specific forum where he found or knew these people to be and wrote what he wrote with the intention to harass, abuse and or harm the family. That shows a malicious intent that could be taken as an attack.

The U.S. supreme court has ruled that not all speech is acceptable. For instance and while I understand this isn't a perfect example, you can't walk into a movie theatre and yell "Fire!" because doing so could cause a panic and personal and property damages as a result.

As I stated previously I don't agree with the guy being thrown in jail for what he did, and I also think the courts tred on a very blurry line. In this case, I think they did the right thing.

Fair enough. I can concede that some speech is indeed not appropriate anywhere or at any time, and intent should be taken into consideration.

That's hardly fair enough. To say that Coss "wrote what he wrote with the intention to harass, abuse and or harm the family [and therefore] that shows a malicious intent that could be taken as an attack" is a logical fallacy of the sort "circulus in probando" (more commonly known as "begging the question" or "the circular argument").

It's like saying "Smith was killed by Jones and therefore Jones killed Smith."

 

[TheDudeMan14]

It's messed up but not jail worthy. But England just HASSS to be different.

 

[Iandiaeufaieubfeuihfi]

This is bad. Even an internet troll like myself would never do something like this. Instead of random bullshiting, this guy is actually doing it on purpose. (well, doing it on purpose over something so serious).

 

[RaikuFA]

While i don't really care for Jade Goody (the popular racist made famous because of idiocy in a reality tv show), there is a line you don't cross and that is 'trolling' the family of John Paul Massey. There are certain things we really don't say in Britain, and thats one of them.

you just won the topic

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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.

You can easily have 99.99% free speech unless it causes direct harm, if it dose not cause direct harm it should not be blocked because society is to childish and over sensitive to get over it... the UK is merely heading in the age old direction of an authoritarian state, the US is a decade or 2 behind you its something modern society(or really any democratic government) falls to if corruption in government is not treated as treason(IE lobbying pre,post and during office).

I agree with you re: governments making self-serving laws/judgements, but I would suggest that although "99.99% free speech unless it causes direct harm" is easily possible it isn't desirable.

As I mentioned in my OP, people aren't perfect, and while allowing everyone to express their imperfection is important; so is limiting the negative consequences of that imperfection/experimentation. The old JS Mill principle of "let everyone of sound judgement do whatever they want with their lives as long as they don't directly harm others'" needs updating, IMO. Emotional/mental harm are just as significant as physical harm even if they're more difficult to quantify and/or qualify.

In the case of the guy mentioned in this article, his self-expression was directly and intentionally (by his own admission) motivated by a desire to cause emotional pain to others. An artist challenging people's expectations and standards of decency as a result of expressing themselves is one thing; a man or woman having a similar effect with said effect being the intention all along... very much a different case, to me.

Furthermore, one has to *choose* to see the artist's work (in the main), whereas here the guy was *forcing* his work(?!) on them.

I dunno this comes down to being a nuisance(whats the closest IRL comparative street preaching/solicitation?), 50,100 years ago would what he is doing really be treated the same of coarse he would have to take an ad out and such but its the same ideal. Tho I'd wager depending on whos toes you stepped on it wound be easier to go to jail over it if you turn back the clock.

Also in these cases a simple ban(including IP ranges) would have taken care of the issue if he used many PCs at cafes and libraries and such then I guess you could fine him as reasonable options are running out.

Thats one thing I do not like in modern society reasonable course is exchanged with pluasable deniabality(or was it always like this and we are merely following what we do best,do as I say not as I do) we are doing this for your protection drone!
LOL

 

[Miral]

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

I guess I'm a bit late to the party, but I'm having trouble following this line of reasoning.

Putting the dickheads in prison will reduce the number of dickheads roaming free and therefore increase the politeness of the society as a whole. This cannot be anything other than a good thing for society. (Bonus points if the dickhead gets "scared straight" while in prison; minus points if they get coerced into some more serious crime in later life.)

Of course, practicality enters into it as well (too many dickheads, not enough prisons), and severity of the offense (everyone feels like acting like a dick sometimes, usually in some mild way; that shouldn't confer a prison sentence). But there should be lines, and that guy most definitely crossed most of them.

 

[Ashcrexl]

18 weeks for trolling a grieving family? he got off easy.