Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Asuka Soryu]

He would have got away with it, too

I would've got away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids and that mangy dog!

 

[illas]

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.

You are, of course, correct. The media don't have access the the confession letter that he wrote to the police, so anything said in response to that letter by either party becomes conjecture. Furthermore, the fact that the Bench's statement *has* been released might actually damage it's credibility!

It really is hard to come to any justified response to news these days, given that we're so rarely given the majority of the facts... sigh.

Oh, and you're right about that headline... these days I barely even notice those extreme personal remarks thinly veiled as objectivity anymore; I suppose (hope) that people are becoming desensitized to them.

 

[EchetusXe]

The only reason every 'troll' doesn't get arrested is because they get away with it. Not every country is like the United States y'know? The Westboro Baptist Church members would be firmly in prison if they were in the UK, or most other countries. Don't worry yourself Chalk British society is not in 'deep trouble'.

The rest of the world doesn't fuck around with cowards hiding behind the old cries of 'free speech'. You can tell someone you disagree with them, that they are wrong or ugly or stupid; but you just can't tell them that you stuck your dick into their recently deceased family members (well I suppose you could if you actually did that, but thats also illegal).

 

[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.

You are, of course, correct. The media don't have access the the confession letter that he wrote to the police, so anything said in response to that letter by either party becomes conjecture. Furthermore, the fact that the Bench's statement *has* been released might actually damage it's credibility!

It really is hard to come to any justified response to news these days, given that we're so rarely given the majority of the facts... sigh.

Oh, and you're right about that headline... these days I barely even notice those extreme personal remarks thinly veiled as objectivity anymore; I suppose (hope) that people are becoming desensitized to them.

That's the British tabloid press for you. Not that the States don't have a tabloid press of its own. But their stories are usually of the "Brooklyn Woman Delivers Baby Fathered by Visitor from Outerspace!! Pictures [obviously Photoshopped] on Page Thirteen!!" sort.

 

[SheleKnights]

In response to the people who stated that he had the freedom to say these things, but had to suffer the consequences.

Article 19.[of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights]

* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Freedom to hold opinions without interference. I'd say getting thrown into jail would interfere with your life a fair amount.

 

[JDKJ]

In response to the people who stated that he had the freedom to say these things, but had to suffer the consequences.

Article 19.[of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights]

* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Freedom to hold opinions without interference. I'd say getting thrown into jail would interfere with your life a fair amount.

Which is why it is of all importance to be absolutely certain that Mr. Coss was not somehow expressing his opinions. And I'm certainly not arguing that he was because I don't know that for a fact and the answer to that question, despite the Court's conclusion that he wasn't, seems to be somewhat clouded -- at least to me it does. But I am arguing that if he was expressing his opinions and notwithstanding was bent over with no Vaseline, then that should cause reasonable minds no small amount of concern. And not more so concern for Mr. Coss but, rather, for the system that bent him over with no Vaseline. Particularly if that system allowed its sympathy for the recently bereaved to supplant fair and objective judgment -- which strikes me as a distinct possibility.

 

[Monshroud]

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.

This is not information or thought control. This is someone who went too far. I know this issue happened outside the U.S., but I am not familiar with European law, so this may not be apples to apples.

According to First Amendment advocates and the Supreme Court, certain types of speech are not protected under the First Amendment, such as:
Obscenity, Fighting Words, Defamation, Threats, etc.

The statements this guy made to very specific people could be taken under the first two criteria. Based on that what this is doing is then Disturbing the Peace which at least in the U.S. is considered a cause for arrest and fines (I am not sure about jail time though.) Just because you are on the Internet doesn't give you a free pass to say whatever you want about whatever you want.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

This is not information or thought control. This is someone who went too far. I know this issue happened outside the U.S., but I am not familiar with European law, so this may not be apples to apples.

According to First Amendment advocates and the Supreme Court, certain types of speech are not protected under the First Amendment, such as:
Obscenity, Fighting Words, Defamation, Threats, etc.

The statements this guy made to very specific people could be taken under the first two criteria. Based on that what this is doing is then Disturbing the Peace which at least in the U.S. is considered a cause for arrest and fines (I am not sure about jail time though.) Just because you are on the Internet doesn't give you a free pass to say whatever you want about whatever you want.

It's highly unlikely that Mr. Coss' speech would fall under the rubrics of either obscenity or fighting words as those classes of speech have been defined and exempted from First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court.

Firstly, obscenity requires that (1) the speech in question appeals solely to prurient interests (2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (see the Supreme Court decision in the Miller case). Given these generally not easily satisfied criteria and the fact that, at least in the case of Goody, the speech relates to a person who had made herself a public figure and the subject of no little amount of public commentary (and, indeed, criticism) and that in the case of the dog-mauling victim, the speech wasn't clearly intended to appeal to a prurient interest but, rather, more likely was of the exact opposite intended effect, I can't see Coss' speech satisfying the strict requirements of Miller.

Secondly, fighting words require that (1) the words, by their very utterance, inflict injury or (2) when stated face-to-face in a public place are likely to cause an immediate incitement to riot (see the Supreme Court's decision in the Chaplinsky case). Most of the legal precedents addressing fighting words have involved either those that inflict injury because they are defamatory and impugn the character of the person to whom they are said (e.g., "You're a Fascist") or would cause a reasonable person, once told them, to commence kicking the speaker's ass. Given either one of these standards, I can't see where it can reasonably be said that Coss uttered fighting word as defined by Chaplinsky, particularly against the "immediate incitement to riot" standard. No speech delivered over the internet could ever reasonably satisfy this standard because the medium by its very non-face to face nature obviates all possibilities of an immediate riotous response. It's fairly impossible to immediately disturb the peace with internet postings (although that fact hasn't ever stopped some idiots from trying to do just that).

 

[Monshroud]

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.

This is not information or thought control. This is someone who went too far. I know this issue happened outside the U.S., but I am not familiar with European law, so this may not be apples to apples.

According to First Amendment advocates and the Supreme Court, certain types of speech are not protected under the First Amendment, such as:
Obscenity, Fighting Words, Defamation, Threats, etc.

The statements this guy made to very specific people could be taken under the first two criteria. Based on that what this is doing is then Disturbing the Peace which at least in the U.S. is considered a cause for arrest and fines (I am not sure about jail time though.) Just because you are on the Internet doesn't give you a free pass to say whatever you want about whatever you want.

It's highly unlikely that Mr. Coss' speech would fall under the rubrics of either obscenity or fighting words as those classes of speech have been defined and exempted from First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court.

Firstly, obscenity requires that (1) the speech in question appeals solely to prurient interests (2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (see the Supreme Court decision in the Miller case). Given these generally not easily satisfied criteria and the fact that, at least in the case of Goody, the speech relates to a person who had made herself a public figure and the subject of no little amount of public commentary (and, indeed, criticism) and that in the case of the dog-mauling victim, the speech wasn't clearly intended to appeal to a prurient interest but, rather, more likely was of the exact opposite intended effect, I can't see Coss' speech satisfying the strict requirements of Miller.

Secondly, fighting words require that (1) the words, by their very utterance, inflict injury or (2) when stated face-to-face in a public place are likely to cause an immediate incitement to riot (see the Supreme Court's decision in the Chaplinsky case). Most of the legal precedents addressing fighting words have involved either those that inflict injury because they are defamatory and impugn the character of the person to whom they are said (e.g., "You're a Fascist") or would cause a reasonable person, once told them, to commence kicking the speaker's ass. Given either one of these standards, I can't see where it can reasonably be said that Coss uttered fighting word as defined by Chaplinsky, particularly against the "immediate incitement to riot" standard. No speech delivered over the internet could ever reasonably satisfy this standard because the medium by its very non-face to face nature obviates all possibilities of an immediate riotous response. It's fairly impossible to immediately disturb the peace with internet postings (although that fact hasn't ever stopped some idiots from trying to do just that).

So you don't think telling a grieving mother and father that you had sex with their child's dead corpse is Obscene? Because based on what you wrote that could follow the point you listed:

(2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law

Again, I don't know European law, but I think Necrophila is illegal and many people would view such as obscene.

Regarding if the words could be viewed as "Fighting Words", I don't know about you, but if you came up to me and said that you screwed my kids corpse, that would anger and enrage me. Only difference here is that this guy tried to hide behind some anonymous shield that the Internet provides. Then he went on to brag to people about his actions which goes to prove that the intent of his speech was to harm.

Now we may have different points of view on this. In my opinion I feel what he did is not covered as Free Speech, and falls under the criteria for what is not protected speech. Again I will state that had he said this on his personal blog or on his YouTube channel that's a different issue. He went to a very specific forum and made a very specific post that was written to enrage and harass. Had he not done so, I would be completely on your side on this.

Now I have not found the actual text of what was written, so I may have this all wrong. I am only working with the facts listed in this Escapist article.

P.S. - Cookies to you for writing an incredible reply. This is one of the most intelligent discussions I have had on a forum in a while.

 

[mariofan1000]

You see, it'd be easier to use the "report user" button.

 

[Wargamer]

Please, define, "Freedumbers," for me.

A Freedumber is someone who believes in Freedumb of speech.

Freedumb of speech is the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, and there should never be consequences for what you say.

Freedumbers claim this is "Freedom of Speech", which it is not.

 

[SiskoBlue]

Ha Americans and their free speech. Except it's not is it. You have more restrictions on sexual content than virtually any other western society. And your TV shows are banned from using politically incorrect words AND offensive language within certain time frames.

Also most countries have laws against inciting people to do violence. And laws against public disorder. If something you do is deemed to be deliberately antagonistic for the benefit of hurting people then it should be against the law.

Also the First Amendment is there to protect things that contribute to society, art, ideology, religion and principles. Not for people just being jackasses for the sake of it.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

This is not information or thought control. This is someone who went too far. I know this issue happened outside the U.S., but I am not familiar with European law, so this may not be apples to apples.

According to First Amendment advocates and the Supreme Court, certain types of speech are not protected under the First Amendment, such as:
Obscenity, Fighting Words, Defamation, Threats, etc.

The statements this guy made to very specific people could be taken under the first two criteria. Based on that what this is doing is then Disturbing the Peace which at least in the U.S. is considered a cause for arrest and fines (I am not sure about jail time though.) Just because you are on the Internet doesn't give you a free pass to say whatever you want about whatever you want.

It's highly unlikely that Mr. Coss' speech would fall under the rubrics of either obscenity or fighting words as those classes of speech have been defined and exempted from First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court.

Firstly, obscenity requires that (1) the speech in question appeals solely to prurient interests (2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (see the Supreme Court decision in the Miller case). Given these generally not easily satisfied criteria and the fact that, at least in the case of Goody, the speech relates to a person who had made herself a public figure and the subject of no little amount of public commentary (and, indeed, criticism) and that in the case of the dog-mauling victim, the speech wasn't clearly intended to appeal to a prurient interest but, rather, more likely was of the exact opposite intended effect, I can't see Coss' speech satisfying the strict requirements of Miller.

Secondly, fighting words require that (1) the words, by their very utterance, inflict injury or (2) when stated face-to-face in a public place are likely to cause an immediate incitement to riot (see the Supreme Court's decision in the Chaplinsky case). Most of the legal precedents addressing fighting words have involved either those that inflict injury because they are defamatory and impugn the character of the person to whom they are said (e.g., "You're a Fascist") or would cause a reasonable person, once told them, to commence kicking the speaker's ass. Given either one of these standards, I can't see where it can reasonably be said that Coss uttered fighting word as defined by Chaplinsky, particularly against the "immediate incitement to riot" standard. No speech delivered over the internet could ever reasonably satisfy this standard because the medium by its very non-face to face nature obviates all possibilities of an immediate riotous response. It's fairly impossible to immediately disturb the peace with internet postings (although that fact hasn't ever stopped some idiots from trying to do just that).

So you don't think telling a grieving mother and father that you had sex with their child's dead corpse is Obscene? Because based on what you wrote that could follow the point you listed:

(2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law

Again, I don't know European law, but I think Necrophila is illegal and many people would view such as obscene.

Regarding if the words could be viewed as "Fighting Words", I don't know about you, but if you came up to me and said that you screwed my kids corpse, that would anger and enrage me. Only difference here is that this guy tried to hide behind some anonymous shield that the Internet provides. Then he went on to brag to people about his actions which goes to prove that the intent of his speech was to harm.

Now we may have different points of view on this. In my opinion I feel what he did is not covered as Free Speech, and falls under the criteria for what is not protected speech. Again I will state that had he said this on his personal blog or on his YouTube channel that's a different issue. He went to a very specific forum and made a very specific post that was written to enrage and harass. Had he not done so, I would be completely on your side on this.

Now I have not found the actual text of what was written, so I may have this all wrong. I am only working with the facts listed in this Escapist article.

P.S. - Cookies to you for writing an incredible reply. This is one of the most intelligent discussions I have had on a forum in a while.

You're not mistaken that descriptions of necrophilia are descriptions of sexual conduct. But, assuming there's a local law that defines it (which isn't unlikely because, as you point out, it is illegal most everywhere) that only gets you one out of three. You'll notice that the three prongs of the Miller test for obscenity are conjunctive, not disjunctive (i.e., all three prongs must be satisfied before the speech can be ruled obscene, not just any one of them). And that makes it an extremely difficult test to pass. Most all speech will get past the "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" prong. I could be wrong, but I believe there are artistic depictions of necrophilia which have been found not be obscene because most serious art can't be said to lack serious artistic value. And I'll bet that if you went down to your local city library, you can find a book to borrow with descriptions of necrophilia in it (and some pretty gross ones, too). Literature also has serious artistic value. EDIT: Similarly, I can wear a T-shirt in public that says "Fuck the Stupid British in their Buttholes" because I do so to make a political point. And no political point can ever be fairly said to lack serious political value (no matter how childishly made).

As to fighting words, it's the "immediate" part that saves Coss' speech. Think of this way: there can't be any kind of temporal or physical barrier between the speaker and the listener. As soon as the listener hears the words, he has to in a physical position to start beating the speaker's ass. If not, they aren't fighting words. That's why I say that words delivered over the internet can never be fighting words. No more than words delivered in a snail mail letter could unless the person who mailed the letter just happens to be standing in front of the person who receives the letter when they open it and read it's contents.

 

[Monshroud]

(NOTE: Previous text Snipped to keeps these posts from being too damn big.)

So you don't think telling a grieving mother and father that you had sex with their child's dead corpse is Obscene? Because based on what you wrote that could follow the point you listed:

(2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law

Again, I don't know European law, but I think Necrophila is illegal and many people would view such as obscene.

Regarding if the words could be viewed as "Fighting Words", I don't know about you, but if you came up to me and said that you screwed my kids corpse, that would anger and enrage me. Only difference here is that this guy tried to hide behind some anonymous shield that the Internet provides. Then he went on to brag to people about his actions which goes to prove that the intent of his speech was to harm.

Now we may have different points of view on this. In my opinion I feel what he did is not covered as Free Speech, and falls under the criteria for what is not protected speech. Again I will state that had he said this on his personal blog or on his YouTube channel that's a different issue. He went to a very specific forum and made a very specific post that was written to enrage and harass. Had he not done so, I would be completely on your side on this.

Now I have not found the actual text of what was written, so I may have this all wrong. I am only working with the facts listed in this Escapist article.

P.S. - Cookies to you for writing an incredible reply. This is one of the most intelligent discussions I have had on a forum in a while.

You're not mistaken that descriptions of necrophilia are descriptions of sexual conduct. But, assuming there's a local law that defines it (which isn't unlikely because, as you point out, it is illegal most everywhere) that only gets you one out of three. You'll notice that the three prongs of the Miller test for obscenity are conjunctive, not disjunctive (i.e., all three prongs must be satisfied before the speech can be ruled obscene, not just any one of them). And that makes it an extremely difficult test to pass. Most all speech will get past the "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" prong. I could be wrong, but I believe there are artistic depictions of necrophilia which have been found not be obscene because most serious art can't be said to lack serious artistic value. And I'll bet that if you went down to your local city library, you can find a book to borrow with descriptions of necrophilia in it (and some pretty gross ones, too). Literature also has serious artistic value.

As to fighting words, it's the "immediate" part that saves Coss' speech. Think of this way: there can't be any kind of temporal or physical barrier between the speaker and the listener. As soon as the listener hears the words, he has to in a physical position to start beating the speaker's ass. If not, they aren't fighting words. That's why I say that words delivered over the internet can never be fighting words. No more than words delivered in a snail mail letter could unless the person who mailed the letter just happens to be standing in front of the person who receives the letter when they open it and read it's contents.

I am a little fuzzy on my Miller test (been a while since I debated the First Amendment), but I think I recall the prongs to it. Again, I can only use my personal views on this, I am not in that community, nor am I a lawyer. Please correct me if I have these wrong.

- Would the average person find it Obscene? (I think this is the community rule, as Obscene could and does vary from community to community.) I would believe so. Obviously the people who reported this guy to the police thought so.

- Does it describe in an offensive way an act that is against the law? I think based on our discussion it does, as the speech was meant to offend, and is an act that is against the law.

- Does it lack any artistic, scientific, etc merit? If this guy had wrote a story that had Necrophilia with the kid in it, then no. I don't see how a jury would view what the guy wrote as being an artistic or other work. This wasn't a literary or artistic piece of work, and I think it would be difficult to prove that it was.

Maybe I am stretching on this. As I stated in my original post I think this is a blurry line, and there is a ton of grey area. I wouldn't use this as precident for other cases of someone trolling. Also, not knowing the European standards for Free Speech I could be missing something.

Regarding what you said about Fighting Words. I see your point, and have to agree that the fact that he posted on the Internet would exempt him from prosecution under the Fighting Words standand. Although if he had said that to the family's face, I think we could agree that it would call under that stature.

 

[JDKJ]

(NOTE: Previous text Snipped to keeps these posts from being too damn big.)

So you don't think telling a grieving mother and father that you had sex with their child's dead corpse is Obscene? Because based on what you wrote that could follow the point you listed:

(2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law

Again, I don't know European law, but I think Necrophila is illegal and many people would view such as obscene.

Regarding if the words could be viewed as "Fighting Words", I don't know about you, but if you came up to me and said that you screwed my kids corpse, that would anger and enrage me. Only difference here is that this guy tried to hide behind some anonymous shield that the Internet provides. Then he went on to brag to people about his actions which goes to prove that the intent of his speech was to harm.

Now we may have different points of view on this. In my opinion I feel what he did is not covered as Free Speech, and falls under the criteria for what is not protected speech. Again I will state that had he said this on his personal blog or on his YouTube channel that's a different issue. He went to a very specific forum and made a very specific post that was written to enrage and harass. Had he not done so, I would be completely on your side on this.

Now I have not found the actual text of what was written, so I may have this all wrong. I am only working with the facts listed in this Escapist article.

P.S. - Cookies to you for writing an incredible reply. This is one of the most intelligent discussions I have had on a forum in a while.

You're not mistaken that descriptions of necrophilia are descriptions of sexual conduct. But, assuming there's a local law that defines it (which isn't unlikely because, as you point out, it is illegal most everywhere) that only gets you one out of three. You'll notice that the three prongs of the Miller test for obscenity are conjunctive, not disjunctive (i.e., all three prongs must be satisfied before the speech can be ruled obscene, not just any one of them). And that makes it an extremely difficult test to pass. Most all speech will get past the "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" prong. I could be wrong, but I believe there are artistic depictions of necrophilia which have been found not be obscene because most serious art can't be said to lack serious artistic value. And I'll bet that if you went down to your local city library, you can find a book to borrow with descriptions of necrophilia in it (and some pretty gross ones, too). Literature also has serious artistic value.

As to fighting words, it's the "immediate" part that saves Coss' speech. Think of this way: there can't be any kind of temporal or physical barrier between the speaker and the listener. As soon as the listener hears the words, he has to in a physical position to start beating the speaker's ass. If not, they aren't fighting words. That's why I say that words delivered over the internet can never be fighting words. No more than words delivered in a snail mail letter could unless the person who mailed the letter just happens to be standing in front of the person who receives the letter when they open it and read it's contents.

I am a little fuzzy on my Miller test (been a while since I debated the First Amendment), but I think I recall the prongs to it. Again, I can only use my personal views on this, I am not in that community, nor am I a lawyer. Please correct me if I have these wrong.

- Would the average person find it Obscene? (I think this is the community rule, as Obscene could and does vary from community to community.) I would believe so. Obviously the people who reported this guy to the police thought so.

- Does it describe in an offensive way an act that is against the law? I think based on our discussion it does, as the speech was meant to offend, and is an act that is against the law.

- Does it lack any artistic, scientific, etc merit? If this guy had wrote a story that had Necrophilia with the kid in it, then no. I don't see how a jury would view what the guy wrote as being an artistic or other work. This wasn't a literary or artistic piece of work, and I think it would be difficult to prove that it was.

Maybe I am stretching on this. As I stated in my original post I think this is a blurry line, and there is a ton of grey area. I wouldn't use this as precident for other cases of someone trolling. Also, not knowing the European standards for Free Speech I could be missing something.

Regarding what you said about Fighting Words. I see your point, and have to agree that the fact that he posted on the Internet would exempt him from prosecution under the Fighting Words standand. Although if he had said that to the family's face, I think we could agree that it would call under that stature.

No, you've got it pretty much correct (you're allowed to stretch a teensy-weensy bit). But for a Supreme Court ruling after Miller which did away with the local community standard and replaced with it a national (i.e., the entire United States) standard (probably because the Court couldn't be bothered going around from local community to local community in order to determine the standards of a local community on a case by case basis). That and there's a big "and" after the first and second prongs. That's what makes all the prongs conjunctive. And I'd want to see the exact words spoken before I conclude that they weren't political speech. Political speech doesn't always look obviously like political speech, although it is political speech. For example, "Fuck the Draft" is political speech. That's what the Supreme Court said. And I suspect that the infamous "God Hates Fags" signs are political speech, also. Or that the words posted couldn't be of literary value. There's not a word I type that doesn't function as high literary art and isn't chock full of value -- at least it is if I can be my own literary critic.

And, yes, I'll agree that if the sex with a dead child statement was made face to face of a parent, that could be a good case of fighting words. I'd certainly kick the speaker's ass. But, then again, all it takes to set me off is to talk bad about my Mama.

And of course the law is blurry. It's suppose to be. That way all the greedy lawyers can stay in business. Just kidding.

 

[nebtheslayer95]

Soooo...Does this mean we can sue /b/ now?

anybody attempting to attack /b/ in any way will probably end up dead... beware.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

man, you all be troll'n. This can't be real
right?

 

[51gunner]

He's in jail? Good! I hope he meets a large man with a sick sense of humour and an ironic name. This is a sign that web anonymity is dying, and I bid it good riddance.

 

[JDKJ]

He's in jail? Good! I hope he meets a large man with a sick sense of humour and an ironic name. This is a sign that web anonymity is dying, and I bid it good riddance.

Coss bragged to his neighbors that he was the anonymous poster (and also sent them a photograph of himself). They reported him to the police, who quickly arrested him. That's a sign that web anonymity is dying? Or is it a sign that Coss is a complete and utter idiot? I'm voting for complete and utter idiot.

And what's bad about web anonymity? Do you freely disclose your name and home address to faceless folks on the web? Probably not a good idea to do so, if you ask me.

 

[Staceh]

TROLLS.. ftw?!