Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I hope you realise the level of hypocrisy here. Defending your constitutional right to free speech but then saying someone should be beaten for saying something offensive? Surely beating the hell of someone breaks the law too and then demeans their so called right to say it?TheAmazingTGIF said:
...we don't have a constitution. Fun fact: the USA is not a blueprint for the rest of the world (thank god). We still have fucking laws, just because you call it a constitution and we don't, doesn't mean anything.Flac00 said:
And I play Billie Mays.The Rockerfly said:I think this is relevant to the guys he was trolling
I play the trap card, 'counter troll'
His booming voice fills all traps with OxiClean, rendering them shiny and useless.
...
What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, trolls.
While it is rather funny to see a troll get proverbially *****-slapped for being an ass, it seems a bit much to send him to jail for being a dick.
Bear in mind that many of the spineless are apparently British and that the genesis of First Amendment protections enjoyed in the United States are rooted in King George's oppression and repression of the colonists' anti-monarchial speech. It's the difference between effect and cause.Fronzel said:
The key difference being support of enough people. No one tries to defend necrophilia, because there is no support for it. However, with enough support, such views can be professed. That is why Woodrow Wilson could claim the Klu Klux Klan saved the South. (See: the Dunning School, Birth of a Nation.)Andy Chalk said:
Additionally, freedom of religion is used as a wall to defend their actions, no matter how wrong they may be. I would love the Westoro Baptist Church to be charged as they should be under the law. Just because wrong goes unpunished doesn't make it 'right'.
No, I think that this was the proper course of action to take. If you're willingly being a detriment to society, you should be removed from it. Case closed.
I'm as anti-troll as the next Netizen, but almost 5 months in jail? Really? There's nothing in the article indicating that Coss hacked the site, and therefore he must've simply posted an offensive thread in the site's forum. Trolls don't tend to be all that subtle about their posts, and so these people chose to read the offending content. No one forced them to do anything other than delete the thing without further stress. In Germany, one can be fined for insulting someone. It seems like cutting into the unemployed douche's likely very light wallet and requiring some hundred hours or so of community service would have gotten to point across much more reasonably without breeching speech and without wasting public funds.
Heres a thought for you...TheAmazingTGIF said:
I have right to freedom of expression and speech.
Yet when I go to the street and yell insults to about someone specific. I can get sued, and/or fined depending on the law.
But if I got to the street and discuss, with others, about him with out doing direct offensive remarks about the person, I can not be sued. (Again depending on the law, but not in Finland at least)
Edit:
Street is reference to any public space that is shared with other people.
(and don't bother saying "you wont if you cover yourself well enough" this is discussion about the idea, not the act.)
to the people who think this is going against free speech: so when people send people letters, emails and phonecalls harassing people it is ok to punish them, but when it is put in the context of a forum it is ok? harassment is, rightly, a crime, and what he was doing constitutes as harassment. as of such, it should be punishable. he was saying things that were blatantly untrue, it isnt like they were stifling his opinion because they disagreed he wasnt trying to get an opinion across, he was trying to torment grieving relatives for his own amusement
if you think that for some reason that lies intended to directly hurt people should be protected, here is another example. if somebody went around telling people that you were a convicted paedophile, even though that isnt true, for the sole reason of harming your reputation, you would expect the law to be able to stop him, right? the same thing is happening here
if you think that for some reason that lies intended to directly hurt people should be protected, here is another example. if somebody went around telling people that you were a convicted paedophile, even though that isnt true, for the sole reason of harming your reputation, you would expect the law to be able to stop him, right? the same thing is happening here
That is being sued for slander, which is your right to sue someone for saying something bad about you. This guy wasn't sued for slander, he was tried in a government court, and not a civil one.SinisterGehe said:
The difference is a very important one: the government regulating speech versus a civilian punching you out for insulting his mother. It is hard jail time versus bar fighting.jebbo said:
microwaviblerabbit said:
What law is there in existence under which Westboro Church can be charged for it's conduct? There's none of which I am aware.
And you lost me with the spiel about "strength in numbers." What's your point? I'm not seeing it. Particularly because the only members of Westboro Church are Fred Phelps and the Phelps family.
And Westboro isn't relying on a freedom of religion argument to defend what they do (which would be pointless because it isn't a part of their religious practices). They rely 100% on a free speech argument. And, most likely, it's the winning argument, too.
One guy going through for harrassment is hardly clogging up the courts. Maybe we should go the US route and sue everybody who dares to serve my coffee at a luke warm temperature. I have no problem with his conviction. He will serve around half of the time in jail then be released on the understanding he doesn't act like a douche.Andy Chalk said:
We don't have a constitution with freedom of speech enshrined in it (although apparently even in the US its not that free [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/]), you can do anthing in the UK that is not against the law. Free speech matters to allow political freedom and a free press. It is disingenuous to sell this as a freedom of speech issue. The guy was harrassing a family who had lost their son. I would have investigated his necrophilia/paedophilia taunts then charged him with wasting police time as well.
I'm not anti American, I lived in Texas, having a great time for 2.5 years and found them, on the whole, a welcoming and hospitable people. You need to come to terms with us having different cultures. You'll see the Brits who have posted not thinking his conviction is odd, although some disagreed with the sentencing. We come from different perspectives. Some of the systems and beliefs in the US seem very odd from an outside perspective.