Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[SinisterGehe]

Heres a thought for you...

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)

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.

Read the edit. I am not talking about the act. About the idea. If you can't understand the idea I am going for this discussion is good as dead.

 

[veryboringfact]

if you walked up to someone and started hurling abuse at someone such as 'I raped your dead relative' - you can't expect to get away with it. If police were present it would be a breach of the peace at least.

But that's the point - he didn't walk up to anyone at all.
I'm not saying that what he did is brave or cool or funny or anything else, i am defending his right to talk shit on the internet, because that's what it's there for.

If you told a guy in a bar "i had sex with the queen mother's corpse" it wouldn't be the same as if you walked up to the queen during her christmas speech and said it to her face. Now although the man did direct his comments to the people specifically affected by the sad incident in question, the forum he chose to do it in was much much more antisocial and dangerous than a dank scots bar - it was the internet.
It would be insensitive to say "if you go on the internet you get what's coming to you" but that is more or less the issue. It is often up to people to protect themselves from things like ID theft, hacking, etc so why not abusive comments ?

If you went to the cops saying you were insulted in said bar, or that a stand-up comedian you saw said a similar thing but in a heavily sarcastic tone, would they take you seriously ? No. So why when this man did something that millions of other people do every day, was he taken seriously ? This whole story sounds like deliberate sensationalism on the part of the prosecutors, either trying to set a (very worrying) precedent in preparation for war on the internet, or acting on behalf of a bigger issue vaguely related to the story (like the very controversial issue of dangerous breed ownership in the UK at this time).

That or his lawyer really, really sucked.

 

[pigmypython]

Someone got punished for being a social jerkoff? I'm actually OK with that. People (especially Americans) make too much of "so called" free speech. No speech is free and if you don't believe me then tell your boss what you really think of him...might cost you your job
Nothing free about that.

 

[Electrogecko]

"And now it's time for some audience participation. What do you think is most disturbing: The fact that being a troll is literally against the law in the U.K., the fact that Coss' neighbors felt it necessary to inform the police that there was a troll living down the street or the fact that the police thought the matter was important enough to warrant an interview and then formal charges?"
Add to that list the fact that the guy actually called himself an internet troll and advertised it to his neighbors. A few months might knock some sense into him and scare off more of these ugly creatures.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when it comes to other countries in various debates where I talk about how the US has the highest level of freedom and human rights in the world, then someone fires back that it's not true and points out how their nation (which will be something like the UK) is ahead of us according to some statistic or poll, and then something like this happens.

To be honest, I see both sides of the equasion, and why people want to curtail behaviors like this, but to be honest dealing with jerks is the lesser of two evils when it comes to putting people in jail for being jerks given that it opens so much room for abuse.

What's more, freedom of speech, doesn't just mean "freedom of speech you like or agree with" but the freedom to say what you want without these kinds of consequences. Once you start regulating the jerks, it turns into people simply wanting to regulate anyone they don't agree with.

There is no requirement that you have to be nice to anyone, that you have to like everyone, or that you have to remain silent about those you don't like. That's what freedom is all about.

Yes, words can hurt, and do a lot of damage, but as Heinlan put it "You can either have freedom or safety, never both".

That's simply my take on things. There is no doubt in my mind that this guy was an obnoxious trouble maker, indeed he reminds me vaguely of Fred Phelps without the religious overtones, but the police shoulx not have been involved, and sending him to jail was both overkill, and an affront to human rights.

He clearly crossed the line from freedom of speech to harassment. Freedom of speech allows for opinions and such to be voiced, it does not allow you to follow someone yelling 'fag' or to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater for kicks. The key is the harm principle - does the act intentionally cause harm to others and/or cause harm unintentionally that could have been reasonably avoided? In this case it clearly does, so the charges are justified.

All countries put people in prison for being jerks, you just have to be enough of one to start causing harm to others - spousal abuse, vandalism, hate speech, harassment, drink driving, fraud.

Incorrect actually. There is no doubt that this guy was an obnoxious trouble maker, but it's his right to be one.

In the case of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one, your acting to create a panic. In the case of saying you raped a dead body there is no such intent other than to disgust or offend. There is no chance people are going to be hurt by it. When it comes to harassment, that's a touchy subject, but for the most part there is little or no legal protection against it in a *practical sense*. This is why guys like Fred Phelps have gotten away with their behavior for so long. It's also why special laws needed to be passed to limit the actions of creditors in trying to collect money and so on.

Oh sure, there are tons of laws in the US that exist to protect people from harassment, but precedent has rendered most of them relatively toothless if you pay attention, and truthfully I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

Don't misunderstand my point here though, I'm not saying that this guy isn't a douchebag, and a trouble maker. Just that this kind of behavior is a lesser evil than the regulation it takes to prevent it.

The only cases where free speech are really limited is when it comes to acting to create an unfounded public panic, or when doing something like actually planning someone's death (conspiricy to committ murder, etc..) short of that there are very few limitations which is why (again) we had so much trouble with guys like Fred Phelps.

I just happen to think that trolls and idiots are the lesser of two evils... but just because it's a lesser evil does not mean it's not an evil.

The thing you have to remember is that laws can't be subjective. The same regulations that prevent this guy from harassing people in a situation like this, can be turned around and applied to various kinds of protesters, advocates, watchdog groups, and the like. The law by it's nature can't read intent into things. For the most part for something to be a crime you have to prove that there was both a chance, and an intent, to cause damage (like murdering someone, or starting a panic). Telling people at a funeral that you had sex with the corpse is liable to disgust them, and upset some people, but isn't going to cause much in the way of damage, nor would there be any reasonable expectation for it to.

 

[bjj hero]

It's stupid that he did it in the first place, but it's also stupid to call it a crime, and stupid to punish it.

In America, we have had people literally troll soldier's funerals IRL. Marching around with signs saying that they deserved to die because we angered god or some bullshit. Everybody that stupid Baptist church, and I doubt the police would mind too much if somebody fire bombed their houses, but we still didn't put them in jail for what they've said.

I always find it odd that WBC get away with it but people have been shot for flag burning. In the UK the WBC would be, in my opinion, rightfully charged. I don't see it being stupid to call this a crime when it's against the law. Likewise its not stupid that there are sanctions for breaking the law. Different cultures I guess.

Jay walking seems a very odd crime, we don't recognise it in the UK. Here the roads are public space and no fascist will stop me crossing to the other side as if it is some sort of paved Berlin Wall. I jest, but only to show that mundane laws in one country can seem strange if you grew up in a different culture.

 

[TheAmazingTGIF]

Read the edit. I am not talking about the act. About the idea. If you can't understand the idea I am going for this discussion is good as dead.

No I got it, but the argument remains the same. You (in the US at least [this might loose all context and relevance in other countries]) can sue someone for saying bad things about you in a public forum by taking them to civil court where an objective third party (a judge) will enforce the law. This is a government body enforcing the law on someone because of what they said about someone else. The third party is the one that is fighting the troll. Not the other civilian.

 

[Monoclebear]

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.

Well, i live in germany and i never heard of that (besides stuff like insulting an police officer). But it is illegal to here to deny that the holocaust happened, so its not like we have full free speech.(i dont want to say with this sentence that I tell people the holocaust didn't happen.)

 

[GrinningManiac]

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.

I guess

But I also think it's an unwritten law of Trolling that you fail if you GET the rise, but then get named, arrested and ID Banned from LIFE for a few months/years, you failed in the art of anonymous griefing

 

[JDKJ]

that you're okay with clogging up the courts and sending people to jail for being an asshole on the internet?

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.

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.

But you can just as easily say that Westboro Church does the exact same thing: harass families who've just lost a loved one and, perhaps more disgustingly, at the funerals of their loved ones. In fact, that's the argument of the petitioner in the lawsuit against Westboro. And it's an argument with which the Supreme Court in unlikely to agree. For better or worse, waving a placard at someone's funeral stating "Your Son Deserved to Died Because God Hate Fags" is free speech in America.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Well, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when it comes to other countries in various debates where I talk about how the US has the highest level of freedom and human rights in the world, then someone fires back that it's not true and points out how their nation (which will be something like the UK) is ahead of us according to some statistic or poll, and then something like this happens.

To be honest, I see both sides of the equasion, and why people want to curtail behaviors like this, but to be honest dealing with jerks is the lesser of two evils when it comes to putting people in jail for being jerks given that it opens so much room for abuse.

What's more, freedom of speech, doesn't just mean "freedom of speech you like or agree with" but the freedom to say what you want without these kinds of consequences. Once you start regulating the jerks, it turns into people simply wanting to regulate anyone they don't agree with.

There is no requirement that you have to be nice to anyone, that you have to like everyone, or that you have to remain silent about those you don't like. That's what freedom is all about.

Yes, words can hurt, and do a lot of damage, but as Heinlan put it "You can either have freedom or safety, never both".

That's simply my take on things. There is no doubt in my mind that this guy was an obnoxious trouble maker, indeed he reminds me vaguely of Fred Phelps without the religious overtones, but the police shoulx not have been involved, and sending him to jail was both overkill, and an affront to human rights.

He clearly crossed the line from freedom of speech to harassment. Freedom of speech allows for opinions and such to be voiced, it does not allow you to follow someone yelling 'fag' or to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater for kicks. The key is the harm principle - does the act intentionally cause harm to others and/or cause harm unintentionally that could have been reasonably avoided? In this case it clearly does, so the charges are justified.

All countries put people in prison for being jerks, you just have to be enough of one to start causing harm to others - spousal abuse, vandalism, hate speech, harassment, drink driving, fraud.

Incorrect actually. There is no doubt that this guy was an obnoxious trouble maker, but it's his right to be one.

In the case of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one, your acting to create a panic. In the case of saying you raped a dead body there is no such intent other than to disgust or offend. There is no chance people are going to be hurt by it. When it comes to harassment, that's a touchy subject, but for the most part there is little or no legal protection against it in a *practical sense*. This is why guys like Fred Phelps have gotten away with their behavior for so long. It's also why special laws needed to be passed to limit the actions of creditors in trying to collect money and so on.

Oh sure, there are tons of laws in the US that exist to protect people from harassment, but precedent has rendered most of them relatively toothless if you pay attention, and truthfully I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

Don't misunderstand my point here though, I'm not saying that this guy isn't a douchebag, and a trouble maker. Just that this kind of behavior is a lesser evil than the regulation it takes to prevent it.

The only cases where free speech are really limited is when it comes to acting to create an unfounded public panic, or when doing something like actually planning someone's death (conspiricy to committ murder, etc..) short of that there are very few limitations which is why (again) we had so much trouble with guys like Fred Phelps.

I just happen to think that trolls and idiots are the lesser of two evils... but just because it's a lesser evil does not mean it's not an evil.

The thing you have to remember is that laws can't be subjective. The same regulations that prevent this guy from harassing people in a situation like this, can be turned around and applied to various kinds of protesters, advocates, watchdog groups, and the like. The law by it's nature can't read intent into things. For the most part for something to be a crime you have to prove that there was both a chance, and an intent, to cause damage (like murdering someone, or starting a panic). Telling people at a funeral that you had sex with the corpse is liable to disgust them, and upset some people, but isn't going to cause much in the way of damage, nor would there be any reasonable expectation for it to.

He said he committed Rape and Necrophilia, and, in the case of the young child mauled to death by a dog, Paedophilia...that's talking about committing several different crimes...

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

Yeah, except this isn't trolling, it's harassment. 'Pretty sure that's against the law in America as well. Just because some bastard harasses people, then calls it trolling, does not suddenly make harassing someone over an electronic medium excusable.

I don't think so. I'm not sure on this one but last I heard the Westboro Baptist Church - those are the God Hates Fags people - still have the right to picket the funerals of dead US soldiers. You can't tell me that's any worse than what this guy 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.)

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'.

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.

The anti-gay strain of Christianity is strong. There are elements in the Anglican Church (Jeffery John), the Catholic Church, and many others. The issue of gay marriage and all the controversy around it also shows the support of an anti-homosexual viewpoint. Also, the 'don't ask - don't tell' issue.

They would be charged under the law for harassment - probably in the vein of hate speech. Replace Gays with Jews and you have an idea of the case to be made.

 

[crystalsnow]

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

If people were put to jail for being dicks in America, it would be a much nicer place.

 

[Firetaffer]

How ironic, one person goes to jail when there are probably a few hundred thousand more trolls lurking the internet. How you going to put them all in jail?