Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[JDKJ]

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.)

I won't say either that the Holocaust didn't happen. But I will say the 6,000,000 victims is grossly overestimated. By my count, it's closer to 600,000.

 

[SaintWaldo]

Andy, please explain the difference between your advocacy of physical violence to punish speech that you find distasteful and physical restraint by authorities for speech someone else finds distasteful. They seem pretty much equivalent to me.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

your failing to achknowledge emotional distress, and whilst personally i'd only get riled up about comment over people very close to me, there are obviously people very close to the people in question. If you want to be the big man and say that people insulting your deceased loved ones doesnt hurt you or piss you off thats your call, but im entirely behind it being taken seriously.

As a matter of law, emotional distress requires more than merely having your feelings hurt or being angered. It actually requires a physical manifestation. Literally, it has to make you sick.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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?

Do half the people on this site even know what the defintion of 'irony' is?

 

[Hgame]

ALL RISE FOR THE NATIONAL ANTHEM!

I love how alot of people who have never been to the UK have shown up to spread anti-british hate. Thanks for that! You totally know what you're talking about!

Lets respond with some pro-British love.
We invented the web, the computer and every other good thing in the world.
Our leaders have IQs in the triple figures.
Team 17 is a British developer.

On a serious note, this guy is not a troll. What he did is a clear case of harassment, and he deserves the jail time. Also he told the world he was a troll, which makes him very stupid.

 

[Monoclebear]

I won't say either that the Holocaust didn't happen. But I will say the 6,000,000 victims is grossly overestimated. By my count, it's closer to 600,000.

What do you mean ''by your count'' do you want to tell me you were present at the tim?

 

[veryboringfact]

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.

No offence, but i don't think comments on the blogs of people too stupid to find a delete button are any more "detrimental to society" than your own. Furthermore, the society in question is the Internet, and removing him would involve cutting his broadband - not jailtime.

P.S if I did offend you, why don't you call 999.

 

[Mullahgrrl]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

 

[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.

you want to know why people dont do this in real life? because their ass would be kicked flattened and made into a nice pancake batter

but this is the internet, that cant happen here, but regardless the police would come and remove you if you went to a funeral claiming you fucked the dead body of the dead person and generally be charged of something, why would the internet be any different?

Well actually, people do, do it in real life. Fred Phelps and his church is one such example. Groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis, and various Black Nationalist movements (Black Panthers, etc...) have all done very similar things through the years as well, those groups all used to be far more powerful and aggressive than they are now. To be honest in most cases where you see people setting out to do something like this IRL, they are intentionally skirting a line in order to get people to attack them so they can put them down.

The thing is though that really the only time your free speech rights don't apply is if it's obvious that your trying to cause a panic for no reason, or if your planning a crime (conspiricy to committ murder for example). There is such a thing as trying to incite a riot but due to the way all the surrounding laws work it's VERY hard to prove even in cases like the above, so generally gets tossed onto other charges after the fact.

I do understand your point when it comes to individuals however, so don't get me wrong. That's one of the big reasons why there are movements to strip anonimity away from The Internet.... which is something else I'm against.

Trolls like this guy are a key example of why people want to remove that anonimity, so people have to take responsibility for their actions. I on the other hand see this as being the lesser of two evils, since really individual trolls are just annoying.

One of the big reasons for anonymous communications is that I feel that if people are "outed" it makes it far more difficult to criticize goverments, corperations, and the rich and powerful. After all if they can pin you down after you say something they don't like, they can make your life miserable. Right now this doesn't seem like much of a danger because we have anonimity, however when you look at a lot of situations where the masks are stripped away... well let's say that free speech goes right behind it.

I mostly feel that comments about anonymous commucation allowing fo slander and libel to go unpunished is a whole lot of BS. People are smart enough to take anonymous sources with a grain of salt, and understand that anyone could be speaking from behind a mask. As such it largely comes down to the quality of the message and how likely it is to be true, and how well supported it is. In many cases I feel those who complain about slander and libel are upset because they have to spend time on damage control, and don't have any ants to crush in retaliation.

I mean if someone goes up and says "President Obama is part of the international kiddie porn conspiricy which also involves the Freemasons and aliens from Pluto" obviously people are going to ignore it. Where it becomes a "problem" is when some anonymous whistleblower gets online, says that a company he has insider information on is releasing defective products, and puts up a video of the products being disassembled to show off the defective and dangerous elements... well that POs companies especially if he starts naming names.

A lot of things like sweatshop/slave labour, and various scams have been outed that way.

Don't get me wrong, the people argueing for everyone's identity to be publically revealed DO make a good case for it when they want to, but in the end I don't think that the pros are going to outweigh the cons... especially seeing as people become more used to things like the Internet the odds of someone taking some random Anonymous goober spouting garbage at face value and it actually hurting anyone are minimal. The part people tend to forget is that before an anonymous source is taken seriously there has to be some reason why it overcomes the general skepticism of jaded netziens to begin with.

 

[Flutterbrave]

To the many people making comparisons with the Westboro baptist church:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5767077.ece

We banned Fred Phelps, because we have a problem with assholes picketing dead soldiers funerals. Now, if that's protected in the USA, then fine. But don't expect this argument to win anything. It only proves how much shit the American public is willing to put up with in the name of freedom.

 

[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.

No it wouldn't. We'd have nobody left. We've all been dicks at one point or another. Everyone, not just in the US.

Unless you're seriously going to try and convince me that you're always the perfect model of politeness.

I'm not talking about life sentences, just like a couple days or something. Once people realize that being jackasses will get them punished, they will stop being dicks.

 

[Gently Benevolent]

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.)

I won't say either that the Holocaust didn't happen. But I will say the 6,000,000 victims is grossly overestimated. By my count, it's closer to 600,000.

Jesus fucking Christ.

On topic: prison's probably a bit much. A restraining order/fine would've sorted the twat out nicely enough. Oh well.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

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.

[/quote]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.[/quote]

Don't you think if someone had a viable harassment case against Fred Phelps, they would have made that case a long time ago? It's not harassment. Harassment has to be directly targeted at a specific individual. Westboro never targets specific individuals. They're smarter than that (Fred Phelps is a former attorney (now disbarred) and his daughter is an active attorney (she argued the Church's case before the Supreme Court). All they do is hold public demonstrations. As is there legal right to do.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I am more than OK with him being proclaimed a massive tool, it is the implications. Will I be arrested for this post?

Free speech is overrated, so long as we're all free enough to be mature adults and talk intelligently, I could care less, to be honest.

 

[dbmountain]

I won't say either that the Holocaust didn't happen. But I will say the 6,000,000 victims is grossly overestimated. By my count, it's closer to 600,000.

You're trolling in a thread about someone going to jail for trolling. Be careful O_O