Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[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.

The difference is that the person who is physically violent can get arrested for it. Not the person who made the comments "causing" the physical violence.

Is your name Andy?

Also, the point is, both are forms of violence against a speaker. Whether there is recourse for justice against the actor is cold comfort for a black eye.

 

[zombiesinc]

Eh, he deserved it in this case. I'm sure those 18 months with some soap will really discourage him from doing such a thing in the future.

 

[JDKJ]

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

I couldn't resist the sweet irony in doing so.

 

[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.

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...

Talking about them, but in doing so he's not trying to get anyone to perform them with any chance of success. You can say you've done a lot of things, or even say your GOING to do a lot of things without it being illegal in the least. A lot of it has to do with both intent and the probability of it doing damage.

It would be differant if he was say talking to some impresionable retarded kids who are easily manipulated and earnestly trying to convince them to do those things. It would also be differant if the crimes were known to have been comitted, rather than just something he's saying.

Again, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. It falls under the same guidelines of two guys in a bar saying they'd like to shoot the president during one of his speeches when he says something they don't like.... or something similar to that. The law and the way it's interpeted has to be consistant, and arresting everyone who talks about committing crimes is a far greater evil than letting some idiot like this guy take advantage of the way society works to shoot off his mouth.

Now granted by the nature of this article it's apparent that the UK has laws that are differant than those in the US, so obviously at least some of the lawmakers disagree. I believe that such policies run contrary to the idea of both free speech and having a free society.

To be brutally honest, if you really dug, people have probably said far worse and more disgusting things on these forums while goofing off. The fact that the law has to be impartial and that in theory people being gross and trying to get a rise out of people as part of a joke would have to be thrown in jail too. The guy in this article is taking this
to an extreme, but still within the realm of permissable free speech.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

There's a fine line between Trolling and Harassment, and I think the dude crossed that line and they called him on it. Good job.

 

[bjj hero]

Are we going to start jailing people for saying, "Hey, I think the Nazi's were right?" It is insensitive and borderline racist but you can still say it without repercussions. The point of free speech is to be FREE of consequences.

Try it in Germany, you will be jailed. Cultural differences. The Germans are not a particularly oppressed people.

Well we do have some petty laws, but we generally don't enforce them. That's also an important distinction to make. Police here have enough common sense to not arrest or ticket me when I jay walk right in front of them. You'd think that police in the U.K. would have enough sense to not arrest/ticket a man having a little fun online.

I mean, your laws obviously can't be that clear when it comes to this type of thing. Where do you draw the line? Arrest a guy because he was telling a sexist joke to his buddies which a woman overheard while walking down the street? Everybody is different, and if you arrest people for just offending others, your jails would soon be overflowing.

Jails are overflowing but for other depressing reasons. The courts throw a lot out. We use interpretation and common law to dictate the spirit of the law. Generally our press complains about the amount of things people get away with, not on how draconian the system is. We are quite a liberal nation but we do like to complain. As far as only enforcing certain laws goes, that happens the world over, having said that Dallas hires extra people to catch more jay walkers in the spring/summer. It's a good source of revenue.

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.

I've said elsewhere that in the UK WBC would be in court and charged. I see no problem with that. Different cultures view things differently. That is the American interpretation of free speech, which is still not complete Freedom [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/] of speech [http://clackamas.katu.com/content/man-flips-police-bird-then-sues-when-he-gets-ticketed]. Being the American interpretation does not make it the right interpretation. I'm fine with other people seeing things differently, I have no motivation to change the legal system or to enforce a constitution on any other country.

 

[Loonerinoes]

Wow.

Seriously...that's all I have to say - wow.

I knew that the laws against free speech in the UK were stricter than most...but this?! And as Andy pointed out, the fact that a series chain of events brought this about is even more retarted. Whatever happened to people just shrugging their shoulders and saying "Pfft, yeah he's a troll - a douche, not worth much." rather than "OMGZ HE IS A CRIMINAL PREYING ON THE FEELINGZ OF OTHERS!"

Why don't they just compare them to the likes of China! I mean okay, sure the guy was an offensive slimeball, but by this logic you can find a lot less extreme things as 'offensive'. Like someone dying, then another person stating outright "You know what, fuck it. He wasn't a good guy, he had it coming." "OMG OFFENSIVE! U R PREYIN ON MAH FEELINGZ! JAILTIME!"

And it isn't just the fact he was found guilty...but 18 WEEKS?! Alright fine...1 or 2 weeks perhaps in jail, so that he has time to think it over...instead they give him 4 and a half months?!

I'll remember this well next time I travel to a 'free nation' as the UK I think.

 

[JDKJ]

Are we going to start jailing people for saying, "Hey, I think the Nazi's were right?" It is insensitive and borderline racist but you can still say it without repercussions. The point of free speech is to be FREE of consequences.

Try it in Germany, you will be jailed. Cultural differences. The Germans are not a particularly oppressed people.

Well we do have some petty laws, but we generally don't enforce them. That's also an important distinction to make. Police here have enough common sense to not arrest or ticket me when I jay walk right in front of them. You'd think that police in the U.K. would have enough sense to not arrest/ticket a man having a little fun online.

I mean, your laws obviously can't be that clear when it comes to this type of thing. Where do you draw the line? Arrest a guy because he was telling a sexist joke to his buddies which a woman overheard while walking down the street? Everybody is different, and if you arrest people for just offending others, your jails would soon be overflowing.

Jails are overflowing but for other depressing reasons. The courts throw a lot out. We use interpretation and common law to dictate the spirit of the law. Generally our press complains about the amount of things people get away with, not on how draconian the system is. We are quite a liberal nation but we do like to complain. As far as only enforcing certain laws goes, that happens the world over, having said that Dallas hires extra people to catch more jay walkers in the spring/summer. It's a good source of revenue.

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.

I've said elsewhere that in the UK WBC would be in court and charged. I see no problem with that. Different cultures view things differently. That is the American interpretation of free speech, which is still not complete Freedom [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/] of speech [http://clackamas.katu.com/content/man-flips-police-bird-then-sues-when-he-gets-ticketed]. Being the American interpretation does not make it the right interpretation. I'm fine with other people seeing things differently, I have no motivation to change the legal system or to enforce a constitution on any other country.

Which is all fine and dandy . . . as long as you never find yourself with a pressing need to make the sorts of speech which you'll have no legal right to make. You never miss your water 'til the well runs dry.

 

[bjj hero]

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.

Thank you. All of the people using the WBC are effectively saying "We put up with this so everyone else should". There is no understanding that there are different cultures with different norms and values all around the world. To assume that the American interpretation of free speech is the only accurate way to see it is really arrogant. It shows how little understanding some people have of the world outside of their borders.

 

[Roamin11]

This made my day, he got served XD

Now only if the US could arrest that one couple trolling that family with the dead mother and dying daughter :'(

 

[Srcruls]

This man got exactly what he deserved, and it's a shame more people like him don't get the same. Claiming free speech protects toying with the bereaved does nothing but denigrate free speech.

Oh, and for the "society is DOOMED" brigade, the laws behind this have been in effect since 1988. No need to start going on about how Britain is turning into what a friend of a friend who reads the papers told you Orwell was predicting.

This feels strange. I'm actually proud of country for once. *shudder* Hold me.

Dont worry. It takes about 10 minutes before something will make you ashamed again.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

Actually I'm not. There is no law preventing you from saying things that upset other people at all. This includes saying things that are outright racist or offensive... which is of course why you have liberals trying to hard to make exceptions for "hate speech" and for the goverment to gain censorship powers over something like that.

Emotional Distress is when someone (as another user pointed out) is massively and tangibly affected by what soemone else does. It also tends to have little weight on it's own legally and is typically thrown in with a list of supporting reasons rather than standing on it's own.

Basically if this troll made this kind of harassment into a hobby and was around non-stop doing this kind of thing for a period of years, so the victims couldn't sleep, had it effect their work causing them to be fired, and other things, then emotional distress could be brought up.

It's along the lines of "this guy drove me to a nervous breakdown and I spent four years institutionalized because of it" not "this guy said something that upset me, and I went home and cried for an hour".

Such claims exist for situations where stuff like this has gone to a ridiculous extreme spanning weeks, or years, and typically has numerous reports on record already.

This guy is just persistantly obnoxious, and doing it for the "lulz". He's not doing anything criminal even if it's wrong.

The scary thing about these discussions is that I think a lot of people really have no idea what their rights are, and have been conditioned to think that they have already been limited according to the ambitions of some of those in goverment.

Not to mention the simple fact that I think a lot of people debating this issue (in favor of the guy's arrest) don't seem to be looking at the big picture, above and beyond this incident, and what being able to send someone to jail for this means in a legal sense and all of the other ways something like that can be used.

The world isn't black and white, and especially when it comes to laws in societies of milliosn of people, it comes down to the lesser evil, rather than what is "right" because by definition laws cannot be subjective to the situation. As famous depictions of Lady Law (or Lady Justice) depict, the law is blind, it is what it is. That's how things have to be in order to function, because once you rule subjectively in one case about who should be affected by the law and who shouldn't, it loses meaning. After all if you argue that this troll should rightfully go to jail for annoying some people, then what kind of protection could someone trying to blow the whistle on a drug company expect when their allegations about what people are doing could destroy careers and affect millions of dollars. In a legal sense both are saying bad things about someone, the context really doesn't matter that much (simplistic example, and yes I know people can make arguements about context, but a massive legal debate about exceptions and precedent that might be out there is going to get further and further afield of the point we're debating).

 

[JDKJ]

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.

Thank you. All of the people using the WBC are effectively saying "We put up with this so everyone else should". There is no understanding that there are different cultures with different norms and values all around the world. To assume that the American interpretation of free speech is the only accurate way to see it is really arrogant. It shows how little understanding some people have of the world outside of their borders.

I fear you may be misapprehending what's being said. It may perhaps be more accurately cast as "we put up with this so everyone else will have the right to freely speak." And that a bedrock principle of American society such as free speech should inform how Americans view the issue of free speech elsewhere shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as arrogance or cultural ignorance. Perhaps it should be viewed for what it more likely is: something which informs, by way of contrast, their worldview.

 

[RoyalWelsh]

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

Seriously? A society that's in deep trouble?...Seriously? Sorry Mr Chalk but I do not agree with what you said at all in the above quote.

Also, he wasn't just being a dick, he was harrasing the families who have lost loved ones. That's sick. Maybe 18 weeks in jail is a little harsh, but he deserves some punishment and maybe this will change his ways. Probably not though.

Also;

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.

Thank you. All of the people using the WBC are effectively saying "We put up with this so everyone else should". There is no understanding that there are different cultures with different norms and values all around the world. To assume that the American interpretation of free speech is the only accurate way to see it is really arrogant. It shows how little understanding some people have of the world outside of their borders.

Completely agree with you.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Huzzah! Justice against an asshat!
I support this (Most of it)

 

[Brad Shepard]

I think this is relevant to the guys he was trolling

I play the trap card, 'counter troll'

You win, you fucking win dude.

OT: Just desserts are just sweet.

 

[Banter]

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.

The internet wasn't created to be some public pissing spot, I'm not even sure the people who created internet know why it was created for anything more than a file transfer system or whatever. All sites are regulated by whatever law they're based in, and this is him facing up to what I'd term e-harassment. Harassment is illegal when done via phone calls, texts, letters, in person, and online.

I do have to admit 18 weeks seems a bit harsh, but I'm thinking there's more to this case. Maybe he has a past record or there's more details, say he did more than just 'troll' these two sites and these were examples given that the public can relate to. Or his judge was one of the notoriously punitive ones (you get them on a sliding scale from lenient to strict, the basis of all people are different etc etc). Also an 18 week sentence means he'll do 9 weeks of it in prison under most circumstances.


Side note: Internet is not more dangerous than Scots bars of the dank variety. You'd get stabbed for sh*t not even remotely close to this magnitude if you pick the wrong one.

 

[Blatherscythe]

All I can say is...

Problem Colm Coss?