Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[JDKJ]

but what is a dick?

Yes, that is a good question, isn't it?

A dick is apparently someone we send to jail when he says something we don't like.

Andy, it's horrible seeing you being so closed minded to British customs, it really is. The concept is that your freedom ends where another's begins. If you draw a picture of Mohammed, then run into your local mosque and show it to everybody, yes, you are defiling the religion of another. However blastphemy against Islam isn't illegal in the UK, just the Anglican church.

What this man did was not 'freedom of speech', it was malicious and deliberate harrassment. One person's freedom does not override that of another. He was causing emotional harm to another person, which can never be protected in the UK.

I don't understand the concept of one's freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Doesn't that presuppose that a freedom can be had only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the freedom of another? Which, in turn, presupposes that freedoms are never exclusive of or in tension with each other? I'm not so sure that either of those presuppositions are at all valid. If the "pursuit of happiness" is a freedom and "happiness" is of finite quantity, then my acquisition of "happiness" necessarily occurs at the expense of someone else's acquisition of "happiness."

 

[Pilkingtube]

but what is a dick?

Yes, that is a good question, isn't it?

A dick is apparently someone we send to jail when he says something we don't like.

Andy, it's horrible seeing you being so closed minded to British customs, it really is. The concept is that your freedom ends where another's begins. If you draw a picture of Mohammed, then run into your local mosque and show it to everybody, yes, you are defiling the religion of another. However blastphemy against Islam isn't illegal in the UK, just the Anglican church.

What this man did was not 'freedom of speech', it was malicious and deliberate harrassment. One person's freedom does not override that of another. He was causing emotional harm to another person, which can never be protected in the UK.

I don't understand the concept of one's freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Doesn't that presuppose that a freedom can be had only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the freedom of another? Which, in turn, presupposes that freedoms are never exclusive of or in tension with each other? I'm not so sure that either of those presuppositions are at all valid.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? You can sit at home and scream 'I FUCKING HATE YOU' over and over to yourself. If you stand infront of somebody else and keep screaming it, it isn't protected. The law is freedom of expression, tempered by decency. Or is harrassment legal over in the USA now?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

As hard as this guy may try, he's still no Derek Smart ...

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Just out of curiousity, would you guys be cool with sending the dudes who drew cartoons of Mohammed to prison? Because the rage and offense over that shit ran so high that people actually died.

Libel has never been protected as free speech even in the US. I suspect that some of those cartoons did indeed cross that line, the same way that Protocols of the Elders of Zion did and for the same purpose.

-- Steve

 

[Gone]

You know whats really disturbing? The fact that the troll has such a huge ego for posting some mean comments on a forum that he hands out photos to his neighbors.

 

[JDKJ]

but what is a dick?

Yes, that is a good question, isn't it?

A dick is apparently someone we send to jail when he says something we don't like.

Andy, it's horrible seeing you being so closed minded to British customs, it really is. The concept is that your freedom ends where another's begins. If you draw a picture of Mohammed, then run into your local mosque and show it to everybody, yes, you are defiling the religion of another. However blastphemy against Islam isn't illegal in the UK, just the Anglican church.

What this man did was not 'freedom of speech', it was malicious and deliberate harrassment. One person's freedom does not override that of another. He was causing emotional harm to another person, which can never be protected in the UK.

I don't understand the concept of one's freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Doesn't that presuppose that a freedom can be had only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the freedom of another? Which, in turn, presupposes that freedoms are never exclusive of or in tension with each other? I'm not so sure that either of those presuppositions are at all valid.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? You can sit at home and scream 'I FUCKING HATE YOU' over and over to yourself. If you stand infront of somebody else and keep screaming it, it isn't protected. The law is freedom of expression, tempered by decency. Or is harrassment legal over in the USA now?

Your example isn't a clear-cut example of harassment as criminalized by American law. Yes, I can stand on the steps of the Congress and scream "I FUCKING HATE YOU" until I'm blue in the face at all 534 Members of Congress as they report for work in the morning. That's well within my rights of free of speech. And, coincidentally, well within my right to petition government for redress of grievances (a separated but related right granted me by the First Amendment).

 

[The Funslinger]

I don't see the problem here, it's just hilarious

 

[JDKJ]

Just out of curiousity, would you guys be cool with sending the dudes who drew cartoons of Mohammed to prison? Because the rage and offense over that shit ran so high that people actually died.

Libel has never been protected as free speech even in the US. I suspect that some of those cartoons did indeed cross that line, the same way that Protocols of the Elders of Zion did and for the same purpose.

-- Steve

As a practical matter, Mohammad and his successors in interest aren't around anymore to sue anyone for libel -- assuming it was libel (which is a difficult case to make given that Mohammad, if he was still with us, would be a public figure and it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a public figure to successfully sue for libel).

 

[Staskala]

Seriously, this is why foreigners shouldn't write about another countries legal system they know nothing about. (although I am now going to do exactly the same, so yeah...)

Just because America took the principle of freedom of opinion and bastardized it into something horribly idiotic doesn't mean that other countries should follow suit. In Europe (and pretty much everywhere else) we have freedom of opinion, everyone can state his opinion no matter how ontroverse, but something like "I fucked your dead child" is not an opinion. It's harassment.

Why should you legally protect someone who defames the dead and harasses his family?
Do note that another form of harassment is of course sexual harassment and this isn't protected under freedom of speech even in the US, now is it?
If you partake in racist slander in public this will also get you into trouble, right?
If you run around in a cramped train shouting "I have a bomb", there will also be consequences, right?
If you call the police to your house for fun you will also have to pay a fine, right?
If you knowingly spread false information in official media, you might get into legal trouble, right?

Freedom of speech was never an absolute right to do whatever the fuck you want, not even in the US. I know you like to see it as such, but that was and never will be the case. There will always be restrictions. Harassment is treated different in other countries, some treat sexual harassment as illegal, some add racial and religious harassment and some even add harassment on a personal basis in certain events.

There is no country with complete freedom of speech and that's perfectly fine, if you ask me.

 

[Pilkingtube]

but what is a dick?

Yes, that is a good question, isn't it?

A dick is apparently someone we send to jail when he says something we don't like.

Andy, it's horrible seeing you being so closed minded to British customs, it really is. The concept is that your freedom ends where another's begins. If you draw a picture of Mohammed, then run into your local mosque and show it to everybody, yes, you are defiling the religion of another. However blastphemy against Islam isn't illegal in the UK, just the Anglican church.

What this man did was not 'freedom of speech', it was malicious and deliberate harrassment. One person's freedom does not override that of another. He was causing emotional harm to another person, which can never be protected in the UK.

I don't understand the concept of one's freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Doesn't that presuppose that a freedom can be had only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the freedom of another? Which, in turn, presupposes that freedoms are never exclusive of or in tension with each other? I'm not so sure that either of those presuppositions are at all valid.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? You can sit at home and scream 'I FUCKING HATE YOU' over and over to yourself. If you stand infront of somebody else and keep screaming it, it isn't protected. The law is freedom of expression, tempered by decency. Or is harrassment legal over in the USA now?

Your example isn't a clear-cut example of harassment as criminalized by American law. Yes, I can stand on the steps of the Congress and scream "I FUCKING HATE YOU" until I'm blue in the face at all 534 Members of Congress as they report for work in the morning. That's well within my rights of free of speech. And, coincidentally, well within my right to petition government for redress of grievances (a separated but related right granted me by the First Amendment).

But what a lot of people on here don't seem to understand is that this isn't your country that we're talking about, it's mine. In the UK we have strict liable and decency laws. We conform to the EU human rights declaration with our 2000 Human Rights Act. This allows us to express ourselves in any way, as such you could indeed go out into a public place without a specific target and scream all you want, you may get some funny looks and might be asked to move by the police for disturbing the peace, but it isn't strictly illegal. However if you specifically target one person or a group with intent to cause emotional/physical harm, we do not protect you in this country. That is just the way things are here, being different to what the American audience percieves as normal doesn't inherently make it bad.

 

[JDKJ]

I can stand on the steps of the Congress and scream "I FUCKING HATE YOU" until I'm blue in the face at all 534 Members of Congress as they report for work in the morning. That's well within my rights of free of speech. And, coincidentally, well within my right to petition government for redress of grievances (a separated but related right granted me by the First Amendment).

Ever think that maybe it shouldn't be?

Every day. And, after I'm done ruminating, I fall to my knees and give thanks to the old, white guys in the powered wigs who came up with the US Constitution. Fucking geniuses, each and every one of them.

 

[Daveman]

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

Hey Andy, don't diss my country! There's freedom of speech and then there's being a dick, thankfully my country knows the difference and is willing to do something about it. Besides, it's not like he's only posting "first", sounds to me like he deserves a decent slap on the wrist.

That comes off as way more patriotic than I am but I certainly think it's reasonable punishment.

 

[JDKJ]

I can stand on the steps of the Congress and scream "I FUCKING HATE YOU" until I'm blue in the face at all 534 Members of Congress as they report for work in the morning. That's well within my rights of free of speech. And, coincidentally, well within my right to petition government for redress of grievances (a separated but related right granted me by the First Amendment).

Ever think that maybe it shouldn't be?

Every day. And, after I'm done ruminating, I fall to my knees and give thanks to the old, white guys in the powered wigs who came up with the US Constitution. Fucking geniuses, each and every one of them.

Boy, sure sounds great to be American.

It's got its fair share of drawbacks. As Molotov famously said, "The Americans are free. Free to sit on a curb and starve to death while everyone else is free to not throw them a crust of stale bread (paraphrased)." But I've yet to discover another system of government for which I'd swap.

 

[JDKJ]

but what is a dick?

Yes, that is a good question, isn't it?

A dick is apparently someone we send to jail when he says something we don't like.

Andy, it's horrible seeing you being so closed minded to British customs, it really is. The concept is that your freedom ends where another's begins. If you draw a picture of Mohammed, then run into your local mosque and show it to everybody, yes, you are defiling the religion of another. However blastphemy against Islam isn't illegal in the UK, just the Anglican church.

What this man did was not 'freedom of speech', it was malicious and deliberate harrassment. One person's freedom does not override that of another. He was causing emotional harm to another person, which can never be protected in the UK.

I don't understand the concept of one's freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Doesn't that presuppose that a freedom can be had only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the freedom of another? Which, in turn, presupposes that freedoms are never exclusive of or in tension with each other? I'm not so sure that either of those presuppositions are at all valid.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? You can sit at home and scream 'I FUCKING HATE YOU' over and over to yourself. If you stand infront of somebody else and keep screaming it, it isn't protected. The law is freedom of expression, tempered by decency. Or is harrassment legal over in the USA now?

Your example isn't a clear-cut example of harassment as criminalized by American law. Yes, I can stand on the steps of the Congress and scream "I FUCKING HATE YOU" until I'm blue in the face at all 534 Members of Congress as they report for work in the morning. That's well within my rights of free of speech. And, coincidentally, well within my right to petition government for redress of grievances (a separated but related right granted me by the First Amendment).

But what a lot of people on here don't seem to understand is that this isn't your country that we're talking about, it's mine. In the UK we have strict liable and decency laws. We conform to the EU human rights declaration with our 2000 Human Rights Act. This allows us to express ourselves in any way, as such you could indeed go out into a public place without a specific target and scream all you want, you may get some funny looks and might be asked to move by the police for disturbing the peace, but it isn't strictly illegal. However if you specifically target one person or a group with intent to cause emotional/physical harm, we do not protect you in this country. That is just the way things are here, being different to what the American audience percieves as normal doesn't inherently make it bad.

Perhaps you shouldn't have placed the issue squarely within the context of American rights by asking if harassment is legal over in the USA now?

 

[Kukakkau]

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.

4)He got a rise himself (probably)

It is a bit extreme to prosecute someone over internet comments but if an officer witnessed someone claiming they had sex with a recent deceased person to their family in person I doubt he would stay quiet about it.

This guy just removed him anonymity and made it an unacceptable activity that could be linked back to him - kind of deserves it

 

[MetalGenocide]

Uhhh.
Implied sex with dead children.
Jailing a person over what they said on the internet.

Seems one of those tragedies, that everyone did the wrong thing and now the world is a slightly worse place.