Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

Jake0fTrades

New member
Jun 5, 2008
1,295
0
0
I don't think he should go to jail for what he did, but I think the father of the deceased boy should be given a court order allowing him to punch this prick in the mouth.

I love the internet for it's convenience, but I despise that people will be so callous and say things they'd never have the balls to say face-to-face.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Can I just point out to anyone who thinks the sentence is too harsh, or to those who have descended hyperbolically into Orwellian allusions, that the accused is a 36 year old unemployed man. Which means the court probably imposed this punishment on him because it was deemed he did not have the finances to pay a fine, which is probably a more typical sentence in crimes of this nature. This in itself is not uncommon in legal cases. Hell, even something as simple as a parking fine can land you in prison if you can't or don't pay it: that's a standard feature of the legal system in Australia, where I'm coming from, at any rate. What's more, he wasn't being convicted of a single count, but multiple counts: hence the length of the sentence.

Also, for all the Americans touting their fantastic legal system, I hear today that a New York Judge ruled that a four year old girl who rode her bike into an old lady can be sued for negligence. Not a parallel example, but people in glass houses should not throw stones.
What's the old lady gonna collect as damages if she wins? The kid's bike?
 

SilverZ

New member
May 13, 2009
72
0
0
Snarky Username said:
SilverZ said:
Snarky Username said:
SilverZ said:
I didn't even know goat was an insult. Thanks for that, I guess. As for whether or not I'm oppressed, I can guess you can argue that we're all oppressed in some way, you giraffe you. But I can see that this is making you angry for reasons that I can not explain, so for all intents and purposes you're right. I am any livestock you want me to be.
angry oh no not at all.
i just feel sorry for your misinterpretation of our right to free speech as Americans(maybe not you and maybe you) your still a goat with the media as your sheepdog.
It's funny that you said that when I claimed that free expression of the media was one of the things that the first amendment was made for and that it's one of the greatest tools in creating a truly free government... And if you really must know, I speak up against the government more than almost anyone I know... That is the right guaranteed to me by the first amendment. Making fun of a grieving family is not a right guaranteed to me by any amendment. Perhaps you should read a post before throwing out random insults, you narwhal.
narwhals narwhals swimming in the ocean! CMON YOU KNOW THE REST! SING WITH ME!
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
I think this is a good decision. Free speech shouldn't let you be able to say disgusting things about people who have passed away. Am I saying lock these people in gaol for doing so? No, I'm not, but I do believe something has to be done other than "meh, free speech".
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Coss was charged with "sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive," which is apparently illegal in the U.K. under the Communications Act 2003. He would have got away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids
Sorry, I had to.

I guess it's great they set an example to other trolls.
 

thegreatsage

New member
Nov 25, 2009
36
0
0
TheAmazingTGIF said:
This seems like a breach of free speech (I know that it didn't happen in the US, but still)...
He does seem like a massive tool but that is what free speech is about. This could be concerning to people on the internet in the UK.
There is a stark demarcation between the freedom to speak up for yourself and shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater; the same applies in this case.
 

Dobrev

New member
Mar 25, 2009
93
0
0
Why should he get speccial preferences for commiting a crime over internet? This is just a proof that the system works as long as there are concious people.

It is also unethical to comment to the severity of the punnishment whithout knowing the full facts and cort proceedings. But from the charges mentioned on the article it seems it is the same deal as breaking restraining order in USA (only without having to issue one). It does hold for harrasment over the internet and you can go to jail for it.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
I don't like trolls. They're attention-seeking jerks who will say anything to get a rise out of people. When they get demolished in a forum thread, or banned, or even punched in the mouth, I don't mind at all. But I'm having a hard time believing that someone is going to jail for it. Any society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed.
A society that holds its members accountable for harrassment, and intentional causing anquish is in store for 'deep trouble'? How so?

TheAmazingTGIF said:
This seems like a breach of free speech (I know that it didn't happen in the US, but still)...
He does seem like a massive tool but that is what free speech is about. This could be concerning to people on the internet in the UK.
Not really - aside from the fact we don't technically have freedom of speech (technically - we de-facto do), I don't see why someone should not be held to account for intentionally prolonging and/or enhancing grief for their own pleasure. Its called -Responsiblity-, from my point of view.
 

Eponet

New member
Nov 18, 2009
480
0
0
Tomtitan said:
Edit: Fun fact: The UK is basically the only country in the world without a written constitution. Think about it, there's been no massive revolution in the UK during which there was a sudden change in the political system (at least in a thousand years anyway), which is usually when a country writes a constitution.
New Zealand doesn't have one
 

mrF00bar

New member
Mar 17, 2009
591
0
0
Oh how I love England.

/endsarcasm

My god I need to learn dutch and move to Amsterdam before I get caught trolling a 12 year old on counter strike.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
TheAmazingTGIF said:
This seems like a breach of free speech (I know that it didn't happen in the US, but still)...
He does seem like a massive tool but that is what free speech is about. This could be concerning to people on the internet in the UK.
Free speach doesn't give you the right to verbally assault a person, which this guy was doing to the family of the deceased.
Good on them, to be honest it should have been longer but at least he was punished :)
 

TipsyPeaches

New member
Aug 3, 2009
115
0
0
welcome to the wonderful UK Criminal Justice System.

and while I agree that it is a bit OTT that he got sent to jail for being a troll, it's not the first time someone in the UK has been jailed for targetting bereaved families. I think it's more that than being a troll that he's being punished for. The 2003 Communications Act isn't intended to block the right to free speech, rather to help punish those who use this right to target others in uneccessary and harmful ways. [/law dork moment].

Plus, the guy was clearly out for attention, God knows what he might have done to get it if he hadn't been punished for this. Maybe ACTUALLY sleeping with a corpse? poor, demented, sad individual.
 

k-ossuburb

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,312
0
0
Sigh, yet more U.K. bashing from people who don't understand the law over here. Here's some education before you start jumping to conclusions.

Firstly, we do have "Freedom Of Speech" but we have it spread out through various documents that can be amended if the system used to uphold them proves faulty. Also, please note that America did NOT invent "Freedom of Speech", the ancient Greeks did.

Article 10, Freedom of Expression of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a qualified right, states everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This guarantees the right to pass information to other people and to receive information that other people want to give to you. It also guarantees the right to hold and express opinions and ideas.

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a "Convention Right". A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998 may, if he or she is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act either:

* bring proceedings in any appropriate court or tribunal against the authority under the Human Rights Act 1998; or
* rely on the Convention right concerned in any legal proceedings.

What this man did comes under a completely different law. This is a law against Anti-Social Behaviour and comes under the Anti-Social Behaviour Order Act (Miscellaneous) but more so the offence is created by Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

Since he failed both parts (b) and (c) when interviewed because this was a public forum and could be viewed by anyone and he had prior knowledge that what he was doing had intent to cause harm then the following course of action to arrest and try him under these laws is the next logical step.

The fact of the matter is that U.K. law is very nuanced in order to keep the peace in various situations that require addressing. No blanket law is applied in every circumstance otherwise the system would fail and people who deserve punishment will slip through the loopholes. I admit the system isn't perfect, but it's an old system that has been amended and reformed countless times throughout our history and sometimes the changes might not work as planned, but the intent is to make sure that everyone's rights are protected and that people do not come to any unnecessary harm.

There's a difference between being able to express yourself freely with an opinion that counters someone in a constructive fashion (i.e.: an atheist discussing why they don't believe what a theist does) and blatantly causing harm to innocent people with nothing other than the intent to do so.

The law here is viewed on a case-by-case basis and crimes are given the level of punishment suitable to the severity of the crime(s) presented in court. The law I mentioned above (Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) is not always enforced when the situation doesn't call for it. I could call you a name for no reason other than to annoy you and, unless you could prove that the name I called you had caused some severe harm in some way then the case would be thrown out. Nothing is as black and white as the OP seems to think so.

Please do not take everything at face value and remain ignorant of other people's culture, do your research beforehand before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.