Man prosecuted over offensive Bebo comments.

[GothmogII]

Here's the url: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-27-prosecuted-over-obscene-bebo-messages-1399572.html

So, my thoughts...
I guess, the guy really should have though about what he was doing before posting the comments, and from the article itself I got the impression that he knew the girl himself, if not personally that at least within the confines of the internet.

But, I'm a little mixed on him being forced to pay 3000 euros or go to jail. Having not read the comments myself, I can't gauge as to just how bad they really were, but I'm guessing they were to have gotten such attention. First, I don't really think the internet should be monitored in such a way that one isn't free to type what and howsoever they wish, or rather, that this should only be controlled by the owners of a respective website. i.e. in this case this was something those running Bebo should be taking care of themselves, if someone is posting obscene messages, then it's up to them (the owners/admins) to either ban or censor it.
Or, at least, provide the tools for the user to prevent that. (I've never used Bebo, so I don't know if they have content controls for users)

Now, as mentioned in the article, he was prosecuted under an already existing law from 1951 in Ireland. However, internet would not have existed back then, much less in this country, even though it does say 'telecommunications' that still would only have referred to telephone or radio etc. But, I don't know much about law either, so maybe they just update these things as seen fit, I still don't agree with it though...

 

[Melaisis]

The website is at fault, here. Such comments would never take place on a forum or site such as The Escapist without direct punishment and enforcement of existing policy, for example. Bebo, the site and as a company, have allowed themselves to become corrupt and moderation to become almost non-existent. In exchange, the users get all the freedom they want. Sure, there's a ToS - but letting users self-moderate themselves (delete comments etc.) - especially when you appeal to a demograph of about 11+ - is just asking for trouble.

This is just the blind leading the blind.

 

[Virgil]

The website is at fault, here.

I disagree. Harassing someone should be treated the same way whether it be by mail, phone, or internet. If the guy had showed up at her school yelling the same sort of things (I assume) he wrote, he would have been dragged off by the cops. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it better.

Whether or not Bebo should have higher standards for user conduct is irrelevant in this case.

Edit: If someone was sending harassing PMs or something similar on our sites, we'd turn over all their info to the police if asked as well. Of course, we'd probably ban them first.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Thats why you should anon if your going to go for a super-shitstorm.

thats... thats what i've... heard... anyway...

 

[Fenixius]

This brings up an interesting question: Should you be anonymous on the internet? And I mean truly anonymous. One of the reasons that I'm always Fenixius wherever I go is that no, I don't want to be anonymous on the Internet. I want to be known for the comments I make, I want to be known for the way I argue with people, and I want to be known for how I play Team Fortress.

I don't see what's to be gained from anonymity on the internet. A disconnection between your online persona and your real-life persona is not something I object to, but having a consistant online identity is a good thing, because it forces people to stop being idiots, and it forces people to think about what they say and do. I just don't see any other consequences of true anonymity on the internet other than trolling and griefing.

That's how I respond to this article. As I don't know exactly what was said, or exactly how bebo.com works, I can't make a sound judgement regarding the real-life consequences of virtual actions. But I support consistant identities for people on the Internet, as it tends to prevent idiocy. Especially if you prevent people from having multiples, so if you're permenantly banned from a website, you're banned for life. This is a good thing. As is the considered and restrained use of lifetime bans, but you get my meaning.

And, since I don't use any form of social networking website, I ask a question: Are there moderators around the place, moderating the content that people post? Or is it up to other users? Also, is it possible to ban, censor or otherwise silence specific other users from commenting on your page/space/profile? I would like to know, that I might further advance my knowledge on the topic.

 

[GothmogII]

The website is at fault, here.

I disagree. Harassing someone should be treated the same way whether it be by mail, phone, or internet. If the guy had showed up at her school yelling the same sort of things (I assume) he wrote, he would have been dragged off by the cops. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it better.

Whether or not Bebo should have higher standards for user conduct is irrelevant in this case.

Edit: If someone was sending harassing PMs or something similar on our sites, we'd turn over all their info to the police if asked as well. Of course, we'd probably ban them first.

Yes, by phone, mail and physically being there a person should be punished for that.
However, those forms of communication cannot be realistically monitored, or they can, but phone taps and reading people's private mail without consent are generally frowned upon no?

The internet however, is controlled by private entities, I mean, every website is owned by a person, a group or a company. And, it is therefore imo -their- job to check for the the things they don't want on their sites. However, this also goes into something similar to buying videogames to underage children, in that, if as a parent, you haven't checked the site in question, or at least check on how your child uses the internet, you really shouldn't complain when problems start turning up.

As for harrassment in general online. Personally I consider it a mere annoyance more than anything else. If I can't handle the stuff that I am liable to come across, why am I online at at all? If someone spams my email address with death threats, I make another account.
Got unwanted comments on my blog? Delete em'. Or start a new one, it's not that hard.
I don't know, I'll think on it some more...

 

[Virgil]

The internet however, is controlled by private entities ...

So are the phone lines, or cellphones. Or he could have sent harassing letters via FedEx, also privately run. Or what if it was a personal website, self-made, with a generic guestbook script, and the harassing posts were on that? This is why the fact that it happened on Bebo isn't relevant in this case - it's the act that is the problem, regardless of the location or method. Bebo is just a red herring.

That doesn't mean Bebo is fantastic and shouldn't feel obligated to make their community a better place - I've never used it, so I couldn't say either way - but you wouldn't let a mugger go free because his target was in a bad neighborhood and should have known better.

This brings up an interesting question: Should you be anonymous on the internet? And I mean truly anonymous.

Personally, I'm strongly for less anonymity and more "Stop acting like a tool" on the internet. I've been moderating (and coding) community sites for over a decade at this point though, so my perspective is a bit jaded.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I don't know how the laws work in Europe, but internet anonymity in America only lasts until you piss someone off enough that they file a lawsuit. Most internet providers and websites can neither afford nor care enough to try to fight a discovery claim. So I wouldn't get too carried away with "I can do or say whatever I want" on the interwebs.

This reminds me of the wrongful death claim going on right now with the teenage girl who committed suicide. A student's mother was maliciously posting insults and telling the girl everyone at school hated her while pretending to be a student herself. On the one hand, the teen probably needed therapy anyways and no one could've predicted that harsh of a reaction. On the other hand, What the f*** lady? Who does that? And if they do, are we going to just let them get away with no punishment?

It's a tough call. One that people are going to be taking a stand on one way or another in the next few years.

 

[Fenixius]

The internet however, is controlled by private entities ...

So are the phone lines, or cellphones. Or he could have sent harassing letters via FedEx, also privately run. Or what if it was a personal website, self-made, with a generic guestbook script, and the harassing posts were on that? This is why the fact that it happened on Bebo isn't relevant in this case - it's the act that is the problem, regardless of the location or method. Bebo is just a red herring.

That's a very very good point, Virgil, that I didn't consider, really. I always viewed the Internet as some sort of more ethereal medium than anything else in real-life, perhaps because I never really called it "real". But it most certainly is real, and it most certainly is tangible. Everything you say or do on the internet is recorded in more than one location, I'm sure. Good thing I'm not a tool on the 'net :\

This brings up an interesting question: Should you be anonymous on the internet? And I mean truly anonymous.

Personally, I'm strongly for less anonymity and more "Stop acting like a tool" on the internet. I've been moderating (and coding) community sites for over a decade at this point though, so my perspective is a bit jaded.

It's important to note that I'm in favour of SOME anonymity. Being a step removed from reality removes all sorts of prejudices and conceptions that are attached to my physical form. I'm a slightly overweight, tall, caucasian guy with long brown hair (not quite at my shoulders, but getting there), who dresses in smart-casual shirts and good pants and always has a jacket on. People get ideas from that. People would act differently if I had dark skin, or were female. But on the internet as it is right now? Everyone starts out equal. Text is the same from everyone. You can't get a subconscious prejudice kicking in against one kind of Internet person, not easily.

But as I said before, total anonymity on the internet simply provides troll-grounds. And there're enough of them in reality, I don't need to deal with them online too.

 

[John Galt]

This is just insane. Why on earth would an adult feel it necessary to do something as petty as insult a teenager over the internet? Come on, there are plenty of better and more rational ways to solve problems than trolling social networking sites. If someone pisses you off, you don't stoop to the level of a twelve year old and try to look big on the interwebs.

In response to LB Jeffries, I think that if an adult does something like this and causes harm (the suicide case you mentioned) then they should be prosecuted for it. They're an adult and know better than to mess with children's minds. Children on the other hand, don't have all the rational thought mechanisms that adults are supposed to possess and therefore are not reliable when it comes to controlling behavior on the internet, and thus should be sheltered somewhat by the law, ie: if a classmate posts horrible slander against you on the internet, you shouldn't be able to bring them to court for thousands of dollars, that's just ridiculous for a childish behavior like that.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

In response to LB Jeffries, I think that if an adult does something like this and causes harm (the suicide case you mentioned) then they should be prosecuted for it. They're an adult and know better than to mess with children's minds. Children on the other hand, don't have all the rational thought mechanisms that adults are supposed to possess and therefore are not reliable when it comes to controlling behavior on the internet, and thus should be sheltered somewhat by the law, ie: if a classmate posts horrible slander against you on the internet, you shouldn't be able to bring them to court for thousands of dollars, that's just ridiculous for a childish behavior like that.

*edited heavily after thinking it over*

It really is a fascinating debate. Kids are a tricky topic. That Star Wars kid, the goofy one swinging the broom, is in a mental hospital because of a mental breakdown from the humiliation. The classmates who posted the video are being sued for medical expenses as we type. It seems nuts at first, but I'm not surprised that it's gonna take years of expensive therapy for him to get back to normal. I don't imagine many parents are going to want to pay those kinds of costs for childish shenanigans.

Who knows? Maybe they'll start controlling websites like the ESRB and require people to post their age before they create a facebook account.

 

[Fenixius]

But kids are a tricky topic. That Star Wars kid, the goofy one swinging the broom, is in a mental hospital because of a mental breakdown from the humiliation. The classmates who posted the video are being sued for medical expenses as we type. It seems nuts at first, but I'm not surprised that it's gonna take years of expensive therapy for him to get back to normal. I don't imagine many parents are going to want to pay those kinds of costs for childish shenanigans.

Who knows? Maybe they'll start controlling websites like the ESRB and require people to post their age before they create a facebook account.

I don't know if I'd like that. The OFLC in Australia really really annoys me, because I disagree with it on several points. And I seriously doubt that I can make a bureaucratic institution of that level change. If they're not serious enough to give videogames an R18+ rating, how do you think they'll view the 'net? My views on censorship are more... liberal, than the OFLC. And while I think they're fair for everyone, apparently noone else does. Since I don't want to hijack the thread for a discussion over censorship, my views on the topic boil down to two things: 1) As long as everyone has given consent, and was in their right mind at the time, you may publish content on the internet, and 2) There must be clear and comprehensive warning about what's in that content, if someone might find it objectionable. That's it.

But I like that the Internet is unrestrained: anything and everything is out there. If I choose to go and find it. The problem is that anything and everything is duplicable and editable. Which means that if I post a picture of myself on the 'net somewhere, for something, someone can take that, and edit it, and put it on 4chan, and make it into a meme. And then people in the streets would recognize me. I'd hate for that to happen to me. I wouldn't wish it upon others, either. [sarc]Damn the children, ruining our perfect world, where everyone is responsible on the internet![/sarc]

 

[BlazeTheVampire]

Myspace requires users to be 14+, but that doesn't stop kids from lying about their age; case in point, my 12-year-old cousin. She has a myspace, and I check up on her often using it, and her mother knows she has it as well. I know that doesn't make it right, but I feel a little better about it since I can watch her. The point was that Myspace, at least, has an age minimum. Myspace is also the forum in which the suicide case that LB mentioned took place.

Here's the full story [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312018,00.html]

Honestly, I agree that the site really isn't to blame for something like this happening. Bebo has safety measures and block/ignore options in case of bullying like this, but the girl opted not to use it, apparently.

Bebo's Safety Section [http://www.bebo.com/Safety.jsp]

Basically, I think that the adult shouldn't have said what he said, but I also think that girl should have just clicked "Block User" and that the law shouldn't have been involved unless he continued to harass her either on different sites or through a different name.

 

[stompy]

<quote=Fenixius>The OFLC in Australia really really annoys me, because I disagree with it on several points. And I seriously doubt that I can make a bureaucratic institution of that level change. If they're not serious enough to give videogames an R18+ rating, how do you think they'll view the 'net? My views on censorship are more... liberal, than the OFLC.

Sorry to be off-topic, but the OFLC, for lack of better wording, are hypocritical old bastards. Why? Well, in Australia, over the past few weeks, we've had a row over this guy called Bill Henson, and his art [http://www.theage.com.au/national/no-charges-for-henson-20080606-2mnv.html]. The OFLC considers naked adolescences as PG, but reckons that video games can't have an R18+ rating? Bah, shows how bigoted they are...

As for the topic at hand, I can't say that the guy was completely faultless. I mean, even if it is the 'net, you have to have some responsibilities, and you can't be totally anonymous. I think the 'net provides anonymity so that people are judged equally when it comes to their opinions, not an excuse to act like an asshole.

 

[Fire Daemon]

We really can't pass judgement on this mad until we have seen those comments. I play on Xboxlive and as a result to that I hear a lot of disturbing stuff, usually aimed at children. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft does not chase up any of the abusive voice reports so why is it that this man is jailed (or finned) and the people on xbox live walk free?

Like I said we must see the comments to make judgement. It could be a whinny teenager who complained to daddy (who happens to be a lawyer) about the mean man on the Internets or it could be much worse then this? We don't know.
As to the Anonymity of the Internet: I don't like it. It allows for trolling, greifing and general douchbag behaviour to exist. Removing Anonymity wouldn't fix this but it would limit it by a lot.

 

[The Potato Lord]

I opt for less-than-complete anonimity on the internet so people must take responsibility for thier actions, but some anonimity is needed to avoid as much prejudice as possible.

I believe a person's internet persona is kinda like a tie, It need's to be fastened tight enough to stay on but not so tight as to choke. Continuing the metaphor, at this point the persona-tie is just draped on a person's shoulders, it stays as long as you don't move too fast or brush it off, but it is gone the second you want it off.

 

[jockslap]

Seems a load o horseshit to me, this is what blocks and mutes where created for, and if the site didnt have one, shouldnt she have had the foresight to sign up to a place that does?

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

We really can't pass judgement on this mad until we have seen those comments. I play on Xboxlive and as a result to that I hear a lot of disturbing stuff, usually aimed at children. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft does not chase up any of the abusive voice reports so why is it that this man is jailed (or finned) and the people on xbox live walk free?

The thing with Xbox live is it's a bunch of teens-College kids who either don't want to cause trouble, act too friggn' weird to really be bothered with, or act in an antisocial manner. Most of the people don't report that stuff, cause they all know it's fun and games/don't think it's too serious. But here's where I simply look down in disdain at XBL. You can go around acting like an ass, but if you do something homosexual, like have a screen name like 'RichardGaywood' you are reported by users and are banned for it.
(http://kotaku.com/5010324/microsoft-explains-gaywood-ban)

As to the Anonymity of the Internet: I don't like it. It allows for trolling, greifing and general douchbag behaviour to exist. Removing Anonymity wouldn't fix this but it would limit it by a lot.

Though if anonymity were eliminated it would cut down on that sort of behavior, I honestly think people should know better. Unless it's simply their nature, in which case they should probably not be on the internet anyway.

 

[Fenixius]

Preemptive apologies for extreme post length. I have to make this apology/disclaimer a lot.

As to the Anonymity of the Internet: I don't like it. It allows for trolling, greifing and general douchbag behaviour to exist. Removing Anonymity wouldn't fix this but it would limit it by a lot.

Though if anonymity were eliminated it would cut down on that sort of behavior, I honestly think people should know better. Unless it's simply their nature, in which case they should probably not be on the internet anyway.

I can't agree that anonymity should be removed. But it should be scaled back, to the extent that even though I'm not directly me on the internet, I should have a consistant, global profile on every website or service I use. I'm Fenixius on Battle.net, Fenixius on Xbox Live, Fenixius on Steam, Fenixius on Escapist, and Fenixius all over the place. I can't force everyone to do as I think they should, but I sure as hell can do it myself.

But here's where I simply look down in disdain at XBL. You can go around acting like an ass, but if you do something homosexual, like have a screen name like 'RichardGaywood' you are reported by users and are banned for it.
(http://kotaku.com/5010324/microsoft-explains-gaywood-ban)

They're just pandering to the people who want the 360 to be percieved as a kiddy console, with a child-safe Xbox Live. It's still absolute rubbish, especially since it was his real name, but this just furthers my point that children shouldn't be allowed on the Internet, or should only be allowed in some sort of restricted capacity. I dunno... come up with a list of Child Friendly sites until you're 15 or something. What wouldn't surprise me is if they were playing Halo and found that name. That would be an amazing moral double-standard. In fact, they'd pretty much be admitting, if this were the case, and it may well not be, that it's OK for kids to enjoy violence but not anything remotely sexual.

I know I've been dragging this thread off topic, so I'll return to the issue at hand:

Like I said we must see the comments to make judgement. It could be a whinny teenager who complained to daddy (who happens to be a lawyer) about the mean man on the Internets or it could be much worse then this? We don't know.

You're absolutely right. Without the context in which these comments were placed, and the content of the comments themsevles, all we can do is discuss the issues that spring from this example. Which is why I brought up the question of "Should you be truly anon on the 'net."

Though if anonymity were eliminated it would cut down on that sort of behavior, I honestly think people should know better. Unless it's simply their nature, in which case they should probably not be on the internet anyway.

People SHOULD know better. But, well, there's a very simple and amazingly rational explaination. The John Gabriel Greater Internet [censored for the children] Theory, as mentioned in Penny Arcade:

Normal Man + Anonymity + Audience = Total [censored for the children].

I know the source isn't remotely scientific in nature, but it makes sense, doesn't it? Which is why I keep banging on about how we should remove true anonymity. Of course, it doesn't mean that true anonymity is necessarily bad... just not if only one party has it. 4Chan is an example of what happens when you have true, global anonymity. And 4Chan isn't intrinsically bad. The only problem is that it's not isolated, by which I mean that any content on the 'web can be summoned into 4Chan, the nameless place, where anyone'll do anything. And people will make it popular, and it will be taken back into real life, and then it stops being truly anonymous. But the bottom line is basically: Don't post your picture on the 'net. Don't post your real name. Or someone will hurt you.

Seems a load o horseshit to me, this is what blocks and mutes where created for, and if the site didn't have one, shouldn't she have had the foresight to sign up to a place that does?

This is an interesting query. Should we tolerate more extreme harassment on the internet than in reality, in a legal sense, simply because we have the power to ignore it more completely? I don't know. I would lean towards yeah... but the problem is that the people in this case knew each other outside of the internet. I know when I'm on the internet that anyone who has a go at me is probably some idiot whos life is far worse than mine as a whole, so I can laugh at how pitiful they are, trying to make people feel bad on the internet, as I hit the Mute button. Happens every now and then in Team Fortress, which is honestly has one of the most constructively-minded communities that I've ever played with. But for this girl, it's not quite the same. She knows the guy, and comments from people you know are far harder to ignore than comments from people named stuff like "winrar424" and "uberlord_9000". That's where I think this case becomes really complicated.

EDIT: I've just re-read the article, and it turns out I somehow invented the concept that they knew each other. But even if they didn't, it's still worth considering if they did, because it makes this incident more complex and meaningful to discuss. So, since they did in fact NOT know each other, there should have been a BLOCK button for the girl to hit, but instead, she complained to the police. Now, I would have at least thought that you'd go to the admin first, rather than the lawyers. Did she overreact? Should someone have noticed that before it made it to court? I can't really say, since I don't know the content of the messages, if they were threatening, or if they were simply vulgar. If they were threatening, then I'd be unsurprised that she moved to notify the higher authorities than the admin or the mods. But if they were just vulgar, well... I have no idea why she'd jump straight to the phone and summoned the law enforcement people. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

And sorry to keep going off topic, but any good discussion moves from subject to subject.

The OFLC, for lack of better wording, are hypocritical old bastards. ... The OFLC considers naked adolescents as PG, but reckons that video games can't have an R18+ rating?

Haha, I never even thought about that specific hypocrisy. I was just happy to hear that they decided to let Henson off the hook. But the ramifications of that are meaningful, too. It's important to note that the tone of his pieces wasn't sexual, or intended for arousal, which would have made the same level of explicit content recieve a higher rating. But you're absolutely right. Out of interest, do you have a better plan than "get people you know to send angry letters?" I've already tried that. And yeah, I got a dozen letters off, which was cool, but I wish there was a more effective way of letting our opinions be known.

 

[Quaidis]

Like many other posts have said, we don't have all the details to make a constructive view on the subject. We don't know what the guy said, we don't know how else he's been harassing her. The 3,000 euro fine or jail sentence may not have been only for the comments he made on Bibo, but also what he did off-site that made the girl file the complaints previous to the offensive comments.

This reminds me of a case that happened recently where a teenage male (18, I think, could have been younger) was dumped by his girlfriend (younger than 18) and in response posted nude and sexually explicit photos of her on the web as well as some very offensive remarks. The girl took the photos originally, but was so upset by the fact that they were posted in public that she told authorities. The police ordered the kid to take down the photos and remove his replies. His response was, "I can do whatever I want! You can't make me!"

In the end they arrested him, he spent a few days in jail, the messages and pictures were removed, and he was sued for a load of money. He's currently being put through consoling.


There is an age difference involved, yet the concept between that case and the one this thread is over is semi-relatively the same. The man, who was mature enough to know better, posted things that should not have been posted in public to hurt her emotionally over the net (as well as who knows what else). The messages on Bibo were only a part to what he actually did and used as evidence against him for the full case. We don't know how badly the girl was effected by this, but it was bad enough to get the authorities involved, bad enough for the guy to suffer possible jail, and bad enough for him to fork over a few thousand to compensate for the damage he did. This has nothing to do with being anonymous online, and nothing to do with the millions of other assholes out there. There are rules, boundries, and limitations online, especially concerning minors; if you step across them, especially knowing that it's wrong, you will be punished.