Internet troll is jailed after mocking deaths of teenagers online.

[LokiArchetype]

Sounds like the justice system trolled him.

"What I did is protected under the First Amendment"
"Cool story bro. I'm sentencing you to 18 weeks in jail"
"YOUR HONOR!"
"umad?"

 

[dystopiaINC]

Hmm... If that's what people deserve for a bit of ridiculous ass-hattery, why aren't people being jailed for all the 9/11 jokes?

A "bit of ridiculous ass-hattery"?

He was seeking out and taunting people about the very recent death of a loved one. I think it was a little above and beyond "a bit of ridiculous ass-hattery".

It doesn't matter. If he had wanted to he should have been allowed to post drawn pictures of their dead children being raped by monkeys with Hitler laughing at them in the background.

Free speech doesn't exist in Europe it seems, since terms like "hate speech" and "vile speech" have utterly destroyed the term "free speech". America still has it though, and it almost makes me tempted to move over there. Sadly their shit health care and high crime rate take away my desire to do so.

80% of crime in the US is committed by gangs, stay away from them and t=your pretty safe dude.

 

[Draconalis]

I take it you don't see the hypocricy in saying that "If you offend someone your freedom of speech is null and void" and then calling him a fucking moron? By your logic you shouldnt've been allowed to say that.

It's not hypocrisy for two reasons

1. I could, very well, be willingly giving up my right to free speech.

2. I was not calling him a fucking moron, I using it as an example of any number of insults I COULD be calling him. It was a hypothetical situation.

 

[Draconalis]

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. Regardless, freedom of speech is an amorphous, synthetic concept of philosophy and ethics, so there can be no universal definition of what its limits are.

United States law is completely irrelevant here.

Considering, that this entire time, I've been discussing the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and how you can't hide behind it legally... uh... yeah... It's KINDA relevant.

 

[Linda Bridget]

Okay many of you are forgetting the fact that these men perpetrated this in the UK and therefore the law that protects freedom of speech does not apply. Because it is a law in the US does not mean that it will be one in any other country. But let's over look that for now.

Let's focus on their actions. Now even though one of these men has Asperger's syndrome we still have to look at the cause of their arrests. Both men maliciously posted offensive remarks and at least one of them created images with the intent to harm.

THEY PREYED on the families and got pleasure in doing so.

But like I said in the beginning these things happened in the UK and so they ultimately had to do the time. If this did happen in the US then they would have just been sued.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

(the one that stopped working before you even left primary school?)

Under your law you'd be jailed for that. Next time you speak to someone, I suggest you use the most basic of manners, and not just revert to ad hominem. Goodbye.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think punishing someone for creating a youtube video with the SOLE INTENTION of literally torturing someone psychologically for laughs is a good place to start.

And how do you define SOLE INTENTION? The court's can't even do that for murder cases.

If you put the punishment too lenient, it just uses extra resources.
If you put it too harsh, it damages the freedom of the comedians/press.

Jail isn't the answer, wasn't the answer and cannot be the answer if our jails are already overcrowded.

 

[Iron Mal]

Under your law you'd be jailed for that. Next time you speak to someone, I suggest you use the most basic of manners, and not just revert to ad hominem. Goodbye.

The weird thing about ending a conversation (especially online where geographical location is not a concern) is that it requires the agreement and concent of both individuals (so sadly just saying 'goodbye' doesn't allow you to get the last word in or have the last laugh).

I never actually proposed a law but if you were going to try and implicate me for that note how there is a significant difference between stating that one of your arguements sounded childish and me going to a web page you started for the mourning and grieving of a family member and trying to get a few demented chuckles out of it.

So no, I'm not being hypocritical if that's your implication and I appolgise if you're offended but I don't appologise for what I've said.

I have been quite courtious and have shown some more than enough respect in addressing your arguements and responding with thought and reason each time, if you feel that I have been impolite or rude towards you then maybe you should try explaining why you felt this way (rest assured, if you can show me the error of my ways I would be more than happy to issue you an appology, no reason we can't be civil).

 

[Atmos Duality]

And how do you define SOLE INTENTION? The court's can't even do that for murder cases.

It's more properly defined as "motive" in a court of law. And yes, they can.

If you put the punishment too lenient, it just uses extra resources.
If you put it too harsh, it damages the freedom of the comedians/press.

The press, eh. Doesn't really apply here. They're more concerned with pushing the boundaries of slander and spin when it comes to free speech.

However, I'd wager most comedians don't go so far as to hound grieving families for a punchline.
There's a difference between telling a joke (stupid and inappropriate as it is) to a general audience, and then there's finding those who could actually be hurt by that joke and telling it to them specifically, and repeatedly when they ask them to stop.

Jail isn't the answer, wasn't the answer and cannot be the answer if our jails are already overcrowded.

Fine. If not jail, then what?

An apology? Those are easily faked and completely meaningless unless the individual has public appeal at stake.

A fine? If so, how much? Nothing of monetary value was exchanged here, so it's entirely subjective.

Self-moderation? A ban?
Banning the asshole from Facebook and Youtube wouldn't work; accounts are disposable and tracking metrics are easily faked. Terms of Use aren't laws; they're rules written by private entities, so you can't get any legal leverage there.

No punishment at all? I guess the grieving family can rest easier knowing that someone is specifically mocking them and their loss (on their own facebook page, no less) but at least his free speech is being protected!

Hell, if he's lucky, maybe one of them will be driven to suicide, and he can go make fun of their death. Clearly this is behavior that should be protected by law.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Fine. If not jail, then what?

How about finding out why he did it, and dealing with that?

Rather than bring out the usual lynch mob when someone's feelings get hurt?

Because that just resets the cycle.

You can't just chuck people in jail because "they've been bad" if you're only going to do it selectively. And you can't afford to do it non-selectively. So, what are your selection criteria?

Prevention is far better than Cure. And all you're doing with jail time is Incubating.

 

[catalyst8]

You can't just chuck people in jail because "they've been bad" if you're only going to do it selectively. And you can't afford to do it non-selectively. So, what are your selection criteria?

Prevention is far better than Cure. And all you're doing with jail time is Incubating.

Slander & libel are both illegal under our constitution. The first libel case arguably dates back to 130AD, but libel laws in their modern form date back to the 1600s. Duffy had been cautioned previously but continued to knowingly break the law. For that he was prosecuted. You say that prevention is better than cure & you're right. Hopefully the idea of punitive deterrent will protect others from similar illegal harassment & defamation.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

Who are they going to arrest next? The entire Encyclopedia Dramatica community?

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

As I posted in the another thread on this topic, free speech is not absolute and unlimited. You have the right to say anything yes, but if you break laws (libel, slander, harassment, incitement etc etc) the state has the right to prosecute you to their utmost. This man, broke multiple laws and was found, tried, convicted and sentenced. No harm, no foul.

I notice people bring up the WBC a lot. In Canada they are essentially banned. Our conservative government, who a lot of people bash for various things, has has the Minister of Public Safety (and a few other things I don't care to list) come out and publicly state that if the WCB come to Canada and pull their typical stunts, they will be arrested and jailed for breaking Canada's hate crime laws. (And seeing Canada covers homophobia now, which I don't think the US does, we have the grounds to charge them) Needless to say Rev Phelps and his gang of lunatics do not come to Canada...

 

[Atmos Duality]

How about finding out why he did it, and dealing with that?

"No! Don't punish the little asshole! Clearly he has a mental condition!"
I would have bought into his insanity plea if he didn't flagrantly ignore all the warnings asking him to stop doing what he was doing for TWO YEARS.

He KNOWS what he did was WRONG, and he willingly chose to ignore it.

You can't just chuck people in jail because "they've been bad" if you're only going to do it selectively.

Uh, yes you can. The courts do this already. They're called "sentences". Not all crimes are weighed the same.

Prevention is far better than Cure. And all you're doing with jail time is Incubating.

The threat of punishment isn't a form of prevention?
So I guess negative reinforcement is just a myth.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Slander & libel are both illegal under our constitution.

*cough* Tabloids *cough*

Hopefully the idea of punitive deterrent will protect others from similar illegal harassment & defamation.

Has it ever demonstrated that in the past?
And at what cost to the State?

For instance,

If copyright infringement is proven in a criminal court, on indictment the defendant could receive an unlimited fine and up to ten years imprisonment per offence.

How many pirates have been stopped?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So I guess negative reinforcement is just a myth.

Myths are stories about how good always triumphs over evil, with little or no factual evidence behind them.

Make up your own mind on that.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Slander & libel are both illegal under our constitution.

*cough* Tabloids *cough*

Hopefully the idea of punitive deterrent will protect others from similar illegal harassment & defamation.

Has it ever demonstrated that in the past?
And at what cost to the State?

For instance,

If copyright infringement is proven in a criminal court, on indictment the defendant could receive an unlimited fine and up to ten years imprisonment per offence.

How many pirates have been stopped?

To answer you, tabloids get sued all the time when the people they write about care to sue them.

And while hard to quantify how many pirates have stopped, you cant deny it has some effect, whether you like it or not... sure as hell stopped Napster.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

To answer you, tabloids get sued all the time when the people they write about care to sue them.

Which is why Jerry Lawton [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102247-Daily-Star-Gets-Nailed-for-Made-Up-GTA-Story] still works for the Daily Star?

And while hard to quantify how many pirates have stopped, you cant deny it has some effect, whether you like it or not... sure as hell stopped Napster.

Oh really? [http://www.napster.co.uk/], by stopping you mean "moved to other services". Which I can't, of course, link.

 

[catalyst8]

Etc.

To answer you, tabloids get sued all the time when the people they write about care to sue them.

And while hard to quantify how many pirates have stopped, you cant deny it has some effect, whether you like it or not... sure as hell stopped Napster.

This is very true. Very recently both The Sun & The Mirror were successfully prosecuted for libel re. the Joanna Yeates investigation. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop is famous for the amount of libel cases he's faced & been prosecuted for. So many that if he's found guilty again he goes to prison.

Re. piracy Asha makes a very good point, & let's not forget the recent Pirate Bay case(s).

 

[oktalist]

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. Regardless, freedom of speech is an amorphous, synthetic concept of philosophy and ethics, so there can be no universal definition of what its limits are.

United States law is completely irrelevant here.

Considering, that this entire time, I've been discussing the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech

If you meant the first amendment, you should've said so. Besides posting that one link, your posts only talk about "freedom of speech" without specifying what jurisdiction you're talking about, and only one of the posts you quoted even mentions the US.

and how you can't hide behind it legally... uh... yeah... It's KINDA relevant.

Well if you want to go that route, then...

Speech that happens to offend someone is still protected by the first amendment.