They should do that more often. There was no call for that, and he deserves what he got, the little prick.
Internet troll is jailed after mocking deaths of teenagers online.
- Thread starter EeveeElectro
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A "bit of ridiculous ass-hattery"?No_Remainders said:
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".
Jailed for making fun of someone.
The care bear police have gotten OUT OF FUCKING CONTROL!
No body make fun of the guy for going to jail or you'll be thrown in jail for making fun of someone who was thrown in jail for making fun of someone!
JAILED-FOR-FUN-CEPTION!
We must go deeper!
Capcha - k=1 runlin.....huh? Is this math?
The care bear police have gotten OUT OF FUCKING CONTROL!
No body make fun of the guy for going to jail or you'll be thrown in jail for making fun of someone who was thrown in jail for making fun of someone!
JAILED-FOR-FUN-CEPTION!
We must go deeper!
Capcha - k=1 runlin.....huh? Is this math?
Jail? A cease and desist order and paying for damages isn't enough? Yeah he's a massive dick, but I don't think this is a "crime".
Its rather funny how you're talking about about people who "opt'd" out of something that's a required class.Wanzer said:
Clearly however, you didn't read the location. It's in the UK. The American constitution has no hold here. What he did was illegal, but only in the sense that he was harassing them. Which, you know, makes half of the internet illegal, but we all knew that right?
However, that doesn't make it right that he was jailed for four months for being a prick.
I'm gonna shove this in bold so hopefully it'll catch an eye or two.
THIS HAPPENED IN THE UK, PLEASE STOP ARGUING USING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE
To all the folks complaining about the amount of time he's doing, or that this is an overreaction...
You're right, but only superficially. The reason this sentence was carried out (and the reason that he'd been recommended by his lawyer to take the hit) is to calm down the grieving family. People in this situation, especially angry 17 year old brothers, tend not to consider the law in their revenge. This situation could have got really out of hand, and quickly. I think it's for the best that it's been dealt in this way, and it's almost certain that he won't have to claim this on future job applications (apart from government/armed forces/police positions, of course). He doesn't get the arse kicking (or worse) that he thoroughly deserves, and the family feel that justice has been done.
The best thing that'll come out of this are photographs of his face superimposed on scenes of prison rape
You're right, but only superficially. The reason this sentence was carried out (and the reason that he'd been recommended by his lawyer to take the hit) is to calm down the grieving family. People in this situation, especially angry 17 year old brothers, tend not to consider the law in their revenge. This situation could have got really out of hand, and quickly. I think it's for the best that it's been dealt in this way, and it's almost certain that he won't have to claim this on future job applications (apart from government/armed forces/police positions, of course). He doesn't get the arse kicking (or worse) that he thoroughly deserves, and the family feel that justice has been done.
The best thing that'll come out of this are photographs of his face superimposed on scenes of prison rape
I think there's a large difference between calling someone schoolyard names and making prolonged sick jokes about the unfortuneate and untimely demise of someone's child.The_root_of_all_evil said:
For those who need it put to them bluntly, one is a petty jab at someone that most of us can easily get over while the other is just a cruel display of total disregard for the suffering and misfortunes of others.
I have traits of Asperger's myself and yet I don't use it as an excuse to be a dick to others, I have the same condition and yet I wouldn't accept that as an excuse for behavior like that.Dnaloiram said:
I may have trouble looking people in the eyes when talking to them and making conversations not sound awkward but I still know better than to taunt and torment a grieving family over their child's death.
I'm socially challanged because of my condition, not ammoral and malicious (there is a very big difference).
Wouldn't this be intentional infliction of emotional distress? And therefore NOT a case of freedom of speech or censorship of his personal beliefs? He was, after all, pretty clearly antagonizing, and not just expressing himself.
See, I'd agree with you if he was doing it in person, or tagging property or some such but on the internet? Oh, look, some idiots posting hateful things on the Facebook group. BAN-HAMMER. Someone's made a tasteless video? Don't watch it.BloatedGuppy said:
Its these people who go out of their way to be offended about stuff that doesn't matter that are a pain in the ass (By "stuff that doesn't matter" I mean some random idiot making fun of someone you lost, not the lost itself.)
Same with people who blame cell phone companies or other teenagers because someone killed themselves due to "Cyber Bullying." Someone sent you a hateful text? Delete it, thats what its for.
As someone who lives in the US, I can only speak towards the laws and consequences of the US, so I apologize for my ignorance of British law.
Obscenity usually applies to pornography and it is difficult to attribute it to other forms.
'Fighting words' has tried to been associated to hate speech but that is usually overturned. It mainly gets associated with inciting acts of violence (calls to arms) or personal threats of violence.
Falsehoods is hard to convict on and is usually relegated to civil courts and damages must be provable.
-------------------------------------
Yes, I personally disagree with what this guy did, and I think the "anonymity" mentality on the internet is likely doing harm to our society, but this is not the way to combat it.
Convicting people on acts of speech (especially with this severity) creates a slippery slope where speech can be severely relegated based on political, religious, or other biased structures.
If you want to combat the "anonymity" mindset, enforce heavy moderation on these sites using stricter terms of use. Technically, this will just create a divide where the "trolling" users will go to other sites with looser guidelines to troll, but you won't have to see or hear them if you don't want to.
If he did not go to their home, call them personally, or send them letters, you can really not call it harassment legally. He was "commenting" on a public forum. Technically these public forums are owned by private companies (YouTube and Facebook) and those companies can monitor their forums and delete his posts or restrict his accounts. Except for a few exceptions, his free speech his guaranteed by law and he can not be criminally persecuted for that speech.EeveeElectro said:
The exceptions to free speech (in the US) are obscenity, 'fighting words', imminent threat (yelling fire in a crowded theater), national security, and falsehoods (libel and slander).Wanzer said:
Obscenity usually applies to pornography and it is difficult to attribute it to other forms.
'Fighting words' has tried to been associated to hate speech but that is usually overturned. It mainly gets associated with inciting acts of violence (calls to arms) or personal threats of violence.
Falsehoods is hard to convict on and is usually relegated to civil courts and damages must be provable.
-------------------------------------
Yes, I personally disagree with what this guy did, and I think the "anonymity" mentality on the internet is likely doing harm to our society, but this is not the way to combat it.
Convicting people on acts of speech (especially with this severity) creates a slippery slope where speech can be severely relegated based on political, religious, or other biased structures.
If you want to combat the "anonymity" mindset, enforce heavy moderation on these sites using stricter terms of use. Technically, this will just create a divide where the "trolling" users will go to other sites with looser guidelines to troll, but you won't have to see or hear them if you don't want to.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom&ei=ZLJvTvKzI8KDtgfI5fD6CQ&usg=AFQjCNGuf0jp5YL0Hcf4IKUFxLl4qjt5vg
Most countries have Speech Laws and here is your countries own take on it. While not modeled in the same way as the United States, it is still pretty similar; though, I doubt the U.S. would ever have the balls to do what the United Kingdom did.
Most countries have Speech Laws and here is your countries own take on it. While not modeled in the same way as the United States, it is still pretty similar; though, I doubt the U.S. would ever have the balls to do what the United Kingdom did.
Calling someone out just because they took action where you would have failed to is no argument.dogstile said:
Is what they said about your brother true?
Did they post and circulate a video on youtube regarding it or make harassing comments on facebook?
Were the people saying it strangers?
Were you told to "burn and die" because of something you did or because of something you are?
because
The 15 year old did die.
There were videos and posts. (And if that were to be classified as harassment then depending on the degree it could be 1-5 years in prison)
The guy (Duffy) was a complete stranger, there were no "circumstances" between the family and him.
The girl was killed by the actions of someone else (or inactions).
When was the last time you were able to moderate someone else' youtube channel? This wasn't an isolated event or comment made in passing either. If you are making a concentrated effort to make someone else' life shit you deserve whatever lawful action is levied against you. The line drawn is that if you do something with the intent or knowledge that it will hurt them, that sort of thing should be discouraged not because it's "mean", but because it's (in detached terms) counter productive. There is nothing to gain from it and there can be plenty to lose.Hardcore_gamer said:
This isn't someone just being "mean", it takes time and effort to make an post a video and not only make multiple comments on but find someone's facebook.
I fear for the UK, and honestly this is one of the reasons why a lot of people in the US look down on it and treat it like a backwater country at times. As I understand this both this and the Jade Goody incident took place there. "Freedom Of Speech" does not mean "The freedom to say what I agree with or want to hear" and has it's dark side along with it's positive benefits, the pros however outweigh the cons, and no amount of rudeness is worth the cost to civil liberties that these rulings entail.
I'll also be blunt, the guy here is taking the wrong track on defending himself. Argueing Aspergers is kind of ridiculous. To be honest I have my doubts about that entire condition's very existance.
Ultimatly I think the point that needs to be made here is that it's annoying to have people using social networking to cry about their misfortune for the entire world to hear. The very fact that this guy, who didn't know any of the victims, is aware of these events to this degree is noteworthy. It's very sad when someone loses a daughter or loved one, but when some stranger uses social networking to constantly bombard you with downers and go emo all over you, it becomes kind of annoying, and to be honest that has nothing to do with a lack of human empathy, everyone gets irritated when people get overly emo. To some extent I can see why a few people might take that frustration and be annoying back. The lesson that could be taken here is to keep your grief out of public forums and the personal space of other people that have no real connection to you or the victims.
I extend this beyond social networking to include constant coverage in the newspapers, TV, and Radio. Something bad happens to someone's kid, and sometimes it literally seems like you hear about nothing else for weeks on end, and the last thing you want after a rough day is to hear "yes, now let's rant and cry about this 15 year old who got crushed by a train two weeks ago".
Freedom of speech works both ways, after a point this ceases to become news. If the family of a victim of tradgedy and/or the networks can go on and on about this kind of thing through mass communications (online or not) and bug people, then I don't think it's unreasonable for people to bug them back. I would think this kind of thing could be taken as a "shut up about it already" message from the uninvolved. There are plenty of things over the years I've felt sorry about that I have grown to loathe due to constant overexposure.
... and you also need to wonder when the families are simply being attention whores. Like it or not in many cases it seems like the greiving families might be sad, but also get off on being the ones who faced a certain tradgedy and all the attention (and even benefits) they get from a lost loved one.
-
As far as Aspergers goes, the basic arguement is that someone with Aspbergers is a high functioning autistic who is absolutly fine 99% of the time, but then will ocasionally do something sociopathic and crazy. The basic arguement being "well, you can't ever tell what an Austistic is thinking, heck I'm not even sure why I did that, I just decided I wanted to and couldn't stop myself as at the time I saw no reason why I shouldn't do it".
Aspergers seems to basically be a fictional get out of jail free card for someone to periodically decide "F@ck it" and do whatever they want, or be a jerk, and then avoid responsibility.
I've known more than a few people with varying levels of autism and really it doens't work quite this way, the arguement is "well, it's Aspergers, it's differant and this is what's defining it". Really I think it's just a label shrinks use for "there is nothing wrong with your son, he's just an asshole" so they can collect their money without having to tell the parents what they don't want to hear.
A lot of what I see perpetuated by people with "Aspbergers" takes far too much preparation over too long a period of time to really count as a "brief attack of autism". I mean sure, maybe an autistic might freak out and attack someone, break something, steal something, and similar things, but to actually sit there and shop Youtube videos, post them, and sit around for days (or weeks) laughing about it, goes a bit beyond a "brief incident".
If there is such a thing as Aspbergers, it's overdiagnosed, and as a result has had it's credability as a condition ruined.
At the same time though, with incidents like this, I figure you'd do better to just say "I got sick of listening to this so I did something to make a point and bug the people back". I might disagree with the action itself, but I can at least respect the point being made, and will even say it falls under basic human rights.
I'll also be blunt, the guy here is taking the wrong track on defending himself. Argueing Aspergers is kind of ridiculous. To be honest I have my doubts about that entire condition's very existance.
Ultimatly I think the point that needs to be made here is that it's annoying to have people using social networking to cry about their misfortune for the entire world to hear. The very fact that this guy, who didn't know any of the victims, is aware of these events to this degree is noteworthy. It's very sad when someone loses a daughter or loved one, but when some stranger uses social networking to constantly bombard you with downers and go emo all over you, it becomes kind of annoying, and to be honest that has nothing to do with a lack of human empathy, everyone gets irritated when people get overly emo. To some extent I can see why a few people might take that frustration and be annoying back. The lesson that could be taken here is to keep your grief out of public forums and the personal space of other people that have no real connection to you or the victims.
I extend this beyond social networking to include constant coverage in the newspapers, TV, and Radio. Something bad happens to someone's kid, and sometimes it literally seems like you hear about nothing else for weeks on end, and the last thing you want after a rough day is to hear "yes, now let's rant and cry about this 15 year old who got crushed by a train two weeks ago".
Freedom of speech works both ways, after a point this ceases to become news. If the family of a victim of tradgedy and/or the networks can go on and on about this kind of thing through mass communications (online or not) and bug people, then I don't think it's unreasonable for people to bug them back. I would think this kind of thing could be taken as a "shut up about it already" message from the uninvolved. There are plenty of things over the years I've felt sorry about that I have grown to loathe due to constant overexposure.
... and you also need to wonder when the families are simply being attention whores. Like it or not in many cases it seems like the greiving families might be sad, but also get off on being the ones who faced a certain tradgedy and all the attention (and even benefits) they get from a lost loved one.
-
As far as Aspergers goes, the basic arguement is that someone with Aspbergers is a high functioning autistic who is absolutly fine 99% of the time, but then will ocasionally do something sociopathic and crazy. The basic arguement being "well, you can't ever tell what an Austistic is thinking, heck I'm not even sure why I did that, I just decided I wanted to and couldn't stop myself as at the time I saw no reason why I shouldn't do it".
Aspergers seems to basically be a fictional get out of jail free card for someone to periodically decide "F@ck it" and do whatever they want, or be a jerk, and then avoid responsibility.
I've known more than a few people with varying levels of autism and really it doens't work quite this way, the arguement is "well, it's Aspergers, it's differant and this is what's defining it". Really I think it's just a label shrinks use for "there is nothing wrong with your son, he's just an asshole" so they can collect their money without having to tell the parents what they don't want to hear.
A lot of what I see perpetuated by people with "Aspbergers" takes far too much preparation over too long a period of time to really count as a "brief attack of autism". I mean sure, maybe an autistic might freak out and attack someone, break something, steal something, and similar things, but to actually sit there and shop Youtube videos, post them, and sit around for days (or weeks) laughing about it, goes a bit beyond a "brief incident".
If there is such a thing as Aspbergers, it's overdiagnosed, and as a result has had it's credability as a condition ruined.
At the same time though, with incidents like this, I figure you'd do better to just say "I got sick of listening to this so I did something to make a point and bug the people back". I might disagree with the action itself, but I can at least respect the point being made, and will even say it falls under basic human rights.
That's pretty much my response.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Trolls might be assholes, but putting people in jail for words spoken on the internet?
I don't condone this kind of behaviour, but how does an internet troll get jailed whilst psychotic pricks with offensive and hateful signs stand around mocking people at funerals, with no repurcussions, and to top it off, they get protection from the police officers if/ when people try to get them removed, with or without fists clenched. It's a disgrace, Westboro are the worst trolls in the World, and get money from doing it.