Internet troll is jailed after mocking deaths of teenagers online.

[ImSkeletor]

He has the freedom of speech and should be able to say what ever he wants to say.

 

[bpm195]

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.

he didn't insult the dead teenagers to their families face, but rather put these malicious comments on a website where they're bound to see it and get upset over it. He didn't ring their house numbers or send letters like some people have done in the past but what he did do was just low.
I do somewhat agree jail for 18 weeks is a bit too much, perhaps a restraining order against the families or a fine so the families didn't think he got away with it.

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.

GO LEARN LAW BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH ABOUT IT. There are limitations to what you can say at any given time and under various articles there are situations where you aren't allowed to open your mouth and say what you want to. When it causes harm to another person or is known to cause, then it is no longer protected under our rights as humans. It is like shouting fire in a crowded location or shark on a crowded beach;

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).

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.

I have to disagree about this not being harassment. Technically, it may fall short by the legal definition but that's because the law hasn't caught up with modern communication. If the did the same actions in meatspace even if he was always in public places it would still constitute harassment. It's fine to make fun of any person or event, but when you're following somebody around so you can make fun of them it's harassment. The lines are very blurry in the digital realm as to the difference between harassing and free expression, but that's what jurors are for.

 

[Wanzer]

This makes me wonder sometimes what our culture is heading to. Why are people defending someone that obviously deserves some sort of punishment? Are we so detached from BASIC HUMAN DECENCY, that we have to defend someone who basically stalked another family, tormented them with their daughter's death and then proceeded to do it with other families as well? Look, the reason the guy got jail time isn't because he was being a dick or because he simply said something; though mocking someone's death I believe should be punishable by the 'closed hand of retribution'. No, this whole case wasn't built around the man being a troll, it was built around the fact that he ACTIVELY SOUGHT OUT THESE PEOPLE. I.E. he basically used the internet to be that weird guy that comes up to your window and tries to watch you undress; only instead of whacking off to your body, he taunts you about your dead family member.

 

[Versuvius]

I' going to go ahead and stay away from having an opinion on this because theres points for it's harassment and theres points for freedom of speech. What i do think is that he was made an example of. He should have been prosecuted for harassment and abuse (It WAS unprovoked verbal abuse) but jail time is incongruent to what other people get for greater crimes. Suspended sentence, community service etc etc would have been more appropriate. It would have been an opinion if he had expressed she was X Y and Z for whatever reason he had, which while utterly dickish he is entitled to think. This is partially because i have unpopular opinions myself, though i wouldn't make a video of it/blog it. That is silly.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Not that i'm condoning what the kid done but isn't he allowed to say what he wants, freedom of speech and all

Not when he actively went out of his way to stalk the family. Normally you're right, but he sought out this trouble.

 

[Neaco]

went and found the article online... good stuff.

this guy also got an anti-social behavior order, legally banning him from all social networking sites and having to inform police if he has a phone with Internet access.

this is the sort of punishment we need to have for dick heads on the Internet. physical restriction of their digital access. of course finding these people will be difficult but the way I see it, the capabilities of a computer will eventually lead them to be registered to a person by law. Just like cars, guns, and social identity.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

People seem to be placing a lot of weight on it 'being on the internet therefore it's not 'real''.

Nowadays, if you send an e-mail, or post something on someone's personal site, or their personal social networking account, it's not so different to going to their house and posting it thru their door. They're going to see it, and you deliberately placed it there to make sure they'd see it. Saying 'they should have just not read it' is about as good a defence as me saying you owe me ten bucks for reading the first line I wrote.

As for Asperger's, I'd suggest that it could cause the kind of behaviour, as it's not so much right and wrong as not considering the effect on others. There's many dark and evil things many of us think but don't say, or only say in private moments with close friends who understand we're just joking in a sick way. However, I'm going to have to hope that the judge who ran the case asked the defendant's doctor and had the defence destroyed.

I do however think that after reading about the guy, living alone and spending most of his time getting drunk in his flat, society's already decided about him and his existence is punishing him already. Also, he's now been exposed and people know the sort of person he is.

As ever, people need it thoroughly beaten into them that things you do online ARE real, and CAN be traced back to you. If only more people did that there'd be about 99% less shittiness online. Hell, I'd probably have chosen a less offensive username for a start, tho all I meant by it is I've got a dark sense of humour and it's an early warning

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Not that i'm condoning what the kid done but isn't he allowed to say what he wants, freedom of speech and all

No. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship, that doesn't mean you can't be punished for what you say. Besides that, he doesn't fucking deserve to get away with it. Your freedom of speech allows you to express your opinion, but it does not allow you to abuse and tarnish the reputation and memories of anyone you like.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

Honestly my only real reaction to all of this is... why is the Westboro Baptsit Church allowed to go on in the states. This is EXACTLY the same thing.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

For the "freedom of speech" crowd:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress

And for the "thought crime" crowd:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

I still don't think he deserves a jail sentence, simply because I don't really see how it's going to help anything, and the bloody jails simply don't have room. I think he deserves a vicious beating, though, and I may be in a minority on that.

 

[Iron Mal]

Unless you're on Jeremy Kyle, of course.

Still:
If you're sending him to jail for that...what about the entirety of SomethingAwful, 4Chan, YouTube and, tbf, some of the Escapists?

And if there's one thing that's bound to "fix" a juvenile, especially one with a mental disadvantage, it's to lock them up with other criminals.

In his case it was probably a matter of it being easy to identify him as well as the fact that not all cases of trolling are equal.

To those who are raising the issue of what about those who make jokes about 9/11, that was a very widespread event that isn't unique or limited to just one person (in short, just like making statements about how America lost Vietnam or the Holocaust may be considered in bad taste but you're hardly going to cite that it's directly harassing anyone).

This was going after what for the family involved is a very personal and sensitive incident and turning it into a joke for the amusment of people who don't give a damn about the feelings or tragedies of others.

That isn't just showing bad taste, that's plainly being cruel and malicious for the sake of it.

I also have trouble believing that this outbreak of cold disregard for others was the result of Asperger's, as I said in my other post, myself and others have it and we don't do stuff like this (Asperger's tends to manifest itself as the absence of social skills, not an inability to tell right from wrong).

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Alright to the people commenting on this here and saying about free speech. Please for the love of God, GO LEARN LAW BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH ABOUT IT. There are limitations to what you can say at any given time and under various articles there are situations where you aren't allowed to open your mouth and say what you want to. When it causes harm to another person or is known to cause, then it is no longer protected under our rights as humans. It is like shouting fire in a crowded location or shark on a crowded beach; firstly, it isn't funny in any sense of the word and secondly you can cause damage to people. The reason the court systems found him guilty was because of his gross neglect of human emotion and the sensitivity that those who just lost someone feel. Do you have any idea those suffering from losing a loved one can slip into a suicide? What this troll just did was first off wrong morally and is wrong by the standards that government puts out; so yeah, I completely agree with his jail time and I think he should be made to tough out a year or two inside of four months, especially since the troll had no job in the first place. People think a little bit before you do shit like this, honestly why do you think grade school teachers would knock the hell out of you if you called someone a name?

I salute you with the force of a thousand fucking suns, as a Journalism student it makes me so glad to see someone who really understands freedom of speech around here, instead of just throwing it out as an all-purpose shield against consequences.

 

[Draconalis]

well, here in the US i dont think you could get arrested for that. Freedom of speech is a double edged sword without a doubt. It allows us to always to be free to express our opinion, but it also allows people to hate on eachother without consequence.

Again...

I don't disagree with you, but two points I feel must be made.

A) freedom of speech isn't international
and
B) your freedom of speech is null and void the moment it offends someone.

You have Rights up till and only when they don't infringe on the Rights of others.

B is the one you want to take note of

 

[Muffalopadus]

went and found the article online... good stuff.

this guy also got an anti-social behavior order, legally banning him from all social networking sites and having to inform police if he has a phone with Internet access.

this is the sort of punishment we need to have for dick heads on the Internet. physical restriction of their digital access. of course finding these people will be difficult but the way I see it, the capabilities of a computer will eventually lead them to be registered to a person by law. Just like cars, guns, and social identity.

...see, now we're getting into scary territory here.

On one hand, we want our rights. STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN! VIVA LA ETC!

Rights are good. Rights give the people power.

On the other hand, we don't want bad things to happen. Murder, rape, jerks on the internet are all bad things. We give up some of our freedom for the reasonable trade of security.

Can you seriously advocate banning someone from the internet? That seems a little crazy to me. That sounds WAY too much big brother to me. PLEASE SCAN YOUR IDENTITY BARCODE TO LOG IN. BEEP BOOP.

No thanks. I kind of agree that he should be on a social network warning list though. He should be closely monitored to make sure he doesn't screw up again, but I don't think its reasonable to permaban him.

/shrug

There probably are people out there who don't deserve the internet anymore. Just sayin.

 

[Comando96]

He tries to pin the blame on his Aspergers syndrome claiming he didn't know the effect he was causing on the victims family and friends.

I have Aspergers Syndrome... its not a fucking excuse. A horrible person is a horrible person >.>

 

[zehydra]

Perhaps in this new age of information, we'll start seeing more things like this happening.

"Malicious Communication" is rather vague, but I think it describes rather well why it shouldn't be tolerated by a society (although the implications of abuse are severe)

Malice is the one thing that countries should crack down on harder than anything else. That is, to hurt, destroy, kill, whatever for the sake of nothing other than pleasure.

At the same time, it's hard to make "hurting peoples feelings" illegal, and it shouldn't be made illegal. I feel like the incident of the trolling is not really what warrants the penalty, but the motive behind it. A desire to see others in pain for the hell of it is something that should not be tolerated (if acted upon).

 

[Raesvelg]

No such thing as freedom of speech in England. They got the watered-down version, I fear. Still.. I can see the merit, at times, to being able to punish people for unbelievable acts of asshattery.

 

[Weaver]

Eighteen weeks! Hot damn, is that an over-reaction.

It wasn't funny, but it sure as hell didn't warrant four months of hard time.

With respect, Dna... yeah... it kind of does. This sort of culture needs to be zapped dead in its tracks. (pun not intended) A culture, internet based, or real, based soley and exclusively off of the idea of being as absoultely nasty and unmitigatedly hateful as one can possibly make themselves be, should be eradicated as quickly and mercilessly as the culture itself attempts to be.

Sounds like you're describing the corporate business world.

 

[Muffalopadus]

Man, I hate it when you try to shoehorn yourself into a ongoing thread, but don't have the time to read everything up to the current post...then post something that has been addressed like 14 times already. I'm looking at you, freedom of speech issue.

Also, I'm suprised that people haven't pointed out the difference between sociopathy and someone with Asperger's.

Also, I'm interested in what WBC has to do with the thread. EXPLAIN!

 

[Jodah]

Its harassment. Even in the US that is a jailable offense. Below is the New York state Harassment laws. Directly quoted from the penal code of said state. I bolded the important part.

Spoiler

Section 240.25 Harassment in the first degree

A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person by following such person in or about a public place or places or by engaging in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury. This section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.

Harassment in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor.


Section 240.26 Harassment in the second degree

A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:

1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or

2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or

3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.

Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.

Harassment in the second degree is a violation.


Section 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:

1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or

2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or

3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or

4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.

Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.


Section 240.31 Aggravated harassment in the first degree.

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:

1. Damages premises primarily used for religious purposes, or acquired pursuant to section six of the religious corporation law and maintained for purposes of religious instruction, and the damage to the premises exceeds fifty dollars; or

2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree in the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 of this article and has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree for the commission of conduct proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 or he has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the first degree within the preceding ten years.

Aggravated harassment in the first degree is a class E felony.