Man arrested for trolling on Facebook

[sivlin]

While this guy is utter filth, I don't really see how his actions should constitute jail time. He was being horrible, but this is the internet - People are horrible. The families should not have made the tribute pages public on facebook. It is just asking for trash like this to happen.

The only action that should have been taken is having his ip banned by facebook.

 

[Deadlyveggie]

Calling a dead teen girl a 'spoilt little ****' is NOT MEANS FOR CONVICTION.

However nasty, it's freedom of speech.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Where are you getting this info from? It's not in the article the OP linked.

http://tinyurl.com/5tkb6w4

Calling a dead teen girl a 'spoilt little ****' is NOT MEANS FOR CONVICTION.

However nasty, it's freedom of speech.

Stating your opinion is freedom of speech. Going out of your way to harass the family members is not. If this illustrates anything it's that a truly astonishing number of people need to educate themselves on exactly what "Freedom of Speech" does and does not entail, because apparently a lot of you are laboring under the presumption it means "anything goes".

 

[catalyst8]

There's no freedom of speech in the UK. That's widely accepted.

By whom? Please substantiate your claim.

The Public Order Act, for one. If you think we have freedom of speech in this country, then you are seriously delusional.

Presumably when you say "The Public Order Act" you're referring to Section 4A of The Public Order Act 1986. This Act does indeed cover 'Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress', as well as 'Riot' & 'Violent disorder' & 'Affray' (Sections 1, 2 & 3 respectively). Any citizen is afforded constitutional protection from harassment, or undue alarm or distress, & it is any citizen's legal right to demand protection from such. Section 4A was initially introduced to provide protection from racial harassment, but it also extends to many other forms of malicious aggravation.

The freedom of speech does not give the freedom to harass or persecute others, & it never has done. Or are you suggesting that it's a citizen's right to persecute & harass another?

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Without even reading the article I can say .....

..... stuff. Yeah? And? Pretty much anyone here can post pictures of puppies without even reading the article.

And posting "she was a whore" is an opinion so it can't be slander.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander

slander
[slan-der]
noun
1.
defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3.
Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
verb (used with object)
4.
to utter slander against; defame.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel

libel
[lahy-buhl]
noun
1.
Law .
a.
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b.
the act or crime of publishing it.
c.
a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
verb (used with object)
3.
to publish a libel against.
4.
to misrepresent damagingly.
5.
to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamatory

defamatory
[dih-fam-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee]
adjective
containing defamation; injurious to reputation; slanderous or libelous: She claimed that the article in the magazine was defamatory.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamation

defamation
[def-uh-mey-shuhn]
noun
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny: She sued the magazine for defamation of character.

You appear to be wrong.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

I remain convinced that your statement, quoted above, is patently false.

-----​

Anti-gay preachers banned from UK [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm]

A father and daughter from a US church which preaches hatred of homosexuals have been banned from entering the UK.

Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) had urged protests against a play being put on in Hampshire.

The UK Border Agency said it opposed "extremism in all its forms".

A spokesman added: "Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities.

"We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

"The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs."

 

[Worr Monger]

I just find it funny that they pulled a troll out from his layer.... and he basically ended up looking like the type of person you would expect.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Bullshit. You make a claim it's your fucking job to back it up, trying to pretend it's my job is just being lazy. Now I've looked over some articles and none of them have said he went after the same family for years so I'm going to assume you're full of shit until You can back up what you say.

Yes, if we were in court, and not on an internet forum. I'm not required to do anything. Since you bring it up, though, I never said "he went after the same family for years". He went after numerous DIFFERENT families for years.

So what did he do to get charged? He specifically targeted the families of dead teenagers for over two years and and bombarded them with taunts, jibes, and gruesome pictures of their dead loved ones. He was given a caution for a similar offense back in 2009 and chose to ramp his activities up. So anyone curious about where the line on "trolololololol" is legally, you might want to stop short of systematically taunting and harassing the families of the deceased for YEARS after a court has already warned you to stop. There's your line. Oh noes, our freedoms!

See? Families. That's the plural of family! I can google up an English language dictionary for you as well if it will help with your reading comprehension.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

Trolling only really works when you're anonymous. This guy is both a poor excuse for a human being, but also a dumb one. I hope he rots.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well no but the burden of proof is still on you and not me, so if you do not want to source what you were saying that's you being lazy.

Well, no, again, "burden of proof" has no meaning in this context. We are not having a formal debate. I posted some information. If you want to believe it's not true, that's totally up to you, chum. I could care less.

 

[Dracowrath]

"He had admitted he was hooked on the sick craze of ?trolling? ? where internet users deliberately leave abusive and bullying comments on networking sites."
Um, trolling is a sick trend? No, it's often times simply harmless. There are aspects of it that are horribly disturbing, but that's true of most groups anyway.

"Trolling is an offence under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison."
Oh noes, jail tiem for trolling? Guess I shouldn't ever joke that Friday was a good song!

"Mr Duffy said his son left the messages because he wanted attention. ?He was getting a response and a reaction from doing it,? he said. ?He didn?t understand the far-reaching implications of what he was doing.?"
So now people with mental disorders who don't understand they're doing wrong are sent to regular prisons? Interesting.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So now people with mental disorders who don't understand they're doing wrong are sent to regular prisons? Interesting.

It's almost like they should have given him a warning, first, or something.

Duffy's lawyer Lance Whiteford said: "In terms of mitigation there is none. I cannot imagine the trauma and anxiety caused to the families of these horrible, despicable offences."

She said his condition meant he was not aware of the effect he was having on his victims.

Duffy had been cautioned for a similar offence in 2009 and Whiteford said he lived an isolated life and had himself been bullied at school and work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers

Almost forgot to attribute my goddam sources in case this post comes up for peer review.

 

[JasonKaotic]

That's not trolling man, that's just being a ****. Big difference.
I'm sure the guys in prison will treat him well...