Man arrested for trolling on Facebook

[minuialear]

I'm going by the American legal definition forgetting this was in the U.K. and in the U.S. stating an opinion can never be slander.

In this case, I'm not sure it is an opinion. Being a whore is something verifiable. Yes, the word is used in other contexts (having numerous or undesirable sexual partners etc.) but I'm not sure that meaning has enough cultural currency to say that was an opinion.

Actually I'd be willing to bet that IS the more common usage of the term (at least in the US), in which case it wouldn't be verifiable. The word is certainly, at the very least, ambiguous to the point where if you were to try and take someone to court because they said this to you, you'd lose. Whore can mean everything from being a prostitute to being a tease to sleeping with a lot of people, or it can just be a generic female slur (kind of like the b/c-word). There is no quota involved in how many people a girl has to sleep with to be a whore, nor is there a standardized scale that people can use to measure how much of a tease a girl's behavior "actually" is. And if the person you're taking to court meant it as #2, your lawyer can't just say "Welp, this dictionary that I've chosen for the sake of proving my point says that's not an official definition, so you lose." Because that's not how language works, and the judge will be cognicent of that. (And also because there are also dictionaries that do list some of the other commonly-used connotations as definitions, and the defendant could easily point to those to cancel out the claim.)

Not making a point about the article as a whole by pointing this out. Just saying.

 

[duncants]

Wtf? seriously he has been arrested for being a dick? I actually think the Natasha wasn't bullied, she was just a whore pretty funny, I lol'd.... a lot, should I go to jail as well?

Bottom line is, writing things does not harm anyone. Yes it probably made the family feel like shit and the guy is a huge ****, that is why he doesn't have any friends. Society has another way of punishing him. Pussies.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Ah, misread it then.

It's cool. But you know the way the internet goes. The next guy would be in here boggling that he got 18 years.

 

[Davichu]

Countless people write slanderous things on memorial pages to try and cause distress, this is the internet.

I wonder why this guy is being singled out.

the fact he's the son of a well established writer in the bbc would make him high profile enough to single out.

what i dont get is how the report then calls him a loner

"In one of the first cases of its kind, the autistic loner"

com'n your trying to say how bullying on the web is bad then pretty much go against it... fail

 

[Sovvolf]

But if you say something about an individual, no matter how big of a dickhead you are for doing that, I think the government shouldn't intervene. Sure he deserves to have his kneecaps broken, but not everything should be government regulated. That's just my unpopular opinion.

Okay, so I'm going to go to the news papers, police, every message board and forum and social networking site and tell them your a rapist. Tell them that you did horrid acts to little girls. Hey, I don't have any proof but who needs it hey? I imagine most won't care about proof anyway just happy to moan about how horrid a person you are.*

And I can do that freely under your logic. Screw that its a big fat lie, screw the fact that its libel and slander. I'm pretty sure that act will ruin your life regardless. Even if the papers retract it, most wont care (and it would probably be retracted somewhere in the back in small text). You still have people pointing fingers at you, being in utter disgust of you and I imagine some would even take it one step further.

That is one of the reasons we have such laws. Because otherwise I could just randomly start making stuff up about you and probably ruining your life. News papers could just print what ever they liked regardless of truth (though I don't know how that would be much different from how it is).

Do you see what I mean here.

*This is an extreme example and I'm not going to be going over the internet and the papers condemning you.

 

[DjinnFor]

*snip*

You're not addressing me with this question, but let me respond as if you are.

I'm assuming you're responding to the following sentence:

But if you say something about an individual, no matter how big of a dickhead you are for doing that, I think the government shouldn't intervene.

In your response, you state that:

You believe one should have the right to harass others without limitation...make their lives a living hell, if you so wish...so long as you're not inciting violence and discrimination?

This appears to me to suppose that:

1. Laws effectively solve the problem.
2. Nothing else effectively solves the problem.

Can you explain your reasoning behind these assumptions?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

This appears to me to suppose that:

1. Laws effectively solve the problem.
2. Nothing else effectively solves the problem.

Can you explain your reasoning behind these assumptions?

1. Laws effectively solved the problem in this case, as the source of the harassment has been detained in prison, and has been barred from internet use for 5 years. This has ended the harassment.
2. If alternative methods were employed to staunch the harassment, such as the warning Duffy received in 2009, they do not appear to have been effective in their goal as he continued unabated right up until the point of his arrest.

 

[Bento Box]

The difference between normal trolling and this was that he posted videos mocking a young girls death, linked/sent them to the family, posted them on group walls and generally broke the law.

Its slander and harassment. If he came up to the people in the street, or sent them to their houses, it would be exactly the same.

Freedom of Speech is a fallacy. Wherever you are, you have to take account for the results of what you say. It doesn't matter whether youre the WBC or this guy.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't go comparing him to WBC. You have the right to say anything you want with zero repercussions -- until you start impeding on someone ELSE'S rights through harassment. The WBC is allowed to spout their shit across the street from a funeral. They are not allowed to parade through the funeral. That is the analogy you should've drawn.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

But if you say something about an individual, no matter how big of a dickhead you are for doing that, I think the government shouldn't intervene. Sure he deserves to have his kneecaps broken, but not everything should be government regulated. That's just my unpopular opinion.

Okay, so I'm going to go to the news papers, police, every message board and forum and social networking site and tell them your a rapist. Tell them that you did horrid acts to little girls. Hey, I don't have any proof but who needs it hey? I imagine most won't care about proof anyway just happy to moan about how horrid a person you are.*

And I can do that freely under your logic. Screw that its a big fat lie, screw the fact that its libel and slander. I'm pretty sure that act will ruin your life regardless. Even if the papers retract it, most wont care (and it would probably be retracted somewhere in the back in small text). You still have people pointing fingers at you, being in utter disgust of you and I imagine some would even take it one step further.

That is one of the reasons we have such laws. Because otherwise I could just randomly start making stuff up about you and probably ruining your life. News papers could just print what ever they liked regardless of truth (though I don't know how that would be much different from how it is).

Do you see what I mean here.

*This is an extreme example and I'm not going to be going over the internet and the papers condemning you.

Well you see another part of the problem are the people who point fingers. That needs to change too. They love nothing more than to put themselves above the others and take the moral high ground. They want to feel morally superior to you. They are too a part of the problem I'm talking about. All that needs to change. Changing the judicial system is just a start. The whole damn society is diseased. Largely due to media sensationalism.

By the way, you can't condemn The Jensen!

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I have not pity for this troll, but he should not have been arrested.

However, I think banning trolls like him from social sites is the perfect punishment, and should be what you try for in court cases like this.

Let him get out of jail, but give him a few more years of being banned.

 

[RagTagBand]

If he has been jailed for posting Dark Jokes on a publically joinable facebook group, then this is horseshit and the justice system is ridiculously broken. "I'm offended" is not, and should not, be a matter for the courts. It's a matter for facebook and perhaps a -touch- of common sense to make the damn page private. Not-fucking-hard; This entire trend could be stopped immediately by doing just that.

Focusing on singling out the parents and specifically sending them things over years of time, however, is harassment and he should get punished for that. It's still funny, but Harassment should be a crime so the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[xsoenx]

seriously its reasons like this what you say shouldn't be allowed to offend someone who is mourning they have enough pain as it is. fuck free speech
*pulls up Flame sheild*

edit: also whats up with all net criminals using their aspergers as an excuse I don't do that stuff and I have it

im aspergers aswell, and i never use that as an excuse

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well you see another part of the problem are the people who point fingers. That needs to change too. They love nothing more than to put themselves above the others and take the moral high ground. They want to feel morally superior to you. They are too a part of the problem I'm talking about. All that needs to change. Changing the judicial system is just a start. The whole damn society is diseased. Largely due to media sensationalism.

I think I've got it now.

The problem isn't psychologically torturing the bereaved, it's the people who think we should be above that sort of behavior. And the reason WHY is media sensationalism. About terrorists. Is that...is that right?

 

[DjinnFor]

1. Laws effectively solved the problem in this case, as the source of the harassment has been detained in prison, and has been barred from internet use for 5 years. This has ended the harassment.

Are you saying that the specific instance of harassment is the problem that must be solved? Are you saying that the cause for his desire or need to harass is either not important or has been rectified? Finally, is 18 weeks in jail working toward or against solving whatever the problem is, and why do you think that is?

I would think the cause of his desire to harass other people would be important to understand, considering the fact that harassment can be done without access to the internet.

2. If alternative methods were employed to staunch the harassment, such as the warning Duffy received in 2009, they do not appear to have been effective in their goal as he continued unabated right up until the point of his arrest.

I'm not sure how that answers the question, "Nothing else effectively solves the problem". It answers the question, "Nothing that was tried solved the problem", yes, but that's a whole different discussion.

I'm wondering what made you conclude that there could not possibly be any other way to solve it, to identify whether or not it would be reasonable for me to introduce my own suggestions and also to understand why you hold the position you do.

I would like to know if, hypothetically, you would support tying someone up and throwing them in a cell for saying things you don't like if you can't think of any alternative for stopping them.

 

[Malyc]

Countless people write slanderous things on memorial pages to try and cause distress, this is the internet.

I wonder why this guy is being singled out.

Because he was good at it...

 

[AlphaEcho]

Believe it or not but anything on a US or Canadian server is regulated by the jolly 'ol FCC. They do not do much but occasionally they take action.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Are you saying that the specific instance of harassment is the problem that must be solved? Are you saying that the cause for his desire or need to harass is either not important or has been rectified? Finally, is 18 weeks in jail working toward or against solving whatever the problem is, and why do you think that is?

I would think the cause of his desire to harass other people would be important to understand, considering the fact that harassment can be done without access to the internet.

I'm suggesting that this specific incidence of harassment was A problem that needed to be solved, yes. It clearly wasn't getting any better with time. And I'm of the opinion that the grief one goes through when a loved one is lost is one of the most personally devastating and stressful events one can go through. A time when people are at their most vulnerable, and are deserving of a measure of societal concern and protection.

While I think finding out his reasons is important data, it seems like this was an ongoing concern with this gentleman for several years. It's possible that his reason was simply "he's an asshole". I leave it in the hands of the courts to decide this, as they have more information available about his activities, his level of remorse/understanding, and (hopefully) significantly less in the way of personal bias than you or I.

I'm not sure how that answers the question, "Nothing else effectively solves the problem". It answers the question, "Nothing that was tried solved the problem", yes, but that's a whole different discussion.

I'm wondering what made you conclude that there could not possibly be any other way to solve it, to identify whether or not it would be reasonable for me to introduce my own suggestions and also to understand why you hold the position you do.

I'm sure there are lots of other ways they could have addressed this problem. I've stated elsewhere I'm not necessarily a fan of prison time, because I'm not a fan of prisons in general and because I think there are more productive ways this guy could pay his debt to society. However, I'm SATISFIED with it as a solution to the problem, and I far prefer it to "no punishment at all".

 

[Interrobangin]

This is not a free speech issue, because Facebook is not a branch of the government.

 

[LiliumSnow]

That is just ... disgusting behaviour. I can't believe someone would actually do such a thing to someone that they never met. Honestly people ... >_<

 

[GameChanger]

I say let him rot in prison for a while. If this still falls under right of free speach, than society has failed. This is bullying, and bullying IS a crime.