Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[JDKJ]

I'm sorry, but I just can't really feel any sympathy for the guy. Sure, it's an overreaction on the part of the police, but if some asshole wants to go off and horribly offend grieving families on the internet, four months in prison won't hurt him. I'm well aware that the First Amendment and whatever its UK equivalent is give you the right to say whatever you want, but I don't mind looking the other way if someone is reprimanded for being an utter douchebag. Over here in the US, if the police finally get sick of Westboro's bullshit and put them away for a few weeks, I won't complain.

Aren't you a little concerned that something you may do, for example posting to the Escapist, will be the next thing that the police get sick of and they put you away for a few weeks? And your defense of "but I wasn't being a douche bag" won't cut the muster, not if you've left it to the police's judgment to determine who is and isn't a douche bag and they, for whatever reasons -- good, bad, or none -- have determined that you're their next douche bag. If it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander.

 

[SgtWinkles]

I can't stand the excuse "free speech" when defending trolls. Free speech was brought about so so people could express their opinions or dissatisfaction with something without fear of being silenced or punished by the government or authorities. Free speech wasn't intended for dicks to terrorize grieving families. Still I don't think it's right to punish someone when they're not "technically" threatening the family. While I have zero sympathy for the guy and I think he deserves to be put in jail I still don't think it was right of the authorities to do so. Punishing internet trolls like that is a slippery slope. However if the authorities already asked him to stop and he kept doing it anyway then the police are well within their right to hall him off.

 

[tsb247]

This really isn't a free speech issue. This wasn't a guy trying to tell you his religious beliefs are correct or saying how are going to be the end of the world.

He speech was meant to delibrately hurt a grieving family for only his personal amusement.

This wasn't a guy talking about how Halo or Half-Life sucks and how we are all dumb for enjoying it.

When you tell a grieving family on the internet that you had sex with their kids corpse, and the only reason you are doing it is because you think you're anonymous and it gives you LOL's. There's a line there, it's blurry and wavy mind you. I think this guy crossed that line.

I think the punishment is a bit over the top. 18 weeks in jail is a lot. I would have preferred a fine and community service. Granted if this guy was that big of a douche then maybe he deserved what he got.

It very much is a free speech issue. As horrifying as his behavior was, he does have the right to say it.

It's no different that Fred Phelps and Westborough Baptist. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them around, and very few people agree with them, but they do the same thing (or something similar), and they are protected by their right to free speech. However, it is apparent that England has some ridiculous laws that were introduced in the Communications Act of 2003.

What should have happened, is that he should have suffered a civil suit. The family could sue in civil court and win a LOT. Well, in the U.S. anyway...

It's the internet. People should be able to say what they want; not matter how offensive. Everyone else has the right to not agree.

Trolling is idiotic and stupid, but it is not, nor should it be, a criminal offense.

I don't approve of what this guy did, but I don't think he deserves jail time. He deserves to pay a HEFTY fine and have his act highly publicized (moreso than it is).

 

[Necrofudge]

There are so many questions here... Why would he have sent the pictures to his neighbors... Why would they have called the police...

Maybe the neighbors didn't know what a troll was.
Maybe they thought that he was a large monster living under a bridge

 

[Yokai]

I'm sorry, but I just can't really feel any sympathy for the guy. Sure, it's an overreaction on the part of the police, but if some asshole wants to go off and horribly offend grieving families on the internet, four months in prison won't hurt him. I'm well aware that the First Amendment and whatever its UK equivalent is give you the right to say whatever you want, but I don't mind looking the other way if someone is reprimanded for being an utter douchebag. Over here in the US, if the police finally get sick of Westboro's bullshit and put them away for a few weeks, I won't complain.

Aren't you a little concerned that something you may do, for example posting to the Escapist, will be the next thing that the police get sick of and they put you away for a few weeks? And your defense of "but I wasn't being a douche bag" won't cut the muster, not if you've left it to the police's judgment to determine who is and isn't a douche bag and they, for whatever reasons -- good, bad, or none -- have determined that you're their next douche bag. If it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander.

It's a fair point you make. You're right--I don't think of myself as someone who says things to offend people, and I wouldn't want to do jail time because the police thought differently. However, I don't think the police should have the right to arrest anyone who ticks them off. I don't think any laws should be changed, either.

But on the off-chance that they do, and their target is someone who is an asshole by any sane standards of decency, I'm not going to go out and picket for their release. They might not be respecting the first amendment, but the guy they jailed doesn't really deserve any sympathy. It's a pretty minor sentence; it won't scar him for life. It might, however, make him think twice before he goes and insults a bunch of people for his own amusement.

It's merely my personal opinion. I would not support his release on the grounds of free speech rights, because some things just don't need to be said, period. I'm not trying to convince anyone else that my way is better. I don't want to give the police the ability to retaliate against anyone who makes them angry. But in a case like this, where the arrested man insulted grieving families just for the hell of it and was given a minor sentence, the police did not do anything morally wrong, the way I see it.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm sorry, but I just can't really feel any sympathy for the guy. Sure, it's an overreaction on the part of the police, but if some asshole wants to go off and horribly offend grieving families on the internet, four months in prison won't hurt him. I'm well aware that the First Amendment and whatever its UK equivalent is give you the right to say whatever you want, but I don't mind looking the other way if someone is reprimanded for being an utter douchebag. Over here in the US, if the police finally get sick of Westboro's bullshit and put them away for a few weeks, I won't complain.

Aren't you a little concerned that something you may do, for example posting to the Escapist, will be the next thing that the police get sick of and they put you away for a few weeks? And your defense of "but I wasn't being a douche bag" won't cut the muster, not if you've left it to the police's judgment to determine who is and isn't a douche bag and they, for whatever reasons -- good, bad, or none -- have determined that you're their next douche bag. If it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander.

It's a fair point you make. You're right--I don't think of myself as someone who says things to offend people, and I wouldn't want to do jail time because the police thought differently. However, I don't think the police should have the right to arrest anyone who ticks them off. I don't think any laws should be changed, either.

But on the off-chance that they do, and their target is someone who is an asshole by any sane standards of decency, I'm not going to go out and picket for their release. They might not be respecting the first amendment, but the guy they jailed doesn't really deserve any sympathy. It's a pretty minor sentence; it won't scar him for life. It might, however, make him think twice before he goes and insults a bunch of people for his own amusement.

It's merely my personal opinion. I would not support his release on the grounds of free speech rights, because some things just don't need to be said, period. I'm not trying to convince anyone else that my way is better. I don't want to give the police the ability to retaliate against anyone who makes them angry. But in a case like this, where the arrested man insulted grieving families just for the hell of it and was given a minor sentence, the police did not do anything morally wrong, the way I see it.

Fair enough. Your position is not entirely without basis or merit. However, I will caution that to not "picket for the release" of the person who has fallen victim to some capricious and arbitrary determination under the government's police powers is to also do nothing to ensure that you're not their next victim. But that is your right (the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedom not to speak) and I will respect that right.

 

[Robert0288]

All hail the nanny-state of the United kingdom, where the people will be thrown in jail to be protected from themselves. The sale of stake knives is banned to anyone under 19 etc...

This country has literally castrated itself from the inside out. The people who fought and died for their freedom through out history are collectively spinning in their grave. From the country which brought in the Magna Carta, and challenged the authority for their own freedom, to getting thrown in jail for annoying people.

A once proud country.... no longer.

 

[JWAN]

Good, there is a difference between freedom of speech and harassment.

all we need is this to happen in Iceland for a certain special person I know...

 

[VondeVon]

I think the UK have the right of it. They didn't arrest him for trolling so much as malicious communication (poison pen? Is that what it used to be called?) and it was his trolling stupidity/need for recognition that allowed him to be identified.

And I don't think it's weird that the neighbors reported him to the police at all - if some dude down the road from me sent ME a picture of himself, identifying himself as an internet troll or otherwise, I'd be freaked out.

 

[MrGalactus]

Then again, I don't think the U.K> constitution gives free speech and such... Since it's under a monarchy. So it's probably whatever the king or queen decides.

Facepalm

 

[NikkiChii]

He deserved it, I know i'd want something to be done if some guy said he wanted to have sex with my dead son's body -.-

 

[NikkiChii]

He deserved it, I know i'd want something to be done if some guy said he wanted to have sex with my dead son's body -.-

Then again, I don't think the U.K> constitution gives free speech and such... Since it's under a monarchy. So it's probably whatever the king or queen decides.

Oh lord.

 

[illas]

Freedom of speech is a misunderstood concept. You can say whatever you like, but should your words have direct consequences you are legally responsible for those consequences. This is true in the USA, too.

In the the UK we have identified certain areas as being almost indefensible; for example, incidents of "inciting racial hatred" or "intentional endangerment of others" receive no freedom of speech protection whatsoever. The US has a similar policy: the first amendment directly states that there is no protection for "obscene material", for example.

Serendipitously, the US Supreme Court is about to rule on whether videogames deserve first amendment (free speech) protection or whether, as a potentially dangerous medium, they need controlling. (see Extra Credits' "Free Speech" episode)

In short, 100% free speech is impossible and undesirable. Civilizations and societies are only as good as the things they allow, but also only as good as the things they disallow. Total freedom would only work if all humans were perfect, and given that evolution tends to favor selfish jerks... that's unlikely.

*Claps Wildly* FINALLY!!! *Sobs* Finally somebody gets it!!!

Thank you, sorry it took so long

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I was goign to say something buts its the UK....sucks for you,say heil! to your masters for me, we getting ours put in in a few decades..

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Freedom of speech is a misunderstood concept. You can say whatever you like, but should your words have direct consequences you are legally responsible for those consequences. This is true in the USA, too.

In the the UK we have identified certain areas as being almost indefensible; for example, incidents of "inciting racial hatred" or "intentional endangerment of others" receive no freedom of speech protection whatsoever. The US has a similar policy: the first amendment directly states that there is no protection for "obscene material", for example.

Serendipitously, the US Supreme Court is about to rule on whether videogames deserve first amendment (free speech) protection or whether, as a potentially dangerous medium, they need controlling. (see Extra Credits' "Free Speech" episode)

In short, 100% free speech is impossible and undesirable. Civilizations and societies are only as good as the things they allow, but also only as good as the things they disallow. Total freedom would only work if all humans were perfect, and given that evolution tends to favor selfish jerks... that's unlikely.

You can easily have 99.99% free speech unless it causes direct harm, if it dose not cause direct harm it should not be blocked because society is to childish and over sensitive to get over it... the UK is merely heading in the age old direction of an authoritarian state, the US is a decade or 2 behind you its something modern society(or really any democratic government) falls to if corruption in government is not treated as treason(IE lobbying pre,post and during office).

 

[illas]

Freedom of speech is a misunderstood concept. You can say whatever you like, but should your words have direct consequences you are legally responsible for those consequences. This is true in the USA, too.

In the the UK we have identified certain areas as being almost indefensible; for example, incidents of "inciting racial hatred" or "intentional endangerment of others" receive no freedom of speech protection whatsoever. The US has a similar policy: the first amendment directly states that there is no protection for "obscene material", for example.

Serendipitously, the US Supreme Court is about to rule on whether videogames deserve first amendment (free speech) protection or whether, as a potentially dangerous medium, they need controlling. (see Extra Credits' "Free Speech" episode)

In short, 100% free speech is impossible and undesirable. Civilizations and societies are only as good as the things they allow, but also only as good as the things they disallow. Total freedom would only work if all humans were perfect, and given that evolution tends to favor selfish jerks... that's unlikely.

You can easily have 99.99% free speech unless it causes direct harm, if it dose not cause direct harm it should not be blocked because society is to childish and over sensitive to get over it... the UK is merely heading in the age old direction of an authoritarian state, the US is a decade or 2 behind you its something modern society(or really any democratic government) falls to if corruption in government is not treated as treason(IE lobbying pre,post and during office).

I agree with you re: governments making self-serving laws/judgements, but I would suggest that although "99.99% free speech unless it causes direct harm" is easily possible it isn't desirable.

As I mentioned in my OP, people aren't perfect, and while allowing everyone to express their imperfection is important; so is limiting the negative consequences of that imperfection/experimentation. The old JS Mill principle of "let everyone of sound judgement do whatever they want with their lives as long as they don't directly harm others'" needs updating, IMO. Emotional/mental harm are just as significant as physical harm even if they're more difficult to quantify and/or qualify.

In the case of the guy mentioned in this article, his self-expression was directly and intentionally (by his own admission) motivated by a desire to cause emotional pain to others. An artist challenging people's expectations and standards of decency as a result of expressing themselves is one thing; a man or woman having a similar effect with said effect being the intention all along... very much a different case, to me.

Furthermore, one has to *choose* to see the artist's work (in the main), whereas here the guy was *forcing* his work(?!) on them.

 

[luckycharms8282]

He kinda deserves a few days in jail. What an awful person.

 

[Monshroud]

This really isn't a free speech issue. This wasn't a guy trying to tell you his religious beliefs are correct or saying how are going to be the end of the world.

He speech was meant to delibrately hurt a grieving family for only his personal amusement.

This wasn't a guy talking about how Halo or Half-Life sucks and how we are all dumb for enjoying it.

When you tell a grieving family on the internet that you had sex with their kids corpse, and the only reason you are doing it is because you think you're anonymous and it gives you LOL's. There's a line there, it's blurry and wavy mind you. I think this guy crossed that line.

I think the punishment is a bit over the top. 18 weeks in jail is a lot. I would have preferred a fine and community service. Granted if this guy was that big of a douche then maybe he deserved what he got.

It very much is a free speech issue. As horrifying as his behavior was, he does have the right to say it.

It's no different that Fred Phelps and Westborough Baptist. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them around, and very few people agree with them, but they do the same thing (or something similar), and they are protected by their right to free speech. However, it is apparent that England has some ridiculous laws that were introduced in the Communications Act of 2003.

What should have happened, is that he should have suffered a civil suit. The family could sue in civil court and win a LOT. Well, in the U.S. anyway...

It's the internet. People should be able to say what they want; not matter how offensive. Everyone else has the right to not agree.

Trolling is idiotic and stupid, but it is not, nor should it be, a criminal offense.

I don't approve of what this guy did, but I don't think he deserves jail time. He deserves to pay a HEFTY fine and have his act highly publicized (moreso than it is).

I disagree with you on this on the basis of how this individual acted. Had he posted what he said on his own blog or a general internet chat forum then I would agree that he has protected free speech. What he did was go to a very specific forum where he found or knew these people to be and wrote what he wrote with the intention to harass, abuse and or harm the family. That shows a malicious intent that could be taken as an attack.

The U.S. supreme court has ruled that not all speech is acceptable. For instance and while I understand this isn't a perfect example, you can't walk into a movie theatre and yell "Fire!" because doing so could cause a panic and personal and property damages as a result.

As I stated previously I don't agree with the guy being thrown in jail for what he did, and I also think the courts tred on a very blurry line. In this case, I think they did the right thing.

 

[theevilsanta]

Not going to read all 700 posts but my feelings are:

1. I have no problems with the neighbors ratting him out, I'd do the same thing and probably invite him over for lunch. We'd have some lemonade and a knuckle sandwich.

2. I don't think he should go to jail. This man was a total prick, but he didn't harm anyone. If we consider emotional harm a crime, even if it's intentional and malicious, then we are walking down a dark road. This kind of trolling should never be illegal, just greatly frowned upon by free citizens.

 

[theevilsanta]

This really isn't a free speech issue. This wasn't a guy trying to tell you his religious beliefs are correct or saying how are going to be the end of the world.

He speech was meant to delibrately hurt a grieving family for only his personal amusement.

This wasn't a guy talking about how Halo or Half-Life sucks and how we are all dumb for enjoying it.

When you tell a grieving family on the internet that you had sex with their kids corpse, and the only reason you are doing it is because you think you're anonymous and it gives you LOL's. There's a line there, it's blurry and wavy mind you. I think this guy crossed that line.

I think the punishment is a bit over the top. 18 weeks in jail is a lot. I would have preferred a fine and community service. Granted if this guy was that big of a douche then maybe he deserved what he got.

It very much is a free speech issue. As horrifying as his behavior was, he does have the right to say it.

It's no different that Fred Phelps and Westborough Baptist. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them around, and very few people agree with them, but they do the same thing (or something similar), and they are protected by their right to free speech. However, it is apparent that England has some ridiculous laws that were introduced in the Communications Act of 2003.

What should have happened, is that he should have suffered a civil suit. The family could sue in civil court and win a LOT. Well, in the U.S. anyway...

It's the internet. People should be able to say what they want; not matter how offensive. Everyone else has the right to not agree.

Trolling is idiotic and stupid, but it is not, nor should it be, a criminal offense.

I don't approve of what this guy did, but I don't think he deserves jail time. He deserves to pay a HEFTY fine and have his act highly publicized (moreso than it is).

I disagree with you on this on the basis of how this individual acted. Had he posted what he said on his own blog or a general internet chat forum then I would agree that he has protected free speech. What he did was go to a very specific forum where he found or knew these people to be and wrote what he wrote with the intention to harass, abuse and or harm the family. That shows a malicious intent that could be taken as an attack.

The U.S. supreme court has ruled that not all speech is acceptable. For instance and while I understand this isn't a perfect example, you can't walk into a movie theatre and yell "Fire!" because doing so could cause a panic and personal and property damages as a result.

As I stated previously I don't agree with the guy being thrown in jail for what he did, and I also think the courts tred on a very blurry line. In this case, I think they did the right thing.

The government represents men with guns. The moment the government sends its men with guns to arrest someone for posting some words online is the moment information and thought control has begun.