Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on September 13, 2011, 08:41:02 am
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14894576
Man jailed for 18 weeks and banned from Social Networking sites for 5 years for trolling on memorials to dead people.
In two minds about this, part of me thinks it's pointless, another part of me thinks it's deserved. Whilst I'm all for Internet anonymity, I do feel that right has been abused far more often than it has proved useful. Of course, that doesn't mean it should be removed, but it does help to prove the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory.
-
given the nature of what the article lists him posting then a custodial sentence was warranted, I know the article calls it trolling but this goes beyond that, the material posted risked and was probably intended to cause emotional distress amongst those who knew the people in question.
to be honest on anonymity, it is not a right in my opinion, it has been a fact of the internet for so long now that many users have got to the stage of believing something that has been a consequence of the volume of users on the internet as a right when it has never been written anywhere that it is and I for one have never operated under the assumption that I am anonymous, least of all to government services.
-
trolls are clearly social rejects and therefore should be isolated from society, or perhaps impaled.
-
Is it wrong that I laughed as to why she died? (Natasha, not the others and no this isn't a trolling comment. I just don't understand bullying as a reason to off yourself)
As for the troll, he does actually look like a troll. On the note of anonymity, it's for cowards. If you can't admit to others that you are who you are, and will still make these comments, you're just a coward hiding behind a screen. It's far too easy to type something down here, than it is going up to people and giving indecent remarks.
@Nuke: He looks like he'd impale you. With words. On a facebook page. Look at his facial expression
-
Is it wrong that I laughed as to why she died? (Natasha, not the others and no this isn't a trolling comment. I just don't understand bullying as a reason to off yourself)
. . . because if you have someone tell you you're worthless day after day, and you have no proof to the contrary, you start to believe it?
-
he doesn't need a prison sentence, he needs a beating.
-
Is it wrong that I laughed as to why she died? (Natasha, not the others and no this isn't a trolling comment. I just don't understand bullying as a reason to off yourself)
. . . because if you have someone tell you you're worthless day after day, and you have no proof to the contrary, you start to believe it?
Considering how "wired" our society is nowadays its probably even worse now then it was when the internet was a relatively small community. I'd imagine all the social networking and various bull**** really opens up quite a few avenues for terrorizing someone that otherwise would have been centered pretty much at school.
Everyone has different tolerances for what they can endure, and most kids don't really appreciate the wider scope of life and how insignificant some things really are when measured against it. If they're constantly being ostracized at school and via the web I can appreciate that it could turn into a pretty dark tunnel without much hope to escape.
-
Solution to cyberbullying: Privatize your stuff, and remove the people assaulting you (block works too. If I recall there is that option). Common sense. Why would you subjugate yourself to it when there is that option to get rid of it? Don't post your number for all to see, nor any other form of communication. Don't add people you don't know, or vaguely know.
Common sense isn't so common anymore
As for having it done at school, aren't there people to talk to about these things? Right, forgot, people don't take action anymore.
This is why I can't wrap my head around it. There are all these solutions that are as simple as clicking a button, but are never even used! This guy can't really troll if he has no access to peoples profiles now can he?
@Mars: I suppose that is true
-
As disgusting as what he said is, the general concept of giving someone a jail sentence just for saying something offensive online really rubs me the wrong way. I mean, when I think about the "God hates fags" scumbags being considered "protected speech" over here, I don't see how this would be any different category-wise.
...but on the other hand, the schadenfreude part of me loves seeing an asshole troll facing actual consequences for being a douchebag.
-
Like I said the postings were highly likely and possibly intended to cause emotional distress to the friends and relatives of the dead people and that is where the line was crossed. It is one thing just to be an arse and piss people off, but to target people while they are most vulnerable in a manner that exploits that vulnerability to the maximum is disgusting and why there are laws against it here.
-
meh, when I knew nothing but ridicule and intimidation through my formative years all I did was become massively anti-social and developed a deep hateful resentment for everyone else.
-
As disgusting as what he said is, the general concept of giving someone a jail sentence just for saying something offensive online really rubs me the wrong way. I mean, when I think about the "God hates fags" scumbags being considered "protected speech" over here, I don't see how this would be any different category-wise.
...but on the other hand, the schadenfreude part of me loves seeing an asshole troll facing actual consequences for being a douchebag.
That's pretty much the first thought that went through my mind, the fact that the WBC would be arrested in the UK for doing what they do is something I'm pleased about, but fully aware of (and agree with) the reasons why I shouldn't be, there's a certain vindication in seeing obnoxious people getting their arses kicked I suppose.
-
that's where I think angry mobs fill in, when what works most of the time for most people fails for a few, sometimes you just have to fix **** by hand and say to hell with ideals this thing right here is broken.
-
given the nature of what the article lists him posting then a custodial sentence was warranted, I know the article calls it trolling but this goes beyond that, the material posted risked and was probably intended to cause emotional distress amongst those who knew the people in question.
What he posted is lesser than what you'd get from a troll-heavy thread on a major forum or imageboard; seems almost amateurish. Shall we now lock up the readership of Something Awful or those who visit 4chan? Either you read a very different article or it's been changed.
I can see an argument for a civil action but I see no reasonable way you could argue for a jail term. This is simply not enough to blip the radar for even hate speech in comparison; it even seems as if the family was a catspaw for organizations seeking greater threats to use in their quest against bullying, and the case was chosen on a man whose actions were minor but who was of dubious ability to defend himself or assist in his legal defense.
-
given the nature of what the article lists him posting then a custodial sentence was warranted, I know the article calls it trolling but this goes beyond that, the material posted risked and was probably intended to cause emotional distress amongst those who knew the people in question.
What he posted is lesser than what you'd get from a troll-heavy thread on a major forum or imageboard; seems almost amateurish. Shall we now lock up the readership of Something Awful or those who visit 4chan? Either you read a very different article or it's been changed.
I can see an argument for a civil action but I see no reasonable way you could argue for a jail term. This is simply not enough to blip the radar for even hate speech in comparison; it even seems as if the family was a catspaw for organizations seeking greater threats to use in their quest against bullying, and the case was chosen on a man whose actions were minor but who was of dubious ability to defend himself or assist in his legal defense.
like i said in my later post, it is one thing to be an arse hole who needs a wakeup call on what real life is about and quite another to target people while they are at their most vulnerable in a manner that targets that vulnerability and that is where in my opinion the line was crossed.
-
IMHO, this was an approbate response. There are borders which are not to be crossed. This guy crossed one of them and got what he deserved.
Too much freedom (including, but not limited to freedom of speech) very frequently leads to people abusing it. This usually ends badly (too much democracy can even lead to a downfall of the whole country). Sometimes, people need to be reminded that they can do as they want, but only as long as this doesn't harm other people around them. If they hurt other people, they deserve punishment, which needs to be harsh, otherwise it'd be ineffective. As long as there's a balance between freedom and control, it's fine. Also, the dumber people are, the control has to be stricter. Ideally, the more intelligent one is, the more freedom he would have. Unfortunately, this would never work in real world (though IMHO, it'd be a quick patch to utopia if it did). For me, trolling is the height of stupidity (being completely pointless and serving only to hurt people), and thus, trolls should have their freedom limited.
-
Well what he did can be considered harassment at the very least which is a chargeable offense.
-
Lets try this...
I have two children a boy and a girl.
If I hear the boy say something nasty to his sister as one of the two parents and thus an authority figure in the house it is expected that I get involved, calm the situation down, find out what happened and dish out punishments as needed, usually an appropriate amount of time on the naughty step, why? because the boy has acted in a hurtful manner towards his sister and he needs to be reminded in a way that matters that he cant do that.
now fast forward so they are both 18
the boy sends a message to someone which is nasty and hurtful, as he is an adult I am not responsible for his actions and probably know nothing about the situation so the authority figures in this are the police and the courts should the recipient make a complaint. Cause is found under under UK law for a criminal trial for what ever reason and the situation goes to court, the boy is found guilty and made to spend a few months in prison, and we all hope the boy learns his lesson.
Now because free speech is enshrined in US law it makes a criminal prosecution a lot trickier so the wronged person takes a civil case for emotional distress and pockets a tidy sum. now going back 18 years this would be the equivalent of the girl taking the boy's pocket money and I think most of us know how that ends, the minimum being that the boy is pissed off at the girl for being unfair and will often end up in them coming to blows.
The moral is that punishment needs to be doled out by the appropriate authority persons to ensure that justice is done. is it perfect, no, but it's a damn sight better than the alternatives.
-
like i said in my later post, it is one thing to be an arse hole who needs a wakeup call on what real life is about and quite another to target people while they are at their most vulnerable in a manner that targets that vulnerability and that is where in my opinion the line was crossed.
Arbitrary distinction without practical meaning; you believe the people I cited will not kick you when you are down? (For that matter your assertion about wakeup calls on real life is pretty difficult to sustain too.)
This is some kind of bizarre reverse No True Scotsman going on here.
Your other argument is equally ridiculous because it asserts jail time somehow does not offend as much or more than monetary settlements. It also ignores the fact that jail time has a demonstrable negative effect on peoples' emotional growth and ability to feel empathy.
-
The difference is the the financial claim the aggrieved is asking the court to assess the case and dole out punishment in a way that benefits themselves, in the legal claim they are asking the legal system to assess the case and dole out punishment for corrective purposes.
As with the situation with the children the person causing the situation will be hacked off at the aggrieved either way but they have time to cool down, so less likely to do anything rash, again there is still the chance, because some people are vindictive like that but it removes the opportunity to do anything spur of the moment and gives them time to think of something else to do instead.
-
Okay let me put this in the simplest terms possible.
Jail makes people worse. It is literally impossible to improve someone solely by sending them to jail, and the opposite is highly likely. This is why sending people to jail for an issue like this does not and cannot work. You will merely harden them in their errors.
-
Or *****slap them like their mother would
-
Nothing inspires civil obedience like a good, stiff caning.
-
Jail makes people worse. It is literally impossible to improve someone solely by sending them to jail, and the opposite is highly likely. This is why sending people to jail for an issue like this does not and cannot work. You will merely harden them in their errors.
Of course, I'd prefer him to be forced to pay a very large sum to those he harassed (not to the government), leading to a severe decrease in the quality of his life (it has to be harsh, so he won't be able to just brush it off), as well as limiting the rights he tried to abuse. If one does not know how to use the rights he's given, they should be taken away from him, in a simple cause-and-effect way. In fact, I find this system to be (in theory) quite just and effective. You steal, you have some of your belongings taken away (in proportion to value of what you stolen), you troll, you have your freedom of speech limited, you destroy public property, you're forced to do some work for public, you imprison somebody, you end up in jail. You murder somebody, you are condemned to death as well (ideally, in the same way the victim was killed). There are a few places where I can see this failing, like sexual offenses, because simple eye-for-eye method becomes seriously disturbing, relatively minor things like breaching noise regulations or driving offenses (though for these, measures we have now should be enough) and complicated cases in which it's difficult to point out a single crime (like cases of large gangs). Though in the latter case, people involved in such complicated crime are usually not simple, dumb bandits, who can understand a more complicated method of issuing a punishment. But for simple and dumb people, punishment needs to be simple and straightforward.
-
I think it's more about the lack or loss of morals, rules, as sometimes bad behavior is even taught to children through some children TV series and movies (sometimes games) and/or lack of education because both parents work, etc, rather than the internet itself. Still, in my opinion, you have to defend the freedom of speech of even the worst douchebag or idiot, because if you limit or remove his free speech, yours will be too. Preferrably educate the persons (teaching discipline does a lot) in question rather than jailing them.
-
If one does not know how to use the rights he's given, they should be taken away from him, in a simple cause-and-effect way.
Apparently the concept of "unalienable rights" didn't catch on everywhere.
-
Am I the only one who noticed that this man had Aspergers Syndrome. That is somewhere on the Autistic Spectrum. I'm not condoning what he posted, but he is disabled.....
As the article quotes
"Lance Whiteford, mitigating, said Duffy had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome at an early age and one of the characteristics was an inability to judge the reaction of others."
I think the jail sentence was a bit harsh, community service and some work with a mental health/counselling team would have sufficed.
-
I must admit that I had missed that one Wobble, thanks for pointing it out. In that case with luck his sentence will be carried out in a secure hospital as I don't think a prison will be able to cope with his needs and a secure hospital will be better able to help him understand what he did and why he cant do it. I also hope there is a review for his care provision as a result of this because for this to happen I suspect there is a deficiency somewhere along the line for this to happen.
-
If one does not know how to use the rights he's given, they should be taken away from him, in a simple cause-and-effect way.
Apparently the concept of "unalienable rights" didn't catch on everywhere.
Don't you think that if one denies any of these "unalienable rights" to other people (by violating them, for instance), then he does not deserve these rights to be applied to himself? That's pure hypocrisy, to deny certain rights to another person (regardless of what they are), then hide behind the same rights. The only truly unalienable right should be, IMHO, the right to be judged objectively and justly, according to clear law and easily understood rules.
-
Am I the only one who noticed that this man had Aspergers Syndrome. That is somewhere on the Autistic Spectrum. I'm not condoning what he posted, but he is disabled.....
As the article quotes
"Lance Whiteford, mitigating, said Duffy had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome at an early age and one of the characteristics was an inability to judge the reaction of others."
I think the jail sentence was a bit harsh, community service and some work with a mental health/counselling team would have sufficed.
My only concern about that is that (though I agree the jail sentence is harsh and the ban is probably unenforcable) he did manage to know how to judge the feelings of others when it came to making comments that were designed to hurt their feelings. In other words, if he is capable of creating comments that are designed to hurt somebody, then he must be able to judge that this is what these comments will do.
-
Yep, he was able to craft posts designed to upset people. Pretty hard to then claim he didn't understand they'd upset people.
-
Am I the only one who noticed that this man had Aspergers Syndrome. That is somewhere on the Autistic Spectrum. I'm not condoning what he posted, but he is disabled.....
As the article quotes
"Lance Whiteford, mitigating, said Duffy had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome at an early age and one of the characteristics was an inability to judge the reaction of others."
I think the jail sentence was a bit harsh, community service and some work with a mental health/counselling team would have sufficed.
My only concern about that is that (though I agree the jail sentence is harsh and the ban is probably unenforcable) he did manage to know how to judge the feelings of others when it came to making comments that were designed to hurt their feelings. In other words, if he is capable of creating comments that are designed to hurt somebody, then he must be able to judge that this is what these comments will do.
difficult to prove that the comments were designed to hurt. One of the defining characteristics of all portions of the Autistic spectrum is the persons inability to perceive other peoples emotions, you can explain emotion to them and the best you get is them understanding their own emotions, its like a person with a stroke not being able to use one side of their body, at best logically they know it's there but they just cant rap their heads around the idea.
If the Autistic person is used to the idea of trolling being a thing they can do (rightly or wrongly), they can't separate calling someone a slut across a chat room and calling someone a slut on their memorial page it is all the same to them there is no emotional boundary because emotion does not equate into their lives.
-
But why a person without understanding of emotions would troll at all? While I don't understand emotions too well and I'm a rather cold, restrained person, my actions are driven by logic and reason. Doing something that serves only to alienate people is illogical, as it brings no benefits and makes people less likely to be helpful later. While I have little empathy, living well with other people is a very good idea. Scratching somebody's back costs nothing and that person could also scratch my back when need it, perhaps when my arms will be occupied. I live by rules created by logical thinking, and it works. I see no reason (besides emotions and stupidity) why every person isn't doing the same. World would be so much better if everybody stopped to think. Unfortunately, it seems that simple, plain stupidity is the answer to why this guy did this, but it is also the answer why we have so many incompetent leaders and why freakin' countries start to bankrupt. Troll the wrong person and you end up in jail. Troll the right one and you end up in charge of the Ministry of Justice. In fact, the longer I live on this world, the more certain I am that all problems are fundamentally caused by human stupidity, and the fact there are more stupid people than intelligent ones. Unfortunately, no jail (perhaps except lifetime sentence, without a chance to get out) could eliminate stupidity.
-
Don't you think that if one denies any of these "unalienable rights" to other people (by violating them, for instance), then he does not deserve these rights to be applied to himself?
No. That's what inalienable means. You cannot make something correct by doing further wrongs.
But why a person without understanding of emotions would troll at all? While I don't understand emotions too well and I'm a rather cold, restrained person, my actions are driven by logic and reason.
You lost your credibility right here. However we are speaking of someone who is having difficulty with conventional logic, hence why he's diagnosed the way he is. Any indictment of him on those grounds is worthless.
-
Let's assume that the courts took his autism into account when sentencing him. He might only be a mild sufferer from Aspergers after all.
Right now I'm seeing too much of the "He's blind, he can't have deliberately shot him" about a man who might only be partially sighted for all we know. Why is it that some people take any excuse to assume there has been a miscarriage of justice?
-
In this case, I think it's because many of us are uncomfortable with the very concept of someone being jailed just because of something they said. Add in the possible autism, and it gets even worse.
-
Right now I'm seeing too much of the "He's blind, he can't have deliberately shot him" about a man who might only be partially sighted for all we know.
It doesn't matter if he's partially sighted or not (though I pointed out he was long before and nobody seemed to notice). Throwing someone in jail for what amounts to schoolyard insults (made to adults and by an adult, lest we forget) is a simply bizarre act. The fact he's only partially sighted however moves it from "okay this is overreacting at best" to "wtf are you people on".
-
Again, why are you insisting that this doesn't qualify as harassment.
-
I suppose it's a difficult aspect of Freedom of Speech and its interpretation.
Y'See, I've always felt that Freedom of Speech means that you can say what you feel, even if it offends someone. What I struggle to define as Freedom of Speech is comment intended to offend someone. It's sort of like the difference between (IMPORTANT - Purely hypothetical comments which are in no way a statement of opinion) "I think Homosexuality is wrong" and "All gays are evil and should be destroyed".
Someone might take offence at the first comment but that is really down to the listener, there's no implicitive insult, merely an opinion, whether you concur or not. The second comment, however, is deliberately designed to offend. The problem is, it's very hard to prove the difference decisively in a court of law, and in order to deal with the second type there's a risk of collateral damage to the first (The classic conundrum being something like the 'Modest Proposal', which was offensive in order to draw attention to a serious situation).
-
Don't you think that if one denies any of these "unalienable rights" to other people (by violating them, for instance), then he does not deserve these rights to be applied to himself?
No. That's what inalienable means. You cannot make something correct by doing further wrongs.
I'm not trying to make anything morally right nor "correct". I'm aiming to make the person violating the rights of another human suffer exactly same fate and, hopefully make him regret what he had done, or failing that, make him not do this again, because he'll know he'll suffer as a result of his own actions. I also intended to make the system as simple as possible, so even a monkey would understand what's going on and what it's suffering for. Of course, I'm aware that for an average person it's very harsh and maybe also immoral (at least considering Christian morality), but I was mostly concerned about efficiency when writing that.
-
Again, why are you insisting that this doesn't qualify as harassment.
'cuz it don't. Unless we're locking up schoolchildren now or at least charging them. Harassment implies persistence, commitment to it as a major factor in the life of both harasser and harassed; there's no evidence this is the case. There is also none of the implied threat of harassment, unless you think you can threaten dead people.
I'm aiming to make the person violating the rights of another human suffer exactly same fate...but I was mostly concerned about efficiency when writing that.
Then you have no place in this discussion or indeed the Western discourse on rights, and haven't had one since the 19th century. You challenge the existence of rights, in essence. And that is a lost cause.
-
Well, I know that my version of justice system is based on a very "mathematical" model and doesn't take morality (or indeed, human factors like corrupt judges, as it does give them incredible power) into account, as well as several complex cases. That's why I said "theoretically". Indeed, modern western society certainly would not accept that system. I don't challenge the existence of rights, but I do challenge their inalienability. One has rights as only long as he acknowledges that every other human has them too. I know it's very harsh, but I have noticed that empires with authoritarian government and harsh law tended to last longer than democracies, at least if the authority in question was competent. But when discussion about trolling turns into discussion about human rights, law and society, then it may be a sign of it getting detached from topic.
Unless we're locking up schoolchildren now or at least charging them.
Schoolchildren to get charged for it, by their teacher, and (if the country they're in has retained at least a speck of sanity) get punished for it, usually not by locking, but by sending them to the corner other similar punishment. And they are made to apologize to the person they were trolling. Since there's no way to send and adult person to the corner (though I wish there was, it'd be an approbate punishment for so many politicans in my country... :)), a different form of punishment had to be chosen. They chose jail, maybe it wasn't the best choice (he could be doing something useful, like social labor). He also should have been forced to officially apologize and perhaps pay a fee.
-
They should make him write letters of apology to everyone involved in those kids lives, I think. The fact that there were several targets of similar type makes me think that it couldn't have been an accidental "I don't understand people's emotions" kind of thing.
-
'cuz it don't. Unless we're locking up schoolchildren now or at least charging them. Harassment implies persistence, commitment to it as a major factor in the life of both harasser and harassed; there's no evidence this is the case. There is also none of the implied threat of harassment, unless you think you can threaten dead people.
You evidently don't know as much about this case as you think you do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-14239702
So again, why are you insisting this is a miscarriage of justice when you don't know the case?
-
You evidently don't know as much about this case as you think you do.
"Threatening message" is how they've characterized it; it's not how the message itself actually reads. There's no threat in the words "Start acting nicer to people or you will lose everyone. Mark my words." That's advisory at worst. Saying you hide behind makeup isn't a threat; a statement, derogatory, but no threat. Neither article actually produces anything that reads as threatening, merely derogatory. Neither article provides sufficient evidence this rises to the level of commitment for harassment either.
You've been trolled by the BBC into accepting an unsupported premise, which is somewhat fitting to these circumstances.
-
Again, you assume you know more than the people who heard the case based on the exact same evidence I've seen.
-
You evidently don't know as much about this case as you think you do.
"Threatening message" is how they've characterized it; it's not how the message itself actually reads. There's no threat in the words "Start acting nicer to people or you will lose everyone. Mark my words." That's advisory at worst. Saying you hide behind makeup isn't a threat; a statement, derogatory, but no threat. Neither article actually produces anything that reads as threatening, merely derogatory. Neither article provides sufficient evidence this rises to the level of commitment for harassment either.
You've been trolled by the BBC into accepting an unsupported premise, which is somewhat fitting to these circumstances.
Also, the bit in bold above was not sent by the "troll", but by an anonymous bully the day before her death.
The thing is about autistic people, they haven't a clue about inappropriate behaviour. I have an autistic nephew, his autism is mild but he still doesn't know when he has took a joke too far. This may have been so in this case, (the bit about the thomas the tank engine with Natasha's face on it sounds like an attempt at a joke to me, if very inappropriate.)
-
My point isn't that he is or isn't the person responsible. My issue is with people definitely stating that this is a miscarriage of justice when all their information comes from a couple of news reports. Especially when they're claiming that they know better about things like autism. It was the defendant's lawyer's job to bring up his Asperger's syndrome. It was his job to point out every single thing that has been said in this thread, and I can only assume that he did and that the jury STILL convicted him.
So given that, I'm forced to assume that those complaining that this is a miscarriage of justice have information that the rest of us were not privy to, something that wasn't in the article, or are going to shut up about his autism.
-
There seems to seems to be some sort of separation line between the internet and the offline world, where committing questionable acts over the internet has you excused, while committing the same act in the offline world results in consequences and punishment. Criticizing misbehaviour on the internet often is countered with arguments such as "but it's the internet" or "the internet is a free zone". In my opinion the internet is still far too often treated as one big newpaper, where every user is treated as reporter protected under an unconditioned law of freedom of the press.
To give an example, the latest phenomenon is the growth of reality reporting sites. These are websites where for example images and visual recordings of murdered, sexually violated or injured people are shared between site members as if they are nothing more than collectible stamps. Often no attempt is made at shutting down these sites while clearly the identities of the victims are recognisable. You would assume that'd account for a breach of privacy in the most severe way possible and that for this reason alone there'd be more than enough ground for the site host, ISP or the site owner's government to shut down the website, as well as that actively sharing and spreading such images as a site user would have you arrested or disciplined. Yet if someone would possess the same visual material in tangible form (printed photographs or videotapes) they are immediately arrested, convicted and locked up before the end of the month. Why do we often separate a medium such as the internet from the offline world, when the acts committed on both of them are identical?
While I'm not aware about the severity of this person's acts, given the fact that news/reporting sites do not always remain unbiased and therefore judge if the person was in enough error to go to jail, I do agree that the internet should NOT be a safe haven for malevolent or otherwise unlawful behaviour. To forego responsibility or lawful behaviour on the internet is in my opinion selfish convenience. The internet should not be censored, but repeated offensive behaviour should not be blatantly excused just because "it's the internet". Regardless of whether or not doing so has become a habit, unhealthy habits are best unlearned. Unfortunately though this person would have been better off with 18 weeks of psychiatric treatment, as throwing a mentally sick or otherwise troubled person into an obliette only makes them more insane.