[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[Mars]

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.

[karajorma]

'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?

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[karajorma]

Again, you assume you know more than the people who heard the case based on the exact same evidence I've seen.

[Wobble73]

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.)

[karajorma]

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.

[-Sara-]

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.