[Flipside]

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.

[headdie]

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.

[Nuke]

trolls are clearly social rejects and therefore should be isolated from society, or perhaps impaled.

[deathfun]

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

[Mars]

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?

[Klaustrophobia]

he doesn't need a prison sentence, he needs a beating.

[StarSlayer]

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.

[deathfun]

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

[Mongoose]

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.

[headdie]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[headdie]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[BrotherBryon]

Well what he did can be considered harassment at the very least which is a chargeable offense.

[headdie]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[headdie]

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.