Slashdot Mirror
Manchester's Self-Described 'Internet Troll' Jailed For Offensive Web Posts
noob22 writes "According to BBC Online, 'An "internet troll" who posted obscene messages on Facebook sites set up in memory of dead people has been jailed. Colm Coss, of Ardwick, Manchester, posted on a memorial page for Big Brother star Jade Goody and a tribute site to John Paul Massey, a Liverpool boy mauled to death by a dog. The 36-year-old "preyed on bereaved families" for his "own pleasure," Manchester Magistrates Court heard.'" My favorite line: "Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
I'd sue in Strasbourg and collect from the Court of Human rights.
This guy is a political prisoner.
Why so few posts?
:)
First they came for the trolls...
Then it was a lot quieter?
"He was charged under the Communications Act 2003, for sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive." So if he'd used a megaphone and said to their faces they wouldn't have been able to charge him? Crazy laws. What I see here is the fact that it's written rather than verbal is how they got him. Does it make a difference to the offended families involved how the trolling was done? I bet not, it's just another example of how free-speech laws have diverged from today's technology.
TFA mentions that his messages included references to having sex with the mentioned corpses.
Isn't that pretty much the most stupid idea you could have? facebook knows too much about you like that already. Go troll somewhere you're more anonymous than on facebook. I guess that guy was partially jailed for massive stupidity.
Why would you do this? I mean what disfunction must you have that you start to think that this is acceptable?
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
I love how "computer crimes" are punished on an entirely different scale to regular crimes. You can go bottle someone (break a glass bottle over their head) and you get an average of zero days in jail (suspended for two years). You can go mug someone and get only a week of "hard time" with a year of parole. I mean heck you can go run someone down in your car and still get a lighter sentence than 18 weeks...
There is no level of rationality to computer crime sentences because the "old people" on both sides of the bench are simply too ignorant and out of touch to really know what the crime involved or how serious it was. This case should never have wasted the UK's courts time and public money let alone the cost of keeping him in jail for any period at all.
Frankly I have a VERY low opinion of the police, judge, and state for this one. I want a million pounds spent on arrested serious criminals and keeping them locked away. Give the mugger, violent thug, or drug dealers 18 week sentences instead of saving them for the "omg computer terrurist?! he uses microsoft and word to send deadly communications of doom!"
What's more - he wasn't even punished for threatening people. It is one thing to make threats and to scare people. It is another thing entirely to offend or upset them. While I think the things he said were extremely rude and offensive - nobody felt in fear for their security.
Slightly OT, but I have met men who are sadists without being narcissists or psychopats (not in the BDSM sense, but "I would be euphoric if I set fire to a baby" sense), but who have moral inhibitions that seem sincere reflexive reactions. I cannot possibly begin to understand how these people's minds work subjectively, but I have a folk-psychological intuition I find useful in understanding some of the finer points of Asperger social deficits - on a deep level, all humans assume others to be like ourselves. So such a person might still find it intuitively acceptable to be cruel to others on a regular basis due to the "reward" afforded them, like a normal person would cut someone off in traffic on a rainy monday when late to work. It's just that the reward is completely unknowable to a person who isn't a sadist. One of these people work in the medical industry, and obviously enjoys (again, not just in the gallows humor sense) discussing gory injuries - but I still would consider him a good man. I suspect this is more common than one'd believe.
Emotions! In your brain!
"Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
I'm not sure which is weirder - that his street photos have residents, or that a still photograph could convey him saying something. Was there a speech bubble drawn on the photograph or something?
... and then they built the supercollider.
1. Thinking about trolls on Slashdot
2. Getting degree in law and becoming a lawyer
3. ???
4. Profit!
So now whats to stop someone from trolling like this guy then posting a picture of a person he hates claiming it to be a picture of the troller? Getting the innocent person arrested, even if the charges are eventually dropped would be a pretty good troll....
Monstar L
Out of all the threads here, I think yours is the most insightful and interesting. I agree with you the tendency to cruelty exists in many men, probably the majority; it is likely an evolutionarily adaptive trait from our hunter-gatherer history. The question is why don't we see more actual cruel acts? I would say it is because in normal societies social inhibitions prevail. But when societies break down, e.g. in times of war, acts of the cruelty are everywhere.
An "internet troll" who posted offensive messages on the World Wide Web has been revealed to be the Daily Mail.
The Mail "preyed on bereaved families" for its "own pleasure", the Press Complaints Council heard.
The paper was charged with sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive. The posts included comments claiming the victims had brought it upon themselves by being asylum-seeking homosexual Poles who caused EU cancer.
it was only caught when it sent residents copies of itself saying "FREE DVD FOR EVERY READER."
The term "troll" was described in court as someone who creates numerous identities, called "columnists," and then posts offensive bollocks to upset or provoke a reaction from others and gain page hits and advertising revenue.
"You preyed on bereaved families who were suffering trauma and anxiety," said chairwoman of the bench Pauline Salisbury. "We know you gained pleasure and you aren't sorry for what you did."
The paper has been convicted of sending "malicious communications" and the editor has been given a knighthood and a rôle as official advisor on government policy.
The defence raised possible mental health issues, but this was dismissed by the bench.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Asperger's is the new sheik.
Asperger's is the new Arabian tribal elder?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
They feel they need to make an example of the ones they catch to discourage to acts. How else are people going to fear consequences for something they can easily execute with a feeling of anominity and detachment.
Watch out Anonymous Coward, you might me next!
There are several reasons why "free speech" is important. One of the primary ones is that it allows people to criticize the society/government/etc. which is very important part of the democratic system. Another common one is that it is a human right to freely express yourself (creating whatever type of art, shouting out your sexual identity, whatever) without being restricted by laws. Actually, in most of Europe the constitutions are based on these two concepts. For example, finnish constitution states that you have (among other things): Freedom of religion and conscience (Section 11), Freedom of expression and the right of access to information (Section 12), Freedom of assembly and freedom of assosciation (Section 13) and so on.
Now... Free speech means that people who disagree with you also have free speech. Think that Hitler was a great fellow? Go ahead, blog about that. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If you really think that way, nobody should have the right to jail you for your opinions (or for expressing them).
But if you want to go to a funeral of someone you don't even know and shout obscenities simply because you enjoy causing sorrow to other people? With no other motivation (Such as political reasons for protesting outside a public figure's funeral) involved? I am more than happy to let the cops drag you away. I do not think that there is any reason why such activities should have constitutional protection (and on this side of the ocean, they don't). Now, there is always gray area: You think that it is art to mess with the feelings of other people? Well, in those cases I would be fine with everything from stating "Well... Fine, them." to declaring that as a crime against humanity. But in a case like this, there really wasn't any excuse.
He dun goofed. Now consequences will never be the same, since someone obviously backtraced him and sent the information to the cyberpolice. Maybe now you guys will listen.
Read this
This is not about expressing an objectionable belief. The guy in question was not expressing his beliefs at all. He boasted that he was trolling - and that's what a troll is, someone who makes statements not because they believe in them, but to hurt other people and cause outrage. I see no reason why that should be given the same protection as expressing your beliefs.
I defended the right that people have to freely express and defend their opinions, even if I disagree with them or find them offensive. I like how you used the "disagree" word yourself because that is rather important. If someone says that Stalin was a nice fellow, I can say "I disagree, but you should have the right to say that".
If someone harasses the family of a recently diseased person... How can you say "I disagree"? You can't because it is direct action, not expression of opinion. You can't disagree or agree with it any more than you can disagree with punching someone in the face.
Free speech means that you should be able to say "I think that communists should be thrown to concentration camps". Free speech doesn't mean that you should be allowed to actually commit the act.
You shouldn't defend a thing just because it is "free speech". I can say "I think murder is an act of free speech", murder someone and say "It was freedom of speech!". Rather, you should state why freedom of speech is important (I did so by stating what things are required for a functional democracy or considered human rights) and base the rest on that.
Freedom of speech isn't important for the sake of freedom of speech. It is important for a functioning democracy, etc. and the laws protecting it should be based on that. If allowing people to bully families of people who died recently has nothing to do with why freedom of speech is important, it shouldn't be protected by those laws.
You're not the only who has wondered that. See Kret, 2004. BlackHat Spam exists not because it is profitable - the revenue derived from people replying to spam messages is actually tiny - but because it is useful as a communications channel.
The lawyer joke about what do you call a bus load of lawyers drowned in the sea? Well I would say I would prefer it be a bus load of internet trolls.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
If it's illegal to be an a-hole, a whole lot of people are in trouble.
OMG!
It's C6gunner!
LOL!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
When the perpetrator was asked why he committed such heinous acts, he claimed it he did it "for the lulz."
After hearing his heartless and cold-blooded statement, the judge sentenced him to death.
hmm...as opposed to a Phlid or a Joey?
nice.
What technical means did not exist here? You can make anything on facebook private; you can block specific people if you don't like what they say.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Alexander Peter Kowalsky and Michael David Kristopeit take heed.
will always try to fix reality instead of their inferior understanding of it. let us hope the generation of currently 13 year olds will sweep us out of existence.
If only they'd let Fred Phelps into the UK in the first place we'd be rid of one extra dirtbag....oh, you mean he doesn't use a OMFG computer? He just shows up and yells obscenities at funerals? Well that's OK then. This is so fucked.
Why Politicians are not jailed when they make obscene speeches?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh
Sheikh, also rendered as Sheik, Cheikh, Sjeik, Shaykh, Shaikh, Sheekh, Sheyh, eih, ejh, eyh and other variants (Arabic: , shaykh; pl. shuykh), is a word or honorific term in the Arabic language that literally means "elder".
Got that? Good!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens