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.'"
Why so few posts?
:)
First they came for the trolls...
Then it was a lot quieter?
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.
Even in Europe, you can believe what you want. Publicly denying the holocaust might result in fines. If you do it to instigate hatred, you might do some jail time, too.
The guy is a dick but this is ridiculous. It's not illegal to be a dick, nor should it be.
Dickery is illegal when you cross a line which moves around a bit, but we call it "harassment" and it's definitely against the law. This is just another form of harassment and there's no moral reason not to convict him for it if that's what it takes to stop him. If you want to manipulate the mental state of others for personal gain, you must use advertising.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
The offended parties voluntarily read his comments of their own free will, from a site which they do not own or administrate, which isn't even located in a country governed by the laws which you described.
The problem is that this sets a dangerous precedent. Pretty soon, you'll have to watch what you say on the internet for fear that it might offend someone and then the cops will come knocking. Everyone on 4chan will be screwed.
Just because the person offended was bereaved and the offense was directed at a deceased party does not mean there should be any sort of exceptional limit to what is legally acceptable. This is quickly spiraling into China-sized censorship.
Absolute rubbish.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
You mean scale of how the Albanians, Bulgarians, Armenians, etc, don't all have relatives with controlling shares in major Western media outlets to make sure we never, ever get to stop hearing about it? After all, to quote Adolf Hitler, "Who now remembers Armenia?"
There is ethnic cleansing in Palestine which is far more ironic...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
And yet, if I go around saying that MacGyver2210 kept me locked in his basement for three years while he raped me every night, I expect you will try to have me silenced. In most places, I'd even be subject to fines and possibly imprisonment if I'm vocal enough in my speech. If I shout outside your bedroom window through a megaphone all night, I expect you'll try to have me silenced.
Your quote refers specifically to political speech, especially the right to criticize government, corporation, and personal behavior. A society demands limits on speech, or it degenerates into anarchy. Prohibitions against telling lies and inciting violence are among the most common limits.
Ethnic cleansing shouldn't be confused with the methods used to achieve it, such as genocide. Ethnic cleansing is the removal of an ethnic group from a certain location by any targetted means, either legal, semi-legal or otherwise. Ethnic cleansing is fairly universally acknowledged as having taken past in Israel in the past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
Arguably the creeping borders of the security fencing and steady expansions of Jewish settlements represents a low-intensity ethnic cleansing to this day. How welcome do you think local Arab farmers would feel in buying a house in the new Jewish settlements?
I'm no expert, but it doesn't sound preposterous to call that ethnic cleansing.