UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet

Xest writes "A man in the UK has been jailed for 18 weeks for 'trolling,' and has also been given an order banning him from using social networking sites for five years. 25-year-old Sean Duffy mocked a dead teenager who had jumped in front a train by posting offensive remarks on a page dedicated to her memory, and creating a YouTube parody of Thomas the Tank with the deceased girl's face in place of Thomas. Is it about time trolling to this extent saw this kind of punishment, or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?" Coverage from the Guardian explains that Duffy pleaded guilty to "two counts of sending malicious communications," and added that he must tell police about any phones he buys that can provide internet access.

Comments

Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[igreaterthanu]

From the article (video)

You will always be found, it's always possibly to trace back to the individual, everything leads a trail, data can always be captured; so we will inevitably get to the bottom of who they are, what they've done, on a site or on a system and be able to prove that in a court of law.

Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.

Why would they do that?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anti_Climax]

If they get enough evidence to justify questioning someone as a suspect or person if interest and that person isn't smart enough to shut the fuck up until they have a lawyer to do the talking for them, the authorities will probably get all they need to continue prosecution from there. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is not a concept unique to the United States.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they do that?

because they are ignorant fools

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[dropadrop]

From the article (video)

You will always be found, it's always possibly to trace back to the individual, everything leads a trail, data can always be captured; so we will inevitably get to the bottom of who they are, what they've done, on a site or on a system and be able to prove that in a court of law.

Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.

Why would they do that?

Obviously that's not true, rather probably somebody trying to scare people from even starting such idiocy. Unfortunately it will probably just cause people wanting to troll to look into methods for hiding their traces.

However for trolling on something like facebook, using tor would probably not be sufficient. They will probably be using a lot of fingerprinting techniques to identify the computer the user is connecting from, not just the IP address. It would probably not be very hard to link a fake account connecting via tor to any other regular accounts connecting from that same physical computer...

That still leaves the question of who used the computer, but I would imagine most trolls are not actually hard boiled criminals who will stand up to a lot of interrogation, or even demand a lawyer to be present when they are questioned..

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

by him admitting that it was him sending the messages. But more important than just that HE PLEADED GUILTY TO THE COMMUNICATION BEING _MALICIOUS_, so there was no proving necessary. you could very well say that the prosecutor in this case took advantage of a retard with mental problems( because you could easily argue that one has some problems if he bothers to create such videos, cyclic escape reasoning maybe but still true).

but with lulzsec, wikileaks etc having happened recently, this seems like a propaganda slap on the face.

That sentence also claims that they're always capturing everything. if they they're doing that, why the fuck there's tax evasion going on then.

(I'll admit that this particular guys trolling was kinda lame, it didn't hurt the dead girl obviously since he was already dead, but reminding people of dead friends(?) is offensive anyhow, unless they were celebrities??). in previous cases where someone has gone to jail for trolling on the internet it has usually involved them impersonating living people for _years_.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[srjh]

If they get enough evidence to justify questioning someone as a suspect or person if interest and that person isn't smart enough to shut the fuck up until they have a lawyer to do the talking for them, the authorities will probably get all they need to continue prosecution from there. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is not a concept unique to the United States.

However in the UK, it's more a case of "Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law, and anything you don't say may harm your defence".

The right to remain silent can be used to make "adverse inferences", unlike the US. So unfortunately "shut the fuck up" doesn't always work too well.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Suferick]

There is a difference between keeping quiet when questioned, which can cause inferences to be drawn in court, and refusing to be questioned without your legal rep being present, which cannot.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[gnasher719]

Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.

They just have to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt". Enough proof to convince a jury that he should be convicted. If there is a particular computer, and he's the only person living there, that is beyond reasonable doubt. If there are other people, and they make witness statements about computer use and things he said, that is beyond reasonable doubt. And believe me, if I knew that anyone in my household had done this kind of thing, I would say that a few weeks in jail will serve them an important lesson.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Textual analysis?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[igb]

They don't need to prove anything: he pleaded guilty. The chances of an alcoholic with Asberger's being a master cyber-criminal are approximately zero, especially as he had been suspected of being a long-term troll elsewhere http://forums.readingfestival.com/m995896-print.aspx.

To those that ask whether in UK law the same behaviour would have had the same reaction were a computer not involved, the likelihood is "yes". There was a recent case in which a very stupid woman decided that shouting "bang! bang!" to a policeman who had been blinded in a high-profile shoot-out was amusing http://www.capitalfm.com/northeast/on-air/news-travel/local-news/sunderland-woman-faces-jail-shouting-abuse-moat-vi/. She was extremely lucky not to get a substantial jail sentence, but there was no suggestion that it was part of a long-term or deliberate scheme (she hadn't, for example, travelled to find him with the intent of shouting "bang!"). In this case, it clearly was not the spur of the moment or impulse: you can't make a custom video for the purpose of being obnoxious in a moment of madness. And the chances are the Duffy would have been too much of a coward to do it face to face anyway: it was precisely because he thought he was untouchable that he did it.

The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks. People had front gardens without barbed wire fences, but don't expect people to shit on the middle of the lawn. In fact, one reason why a heavy cluestick needs to be wielded at tossers like Duffy is precisely that they are willing to behave with a computer in a way they (probably) wouldn't in real life, and the idea that somehow things done online aren't real --- which was part of his "oh, it's my Asberger's" plea in mitigation --- needs to be stamped on.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Elbereth]

It's a lot easier than you think. Every once in a while, a multinational task force will take down a child porn, warez, or credit card fraud group that is renowned for their paranoia and skill, just to remind people that they can do it. In many cases, encryption and tunneling don't actually increase the difficulty of the investigation but end up merely creating more paperwork, as the necessary court orders are acquired. You're a fool if you think that the VPN, anonymous proxy, or TOR node won't turn over their log files when the government comes knocking, with a warrant. What if they don't keep any logs? Yeah, that's a possibility, which does make everything quite a bit more difficult, but that's outright illegal in some jurisdictions, and even in libertarian utopias, the authorities take a very dim view of that. If I were the government, I'd even set up a few honeypots like that (which is probably how they catch some of the more paranoid types). Even if you know that you can trust the founder, can you trust every single employee who has physical access to the hardware? It's 2011 -- I wouldn't be surprised if the government had some moles in such places, though maybe I'm the one who's on the paranoid side now.

No matter how secure or anonymous you think you are, it's only a matter of time before you're hacked or tracked. I think history has proven this. The best you can do is make use of best practices and hope that your opponents are incompetent. In most cases, people are incompetent, on both sides of the law.

And... please. While an IP address doesn't resolve to a person, it's pretty damning evidence that your hardware was used for the crime. I know about the cases where someone hacks into a wireless AP and leeches child porn, but the people who are hacked generally are not leet haxors with the skill to engage in online crime. Running a completely open AP (or TOR exit node), in order to give yourself plausible deniability, is not generally accepted as a defense in court. Jurors don't respond well to arrogant, obvious plans like that, even if you truly are a saint who runs a free and open wireless AP (hint: don't do that, unless you're a fine, upstanding corporation who contributes to the community).

I'm not saying whether the government should have the power to track people so easily, but, in most cases, they do. It's not like the government has no clue about TOR, anonymous proxies, VPNs, etc. This isn't 1990, when the cops didn't have a single computer in their station, and there was one person at the FBI who had an AOL account. Really, they know about this stuff, and it's a part of their investigation. Thinking that you're the one mastermind criminal who's never going to be caught, despite his daring string of crimes, is a bit of a cliche...

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, it isn't "sociopathic nonsense". What it is, is the notion of free speech combined with the notion that being an asshole shouldn't be illegal.

As to the "they are willing to behave with a computer in a way they (probably) wouldn't in real life" thing. Well, the same could be said for people be assholes to telemarketers or anything said over the phone. Or how about by fax. Or how about if a little guy has the protection of a group IRL and spouts horrible stuff because he know he'll not suffer any repercussions.

I mean seriously, how far do you want this slope to slip?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[VoidCrow]

> The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks.

No, it's the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from borderline or actual sociopaths, or those people who lack the maturity and social awareness to think through the drivel that issues from any available orifice.

Before issuing said drivel...

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks. People had front gardens without barbed wire fences, but don't expect people to shit on the middle of the lawn.

Is it only geeks that can see that the emperor has no clothes? Your analogy completely falls apart for at least two reasons:

1) Fences with barb wire aren't feasible for front gardens, it makes the neighborhood ugly, barb wire violates safety codes in practically every city in every 1st world country. But moderation online is easily feasible.

2) Online culture is different from real-world culture. Moderation in one form or another is the norm, not the exception online. Just like open front gardens are the norm, not the exception in the real world.

As an example of cultural norms varying by location, look at back yards. In the New England area of the USA fencing in back yards is pretty rare. But in the desert southwest walled in back-yards are pretty much standard and the difference is for no other reason than the cultures of the two areas are different. Same thing goes here - moderation is just the way people who care about how their websites look do things online. It's no more "sociopathic nonsense" to expect moderation online than it is to build a concert wall around your back-yard in Arizona.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Cederic]

She was extremely lucky not to get a substantial jail sentence

It may just be me, but jailing someone for shouting "bang! bang!" would be more offensive than the acting of shouting it at a blinded policeman.

Similarly, in this case, 18 weeks in prison (or even 9, with good behaviour) for "posting messages on Facebook and Youtube"? He could have assaulted the parents and got less. He could have burgled their homes during the funeral and got less. 18 weeks for merely upsetting someone is excessive, particularly for a first conviction.

Shit, I must be due a few decades, I piss people off online all the time. Freedom of expression has to include the freedom to offend people, or it's no freedom at all.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[smisle]

People might not usually shit on their neighbor's lawns, but they sure as hell let their dogs do it, which amounts to the same thing.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[jo_ham]

To be accurate, the phrase is "it may harm your defence if, when questioned, you do not mention something you later rely on in court".

It's not just a simple "he didn't say anything, so he's clearly guilty".

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[metrix007]

Bullshit. A cluestick is a synonym for punishment from the government. A cluestick refers to being enlightened, not being punished.

This amounts to the government putting a man in jail for being mean and that is fucking bullshit. It amazes me just how far behind the UK has fallen from the US when it comes to the ideas of laws and freedoms.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[jimicus]

There's a whole range of hate speech which starts at "I hate him". It's rather stronger to add "...and I'm glad his daughter's dead", and then there's the matter of how such speech is delivered. You could start with mentioning quietly if the matter comes up in conversation, go through standing on a street corner with a loudhailer announcing the same feelings, posting the object of your hate letters informing them of this fact, posting those same opinions on the Internet and taking out an advert in the national press informing anyone who cares to read of this opinion. (For the purpose of this post, let us suppose you could actually find a national newspaper prepared to run such an advert).

Most countries draw a line somewhere and say "Right, that's it. Step over this line and it's a criminal offence" - even in the US you can get in trouble for sending hate mail. (IIRC there are laws about what you can send through the USPS that are used in such cases. You can hate someone all you like but you're not making the USPS a party to telling the world that!)

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Xest]

"The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks."

I'm the person (or one of at least) who submitted the story and posed the question as to whether it is right or wrong. Whilst I agree it's disgusting what he did the reason I pose the question is because I think there's a fair argument that trolls are an inevitable side effect of a free and open internet. I am not convinced that if we allow a clamp down on trolling that we can really continue to have an expectation of a free and open internet- I think it's a genuinely dangerous slippery slope.

So geeks saying they should expect it are probably not being as sociopathic as you suggest, but are merely making the point that it's a side effect of how the internet always has been, and hopefully, IMO, always will be.

It starts with blatantly offensive trolls like this sure, and few people care, but what if it then jumps to people not trolling per-se but having a heated argument if one complains that insults stemming from that argument are trolling? What if it jumps to fanboys slagging off or making up false accusations about some product and companies claim they're being trolled? Can we realistically expect the police to be a competent judge of what "trolling" is acceptable, and what "trolling" isn't - and in fact, what even constitutes trolling? In the BBC article their expert uses the example of someone posting on Apple forums negative comments about Apple or it's products trolling with the hope of winding people up. But how do you tell if they did so to wind people up, or if he did so because his Apple product really has failed and he's pissed off?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sumdumass]

hmm.. lets phrase that question a little differently. Would it be a deterrent to state that something that's illegal (rightly or not), can be traced back to the guilty or responsible party no matter how many layers of obfuscation and anonymity the perpetrator attempts to employ while speaking about a case that required tracking back through several of these layers and resulted in a pretty serious punishment?

Either the guy is misinformed, or he is attempting to scare 95% of the potential violators of this law into thinking twice before assuming they can get away with it just because the person the hate mail is intended for wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[L4t3r4lu5]

If they get enough evidence to justify questioning someone as a suspect or person if interest and that person isn't smart enough to shut the fuck up until they have a lawyer to do the talking for them, the authorities will probably get all they need to continue prosecution from there. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is not a concept unique to the United States.

However in the UK, it's more a case of "Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law, and anything you don't say may harm your defence". The right to remain silent can be used to make "adverse inferences", unlike the US. So unfortunately "shut the fuck up" doesn't always work too well.

Incorrect. In the US, your testimony counts as evidence for the prosecution, hearsay for the defence. Anything you say can be used against you in America, never for you. In the UK, your testimony has equal weight for both prosecution and defence. ("Anything you say can be used as evidence.") If you bring up some mitigating evidence during trial which you should have mentioned during questioning, that can cause issues for your defence ("It may harm your defence if you fail to mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court.")

In any case, your appropriate response to being placed under arrest is "I'm sorry, Officer. I do not understand the legal consequences involved in being under arrest. I will need to speak to a solicitor before I can answer any of your questions." If it's a minor offence, you can probably get advice over the phone. If it's serious, insist that they be present for interview.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

they are willing to behave with a computer in a way they (probably) wouldn't in real life

There's an xkcd cartoon about it, but I'm damned if I can find it. I'm such a shitcock sometimes.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[jonbryce]

If he had attended the funeral or memorial service of the person involved and said those sorts of things out loud, I think he would have got a much longer sentence. This isn't like the US where the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to do such things as protected free speech.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple truth is that if you say anything what you did and the action was against the law, you will be punished according to the law. Nobody will overlook anything just because you are a nice person.

The best is to not say anything to police. Whatever they ask, you should just answer "I respectfully decline to answer your question." And never admit guilt.

This is the same with speeding. If you admit that you were going fast, the police have to fine you according to law. And they will! :-)

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[jonbryce]

It is a trade-off between different freedoms. What is more important, the right to troll on people's memorial websites, or the right to grieve the loss of a loved one without being trolled by socially inadequate jerks. The British Government thinks the second one is more important, and I along with the vast majority of residents of the UK agree with that.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Tim C]

A salient fact that the OP omitted to mention is that the policeman in question was walking in to a court to give evidence in a case against two men accused of aiding and abetting the man who blinded him (which he did while on a rampage with a gun, injuring and killing several other people before dying in a stand-off with police). More details on the BBC news website.

In that case, I suspect at least part of the reason behind the sentence was because she (unintentionally) interfered with the case; the penalties for intentionally interfering with a witness are quite steep.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[tehcyder]

To be accurate, the phrase is "it may harm your defence if, when questioned, you do not mention something you later rely on in court".

It's not just a simple "he didn't say anything, so he's clearly guilty".

The idea is that, just as the prosecution isn't allowed to suddenly introduce new evidence at a trial that the defence team are unaware of, so the defence shouldn't be allowed to do so either.

It is better for everyone concerned if important evidence either way is available to everyone (including the CPS) so hopefuly cases aren't sent to trial that have no chance of succeeding.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[DrXym]

Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.

It's not for the police to prove anything, it's for the Crown Prosecution Service. Police gather the evidence and the CPS decides if its enough to take to trial and prosecute. If there were insufficient evidence they wouldn't even bother because they defendant would get off and it would be a waste of time for everyone. That doesn't guarantee a conviction of course but it weeds out the cases where there is little hope of securing one.

As for Tor, yes it would obfuscate things, but you'd have to use it rigourously. You could never, ever visit Facebook or YouTube, or the email provider you're registered on those sites with, or related sites at all except through TOR. Preferably running from a virtual machine running live CD (so nothing gets saved to disk at all) through a host laptop connected to a public network.

Fortunately, most people are too stupid and undisciplined to do any of this. I expect this particular troll was just some sadsack drunk who did stupid shit from his computer and didn't even consider he was committing a crime and certainly didn't have the nous to cover his tracks.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I may disagree with the sentence length, I personally feel that trolling that either:
1. Incites someone to commit a crime or harm themselves (fuck you portal of evil and something awful) or
2. Is intentionally meant to (emotionally or physically) harm those who want to peacefully remember someone who has died (fuck you Westboro Baptist Church and encyclopedia dramatica)
These people should be given 3 month sentences at the minimum and extended up to 2 years if they show no remorse. Including children. In fact if a child commits the crime, the adult responsible should do the time with them.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[tehcyder]

Honestly, it isn't "sociopathic nonsense". What it is, is the notion of free speech combined with the notion that being an asshole shouldn't be illegal.

Free speech dioes not mean you can say what you like without any consequences, it just means the governmen can't prevent you from saying things in advance.

. And thee is a sliding scale from being an annoying asshole up to actual intimidation and threatening behaviour, which definitely are and should be illegal.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

No. Moderation online is not a feasible option in all cases. For one, the family still ends up having psychological pain inflicted on them by trolls who intended to do just that (or do you think they have money shooting out of their ears to hire a moderator?). Moderation is more common on the net than barbed wire on front lawns only because jackasses on the net are less likely to spend a week in the clink, so they keep abusing people like a pack of psychopaths (that they probably are).

There is a simple reason for fenced in back yards in the Southwest: Coyotes. It's one thing for a coyote to cross the front yard, but it's quite another for one to interrupt the kid's pool party or the backyard barbeque.

It is sociopathic nonsense to believe that an unmoderated forum deserves in any way the trolling it gets. Trolling someone's web forum is little different than going to their home and shouting obscenities from the sidewalk. At some point it transitions from a nuisance to a misdemeanor.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[tehcyder]

1) Fences with barb wire aren't feasible for front gardens, it makes the neighborhood ugly, barb wire violates safety codes in practically every city in every 1st world country. But moderation online is easily feasible.

The analogy doesn't depend on it being barbed wire, you buffoon.

"People have front gardens without white picket fences, but don't expect people to shit on the middle of the lawn" means the same thing.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[gutnor]

I think it's a genuinely dangerous slippery slope.

Let's not exaggerate too much. The UK and the US are free and open societies, and yet there are law that prevent you to use your freedom to abuse somebody else's. That is the foundation of society and community to behave in some sort of acceptable way together.

We have to keep in mind, that each geek online is the equivalent in the physical world equivalent of a king living in a castle with an army at his disposal. Of course, we don't feel the need (or even resent) stuff like police and laws.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me?

Your analogy completely falls apart for at least two reasons:

1) Fences with barb wire aren't feasible for front gardens

Yeah I think the GP's point was totally about the exact protection mechanisms for your front garden, and not about the not shitting there part.

2) Online culture is different from real-world culture. Moderation in one form or another is the norm, not the exception online.

I'll try to stave off ranting. Two thoughts come to mind:
2a. assuming that online culture is indeed different, that does not justify it being different. Why should we accept that it's different? Perhaps it being different is an aberration.
2b. "Moderation online is the norm"? Please. Just browse /. at -1 to be proven wrong. There are plenty of folk misbehaving online. There are plenty folk who seem to have little to no moderation. Hence the need for online moderators.

Just in case you meant to argue that every online forum should be moderated: I politely disagree.
Sometimes, people should behave. See GP, or, for another example: if there's a crash commemoration site with flowers and candles by the side of the road, you don't go taking some flowers from there.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Cederic]

Interfering with a prosecution is something that must be taken seriously, so I can understand the concern there. And she did in fact avoid jail, so the response does feel somewhat more proportionate than in this case.

I'm just not from a "lock 'em up" school. I want better, more appropriate and useful (to society, and to the offender) responses to crime and civil disturbance.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[tehcyder]

Bullshit. A cluestick is a synonym for punishment from the government. A cluestick refers to being enlightened, not being punished.

This amounts to the government putting a man in jail for being mean and that is fucking bullshit. It amazes me just how far behind the UK has fallen from the US when it comes to the ideas of laws and freedoms.

If you think the freedom to do anything you want overrides every other civilised behavioural norm, how about I come round and torture you to death for the lulz?

If your family complains as I post videos of your protracted death on YouTube, they're interfering wih my right to freely express my sadistic, sociopathic soul.

Yes, it's called argument by reductio ad absurdum, before anyone else says "that's just being ridiculous".

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of expression has to include the freedom to offend people, or it's no freedom at all.

No, it doesn't.
You're free to say things that are offensive to me. You're free to have opinions I find rancid.

You're not free to walk up to me and shout your (to me) offensive message in my face. I have no obligation to listen to you, and you have no right to my attention. I also firmly support the notion that you do not have the right to harass me with your opinion (I realise that in the US this basic right is trodden daily, I'm sure you know sufficient examples of such things).

You can say whatever you want, sure. That doesn't mean you can say it everywhere you want and any time you want.
The middle of the night in my bedroom is not a location and time open to you, and it never will be.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

iirc it's:

"anything you say can be taken down and used against you in a court of law. anything you don't say and later rely on in court my harm your defense."

i think that "later rely on in court" bit is important.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[serviscope_minor]

However in the UK, it's more a case of "Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law, and anything you don't say may harm your defence".

It's actually more subtle. Firstly, it's "anything you say can be used in evidence", which makes a lot mroe sense than "anything you say can and will be used against you" which is clearly nonsense.

Secondly, it's "it _may_ harm your defense if you fail to answer when questioned anything you later rely on in court".

In other words, you do have the right to remain silent. If you later waive it (i.e. by taking a stand in court), it is possible for the jury to be allowed to infer something negative from your change of heart. However, the circumstances under which it is permissible are limited. For instance, no inference may be drawy if you refuse to speak before a lawyer is present, and no inference may be drawn if you are advised by a lawyer to remain silent.

So, IOW get a solicitor and you're much safer (as always).

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he had attended the funeral or memorial service of the person involved and said those sorts of things out loud, I think he would have got a much longer sentence.

And a thorough beating.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Chrisq]

There is a difference between keeping quiet when questioned, which can cause inferences to be drawn in court, and refusing to be questioned without your legal rep being present, which cannot.

Actually refusing to answer without a lawyer can be mentioned in court but the jury should be directed that under normal circumstances no inference of intent or guilt should be made. Abnormal circumstances are when the time itself may affect the outcome of the crime or interfere with evidence, such as if there is a bomb set to go off imminently or a critically injured victim at an unknown location.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm behind seven proxies.

Come at me, bro.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ultranova]

Freedom of expression has to include the freedom to offend people, or it's no freedom at all.

Freedom of expression is not absolute; for example slander and libel are forbidden. Why would someone intentionally abusing his freedoms to hurt others not be punished? Surely the purpose of law is not to give cover to psychopaths as they prey on the weak?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Eightbitgnosis]

It's just the same line they used 30 years ago

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

I would say that a few weeks in jail will serve them an important lesson.

Yes, that in Britain sticks and stones are meaningless, words obviously have the ability to jail you. Don't you feel, deep down in your bones, that jailing people for the things they say is, to put it bluntly, PATENTLY WRONG? Are you nut jobs going to start jailing people for thoughtcrime as well? If not, why not? Where is the diving line on that? A competent defence solicitor will do a MAC address comparison, and if the thoughtcriminal here masked his MAC, or if the MAC doesn't match, simply tracing the packets to this guy's flat ISN'T beyond a reasonable doubt. Just another example of the fucked up english legal system. I have a problem with the free speech issue alone, but I poked two holes in this guy's prosecution, and I'm not even an investigator. Just think what some one in the profession would do to this prosecution.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

they are willing to behave with a computer in a way they (probably) wouldn't in real life

There's an xkcd cartoon about it, but I'm damned if I can find it. I'm such a shitcock sometimes.

Because it was Penny Arcade instead.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

Well, I have a fundamental problem with your reasoning. What can I say, in Britain, that won't get me jailed, what doe I say that crosses the line into sociopathy? At what point, exactly, do I cross the line on what I say? And if I say "boo" to you and you let it go, but I say it to Charlie next to you and he says "Your going to jail.", don't you see a problem there? Now, shall I go to jail for saying Clegg is a bastard? Suppose you say yes, but Charlie says no. Is that clearly laid out in London statute? If I hold up a sign saying the same thing to a CCTV camera, what happens? Say its legal, but Clegg finds out and decides I need to be jailed, "for the good of the public safety"? He does and he's not called a tyrant? Or he doesn't and allows a miscreant free at large, picking and choosing who can say what they like and who not? If so, he's an even bigger tyrant. Has Britain come to grips with these issues? How firm a grip on one's tongue does one have to have? How has Britain decided to what degree a person is a sociopath based on what they say?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Xest]

"The UK and the US are free and open societies, and yet there are law that prevent you to use your freedom to abuse somebody else's."

Yeah but here's the problem, about the extreme porn law in the UK? You can have BDSM or rough sex sessions, you can film them, but to share them with other fetishists is now criminal in the UK, and can get you put on the sex offenders register.

That doesn't harm anyone else, yet it's still now illegal.

This is a fine example of the slippery slope in action- first it was child porn, then it was beastiality - no one really cared at this point because the acts themselves were illegal - and then before you know it, acts that some people enjoy and are allowed to perform become illegal to film and distribute.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[srjh]

Ah, okay... subtle difference, but I see your point.

Thanks for clarifying.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Fences with barb wire aren't feasible for front gardens, it makes the neighborhood ugly, barb wire violates safety codes in practically every city in every 1st world country.

You obviously have never been in Germany.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance of technology.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think there's a fair argument that trolls are an inevitable side effect of a free and open internet."

They are only inevitable if they are allowed to get away with it. Being abusive to strangers is not normal behaviour, nor is it freedom of speech.

Punishing someone for harrasing a grieving family is not censorship, but it is certainly upholding the law of the land (as far as the UK goes). The medium used to cause harassment doesn't matter, the fact remains that harassment took place (and the jerk in question has been "let off" once before for the same type of offence).

He had his chance, he blew it. If he does it again then his sentence will be longer the next time. That is how the law works, and that is precisely how it should work.

The fact that he used the Internet to abuse the victims is entirely irrelevent.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Joce640k]

Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it?

I dunno...knock on the door and see who's in the house?

That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR.

TOR only exists in some geeky utopia. The average yobbo hasn't even heard of it.

If you're unsure of the concepts presented here, use the xkcd: https://www.xkcd.com/538/

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[igb]

Strangely, both the US and the UK have what we courts, in which sit what we call judges (or in this case magistrates), who are given evidence, and who weigh it up and reach verdicts. Or in this case, don't, because he pleaded guilty: had he pleaded innocent, we don't know what the outcome would have been, because there's never been such a contested case. That he'd been previously formally cautioned for the same behaviour says he knew exactly where the line was, hence his plea.

Neither the UK nor the US have the exact lines you ask for, in this or in any other matter, because that's what courts are for in common law jurisdictions (I guess Louisiana might be different). All we know is that in this case the CPS held there was a case that they felt would result in a conviction, but before it came to trial he pleaded guilty. Had he been convinced he was in the right, he could have pled innocent, could probably have opted for a jury trial, and could certainly have appealed any verdict he disagreed with. He did none of those things. So we have people on slashdot proclaiming the innocence of someone who pled guilty: a strange state of affairs.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[NekSnappa]

Yeah, like he said. Geeks.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Cwix]

Yea like anything you say will be used to drop the case. You can say nothing that helps your case, only things that can hurt your case.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one problem with information channels such as the internet is that we get bombarded with so much information all the time. There are news stories every other day of starving children in Ethiopia, people being killed in a terrorist attack in the middle east, a serious train crash in India and so on. The more of such information there is the more difficult it gets to relate to it and at least I tend to get kind of desensitized to it no matter how horrible these events may be. A lot of things are put into weblogs, social network sites etc and in many cases you can never be sure whether the page you are visiting is fake or represents a true event. I think that's why tribute pages on the internet and the whatnot have a considerably higher tendency to get "trolled" upon than tangible events that happen in a real-world that you can more easily relate to where you see the faces of the grieving parents and so on.

For me in real life, people are almost afraid of me and almost always speak to me with high respect. On a forum on the other hand, the contrast is shocking. If I happen to be ignorant of a certain portable gaming console for Linux enthusiasts on a public forum I'll get responses that I'm a "ret4rded fcukstick". Something that surprised me with those comments that were obviously offensive was that when I modded them down, some other person modded them back up again. If I had a similar conversation about it with a group of people in the real world I would get very surprised if anyone would dare coming up with such remarks.

To tell the truth it is difficult for me to understand the implications of "cyberbullying" and other harassment on the internet since I've never experienced things like that myself. Somehow, there is a protective layer or shield of anonymity that gives me and other people a "plausible deniability" that kind of prevents things to get personal which I actually think is a good thing as I never have to take comments that are posted personally. When I went to school, few people had cell phones and there were no such things such as facebook, msn or twitter. I actually this is a good thing as we spent more times on activities in real life instead of behind a computer. These days people rarely speak to each other because of the Internets, the Androids and the I-phones from some (patent trolling) fruit company. So it is really difficult for a person like me to grasp how it feels like to be bullied over SMS, email, facebook et al but I can understand some people feel very distressed about it.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[igb]

Your argument would be better were it to be based on the actual facts.

There is a clear defence at S.66 of the legislation in that showing that you were a participant and you (and others) were harmed beyond what you consented to. In principle, the person you shared the images with could be charged with possession and because they would not be a participant, S.66 would not apply; you, however, could not be charged, as you would be a participant.

However, as the offence requires the consent of the DPP in order to charge (which is code for "we've been forced to pass this law by public pressure, but you're out of your mind if you think we're going to use it more than we have to") it's highly unlikely that a scenario where you could produce the participants and have them testify that the acts were consensual would ever reach court, irrespective of whether the images were held by a participant or someone the participant had passed them to.

Of course, if the images portray acts that appear not to be consensual _and_ you can't produce evidence that they are, that's a problem for you, but that isn't the scenario you're outlining. However, "rough sex" wouldn't fall under the legislation at all, and nor would most BDSM. The legislation (op. cit.) and the CPS guidance make interesting reading.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ifiwereasculptor]

Rowan Atkinson actually said something very interesting about it (he was, at the time, talking about the right to mock religion):

"It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression." ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1478381/Atkinson-defends-right-to-offend.html )

Going to jail for being unfunny and/or crass is a little extreme (and impractical - we'd need more land that we can spare to house the entirety of 4chan and a plethora of talk show hosts). Also, why should we be able to mock Michael Jackson's death but not a random passerby's? It doesn't cause anyone close to him less grief just because he was a public figure. Which, by the way, anyone who appears in the news once or has a Facebook profile/shrine seems to be, to varying extents, in the web 2.0. Ask Antoine Dodson (or Natasha MacBryde herself, if you happen to have an Ouija board).

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Cwix]

He hurt someones feelings.

Thats not exactly a crime AFAIK. Maybe people will learn to keep things private online. If you open everything up to the wider internet, thats going to come with the good and the bad.

My response: Deal with it, or make it a private page.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Cwix]

If you hold your memorial in a public square, your going to get the weirdos.

These were public pages, they should have known better then to make them public. You don't like the trolls, make it a private page.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the freedom to do anything you want overrides every other civilised behavioural norm, how about I come round and torture you to death for the lulz?

I'd like you to be arrested for "offensive" behaviour with intention of sending "malicious communications" to annoy or upset people (Your response is trolling which makes you guilty of a crime as well; yay for justice).

The problem with this bullshit law and all bullshit laws like it is that the law should always ALWAYS ALWAYS be a clearly marked line in the sand, if I read the law then I should know exactly what is or is not permitted. Vague bullshit like "offensive communication" only leads to a police state where anyone can be arrested under presumption of guilt before innocence and leaving it up to a court battle to decide if you are guilty of any one of a long list of opaque and nebulous "crimes".

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[rotorbudd]

Someone should have just broken ALL of his fingers.

This would have been much more of a deterrent than a few weeks i the slammer.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[mfh]

The right to remain silent can be used to make "adverse inferences", unlike the US. So unfortunately "shut the fuck up" doesn't always work too well.

That is true unless the person said something like, "My good lawyer buddy gave me the following instruction: If ever arrested, phone the lawyer and shut the mouth!" Smart people carry a card in their wallet that has a list of instructions to follow to the letter. Adverse inferences can't be made against preplanned legally strategic thinking unless the court accepts that everyone must be unprepared as a condition of innocence which seems very evil to me.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[justaguy516]

Free speech would be an issue if he had restricted himself to making his own web-page about the subject. But when he went and posted offensive comments on somebody else's tribute page, he crossed the line and became a nuisance.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Xest]

You're missing the point, completely.

It's an inevitable side effect because as soon as you do as you propose- stop allowing them to get away with it, then you're inherently removing the principles that allow the internet to be free and open. As soon as you start allowing the police to grab details of individuals for something as arbitrarily defined as "trolling" then you're equally opening the door for oppressive regimes to similarly grab people's details for whatever arbitrary reason they come up with too. When it becomes easy to get people's details it becomes harder and harder for entities to deny requests to hand over details.

I made it quite clear I am not defending what this person did, I am simply making the point that to punish this sort of thing, you ultimately have to open the door for punishments for other arbitrary and ill defined reasons.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Woy]

TOR log files? You don't know how TOR works. Restrain from giving advice.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[AVee]

18 weeks for merely upsetting someone is excessive, particularly for a first conviction.

According to the article in the Guardian was cautioned for something similar before. So it's like he did get his fair warning, so he should have known.

And offending people just for the sake off the offending (which was *clearly* the case here) should not be included in freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is not a goal in itself, although lots of people seem to have lost the bigger picture there. Freedom of expression exists because it is required to keep a society balanced, this kind of 'expression' doesn't really help towards that goal.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Dark$ide]

Actually refusing to answer without a lawyer can be mentioned in court but the jury should be directed that under normal circumstances no inference of intent or guilt should be made. Abnormal circumstances are when the time itself may affect the outcome of the crime or interfere with evidence, such as if there is a bomb set to go off imminently or a critically injured victim at an unknown location.

There was no jury in this case. It was tried in front of Reading Majistrates.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Xest]

"In principle, the person you shared the images with could be charged with possession and because they would not be a participant"

That's was my fundamental point- it's a legitimate activity, but viewing recordings of it aren't.

"(which is code for "we've been forced to pass this law by public pressure, but you're out of your mind if you think we're going to use it more than we have to""

This is bollocks. It wasn't implemented through public pressure, it was implemented at the behest of Gordon Brown's unelected authoritarian wannabe regime using the mother of a murdered teacher as their puppet to justify it. I don't think anyone else except perhaps a few Daily Mail columnists actually supported it.

But fundamentally where it will be used is where it will be most problematic. It will (and from some reports, already has been) used in cases where the police haven't been able to do their job well enough to nail someone for a specific crime, and so they've lumped it on in the hope that if they throw enough shit at someone they don't like something will at least stick. In other words it's used to target people who quite likely haven't actually done anything that would otherwise be illegal but that the police have decided they want to punish anyway. What that all too often means is that they've falsely accused someone of something or raided their house, and rather than admit they were wrong, save face by charging them with something as silly and arbitrary as this so they can say "Hey look, he WAS a criminal, we were right!".

"However, "rough sex" wouldn't fall under the legislation at all, and nor would most BDSM."

Rubbish. You can't possibly say that with the certainty you have. It's too arbitrarily defined to say that's the case. In fact, on the contrary, re-reading the link you provided makes it clear that the definition is arbitrary enough that this sort of thing could quite easily fall under the legislation, unless you trust that your interpretation of the dictionary definition of serious (which really just refers to terms like "substantial" and hence clarifies nothing) will without a doubt also be held by every judge and prosecutor in the country- even those with a moral agenda to do away with anything other than the missionary position because of religious conviction or whatever.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Thing 1]

Surely the purpose of law is not to give cover to psychopaths as they prey on the weak?

Oh, I don't know about that. We have many laws making audio recording of interactions with public officials illegal. Of course; those audio recordings could help to show wrongdoing by those public officials. What other reason would they want to have no evidence of their actions, which evidence could exonerate them?

Similarly, there seems to be a distressingly high rate of failure, during critical times, of the officers' dash cameras. Personally I see this as destruction of evidence, but then IA apparently doesn't. Anyway, yes, the purpose of law is to give cover to psychopaths in power.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe is big on positive rights (which is to say rights that only exist because the government gives them to you). The right to not be offended seems to be one that's been on the march for a while.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for stamping as long as it involves a boot and goes on forever. /s

On the other hand, jailing someone for making rude remarks on the internet is going too far. His remarks were distasteful and uncalled for but were they criminal? No. The difference between a person's front yard and a public forum such as the internet is so large that I do believe I could 'shit in the middle of it' and no one would notice. Putting up barbed wire fences around a public space will certainly prevent it from being 'shit on' and from being public. The problem with putting up fences though, is that in keeping people out you also begin to reduce the space's ability to be used as a forum for the exchange of diverse ideas. While this is appropriate for say a memorial site, boxing in larger swaths of what is meant to be public space so that every comment can be worried over and weeded out if it doesn't meet the approval of some board, committee, or court is a horrendously bad idea.

The onus should be on the creator/administrator of the website to prevent their users from acting out of line. In this case it would have been reasonable to submit a complaint to Facebook that would result in the offending user being banned or having the offending account removed, that is perfectly fine in my books since he was going against their terms of use. Complaining to the police because someone is being offensive online is like complaining that someone is being a drunk idiot at a bar, they should be made to leave not arrested, jailed and subsequently banned from going to any bar for the next 5 years. That sort of punishment, in this example, should be reserved for if they caused massive property damage or maimed someone in a bar fight, not petty insults.

I suppose you wouldn't expect anything more from a sociopathic geek.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[AmiMoJo]

Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.

Why would they do that?

Because they want juries to think that forensics work like they see on CSI, with perfect DNA and fingerprint matches, complete and accurate browser histories etc. Part of the problem is that if the prosecution calls an expert to testify that the evidence is bullet proof the prosecution often accepts that. This has lead to people going to jail only to be released on appeal when their own expert points out the flaws. There was a guy in Scotland who was convicted of murder on a single fingerprint which later turned out not to even be a match to his by any reasonable standard. Of course there was Barry George who was also convicted of murder with a single spec of gunpowder found on his clothes that had been stored by the police in a room with other garments that had gunpowder on them, and as it turned out there was some doubt that the single spec was even gunpowder at all.

Typically they will use a logged IP address from the site in question to get subscriber details from an ISP and then go in and arrest the unfortunate bill payer and confiscate all their computers, flash drives, discs etc in the hope of getting the evidence they need. There are many things that could frustrate them: using a live CD to send the messages with no trace left on the PC, encrypting the HDD*, wiping the HDD before they get there etc. Even just using the porn mode of most browsers is probably quite effective, although in this case I imagine they must have found the video files he made anyway. There are also lots of ways to cast doubt on who actually send the messages: having multiple users on the same account, having wifi, having a Virgin Media cable connection which could be cloned and so on.

The bottom line is the suspect has to make basic mistakes or crack under questioning for them to get a conviction. Obviously they don't want people to know that, so they lie. Unfortunately it seems to be standard practice for the police to inflate their evidence in the hopes of getting a confession.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[AmiMoJo]

You're a fool if you think that the ... TOR node won't turn over their log files when the government comes knocking, with a warrant.

What good would logs do? The whole point of TOR is that there is no way to know where a packet passing through a node is coming from because it will have passed through other unknown nodes as well.

TOR is extremely effective if used properly. The whole point is to prevent authorities from monitoring or tracing people who use it, so that in countries where free speech is dangerous there can be some protection. At best an attacker could figure out that a lot of encrypted traffic was coming from your net connection and then raid your house in the hopes of finding evidence on the computer itself, but as long as you use a live CD and ensure they can't get to it before incriminating data is wiped from RAM all they can do is lean on you. Obviously in some places that alone is enough, but in the UK we don't torture people (they are sent abroad for that).

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't gone so far as to yet, but please don't perpetuate the idea that the "Ticking Time-Bomb" scenario 1) is a feasible event, or 2) warrants unwritten modification or disregard of laws and conditions. The mere existence in understanding of a potential for that possibly to happen (yes, that) has changed forever how the US justifies violation of human rights. That kind of thing doesn't happen outside of television, and even if it did, torture still wouldn't be acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[igb]

"In this case it would have been reasonable to submit a complaint to Facebook that would result in the offending user being banned or having the offending account removed,"

It's not at all clear if the victims did complain to Facebook, but as he was posting under false details, banning the user or removing the account would have made little difference. He had been officially warned by the police in 2009, so presumably this represented an escalation of previous behaviour.

It turns out that his father is the author of this. It's not hard to imagine an alcoholic with Asbergers confusing that with what he actually did.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[funkelectric]

If you are a weirdo disturbing a memorial in a public square, you might be held accountable and face the consequences. Seriously, why do people assume a right to behave like a dog on the internet?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Tarsir]

Don't you feel, deep down in your bones, that jailing people for the things they say is, to put it bluntly, PATENTLY WRONG? Are you nut jobs going to start jailing people for thoughtcrime as well? If not, why not? Where is the diving line on that?

The dividing line is pretty clearly that something one says (or in this case, does) is objectively verifiable, whereas one's thoughts are not.

I poked two holes in this guy's prosecution, and I'm not even an investigator.

No you didn't. You speculated about two situations which might have occurred which might have harmed the prosecution's case. For all you know, the police came to Duffy's place to investigate and he broke down blubbering and confessed everything like the anonymous coward he is.

Just think what some one in the profession would do to this prosecution.

I don't have to imagine. I can read the fucking headline and see that the guy was jailed. The defense was clearly not very successful.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Chelmet]

Believe it or not, its slightly different in Scotland.

There is no "It may harm your defence if you fail to mention...". Up here, you're perfectly within your rights to, and cannot be punished for, remaining completely silent till your lawyer arrives.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[igb]

Rowan Atkinson believes in having the right to offend, so long as he's not the one being offended. He reaches for the libel courts (see here) and secures a five-figure payout for things that are "ludicrous, hurtful and irresponsible" being written about him. If they're ludicrous, no-one will believe them. How can being hurtful be grounds for a libel action, when he says that other people don't have the right to be hurt?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[funkelectric]

Yes, there are gray areas. How hard is that to grasp? In the very dark-gray areas one is bound go get in trouble, in the light-gray areas one is not. The light-gray area is likely a waste of the judicial process, the dark-gray area quite likely is not. It's just like real life, no wait, it is real life. Parody and mockery are allowed. Abuse is something else. Slander and libel are something else. There is no hard-cast algorithm to decide which is which, that's why people get involved.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be accurate, the phrase is "it may harm your defence if, when questioned, you do not mention something you later rely on in court".

Which would make it tempting to completely ignore any questions asked and just utter random comments of the form "I may later rely on it court that ....". These would not have to be all be true, and may even be contradictory as long as those things which you will be relying on are true. Also, I do not believe that the first part of the caution ('Anything you do say may be given in evidence') is 100% accurate, as just because the accused says something does not (as far as I know) overrule the normal rules of admissibility of evidence such as hearsay etc.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sed quid in infernos]

This is NOT a defense of Westboro in any way, shape, or form. But the recent Supreme Court ruling about Westboro did not say they were allowed to say "those sorts of things out loud" at "the funeral or memorial service." The court was very clear it was not addressing the state laws limiting protests, demonstrations, or speeches at or near funerals. It specifically noted that the only part of the protest that people at the service, cemetery, or in between could see was the top of the protestor's heads - not even the signs were visible. Further, the lawsuit the court rejected originally included things that had been posted online (not at a site dedicated to the deceased soldier, but at Westboro's site). The court expressly left open the question as to whether the forced audience standard could be used to establish liability against someone who said outrageously offensive things where a funeral attendee had no choice but to listen or leave the funeral.

In other words, all the Supreme Court decided was that when a protest is done in accordance with state laws designed to eliminate or limit attendees' exposure to hateful speech while at the funeral services or in transit between them, the mourners may not sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. States may still prevent people from protesting at or near funerals.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

That raises the question of where we draw the line. In your post, you call Duffy both a coward and a tosser. Should that open you up to criminal liability, too?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[zevans]

I believe it's acceptable to record proceedings as an aid to note-taking. However the recordings themselves are not directly admissible as evidence.

I'm not what would happen if a court case came down to "your word against his" and one of the parties turned out to have a clandestine recording...

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a fool if you think that the VPN, anonymous proxy, or TOR node won't turn over their log files

Yes, if you think you are anonymous by using an anonymous proxy to do your dirty work, then you are incompetent and you deserve what's coming for you. Smart people will use multiple hacked machines as proxy servers. There won't be any logs.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[asdf7890]

What it is, is the notion of free speech combined with the notion that being an asshole shouldn't be illegal.

No. He wasn't "just being an arsehole" (we have arseholes over here, not assholes!), he was bullying. Causing pain in others either for his own gratification or just for the hell of it. Behaviour like that should be punished.

There are a lot of fine lines in this area of course, so it can be a complex debate. For instance I do not think jokes about tragic events should be punished generally but under some circumstances it ceases to be a joke that might offend some and becomes a deliberate attempt to offend. If I tell a 9/11 based gag to my friends, on my own online pages or in some other forum where "edgy" humour is fine, or a stand-up comedian known for not being a fluffy-bunny comic uses one as part of his/her set, then that is all free speech and should be protected. If I or anyone else were to have told such a joke in the middle of last weekend's anniversary markings, or on a forum for those affected by the events and subsequent fall-out, or so forth, that would be a deliberate attempt to cause offence. It would be bullying. A petty crime but a crime all the same, and should be punished.

Your telemarketer example is backwards, they are inconveniencing me not the other way around. If they don't want to deal with me, then they have the option of not disturbing my personal life or interrupting my professional time. I'm on all the do-not-call lists that are available to me, and always make sure the right boxes are ticked/unticked when I have to hand out my phone number for some reason, so there is nothing more I can do other than being a dick in the hope that I'll get a on some "troublemaker and timewaster" list that will stop them calling me (I suppose I could spend time/money getting or putting together some sort of automated screener, but I shouldn't have to do that). Even getting a new number by changing my mobile phone setup doesn't work: numbers get recycled so you get other people's junk calls and even if that were not the case there are callers who just try sequences of allocated numbers to see if they have a real phone on them. If I am constantly interrupted by random people in my home or at work, especially when I've put up a "please do not disturb" sign I feel quick justified in being a dick whether you are on the phone or stood in front of me.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[rohan972]

Have you considered the article Physical Pain and Emotional Pain Use Same Brain Networks?

Perhaps there is not such a large difference between physical and emotional abuse as we might have thought. I see no reason why maliciously inflicting pain on others should be tolerated simply because you do not physically wound them. To allow for freedom of speech, you could be allowed to post what you like on your own webpage. Posting offensive messages on a tribute page for the deceased is not necessary for free speech.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Sancho]

2b. "Moderation online is the norm"? Please. Just browse /. at -1 to be proven wrong. There are plenty of folk misbehaving online. There are plenty folk who seem to have little to no moderation. Hence the need for online moderators.

You know how I know you're a troll?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[asdf7890]

2) Online culture is different from real-world culture. Moderation in one form or another is the norm, not the exception online. Just like open front gardens are the norm, not the exception in the real world.

Moderation has only become the norm because it has had to because of jerks. The rest of us have to make an effort to police the behaviour of jerks, or have to jump through hoops to prove we are no a jerk when we post somewhere because the somewhere is protecting itself from jerks.

Moderation being the norm is not a sign that we just need to adjust our expectations to account for jerks. Moderation being the norm is a sign that the jerks are "winning" and the problem is getting out of hand. Setting an example by giving a few of them a slap to prove their actions can have real world consequences is a step in the right direction.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Sarten-X]

"On the date in question I was on vacation, on a cruise ship in the middle of the Atlantic. My cat was being fed by <someone else>".

Investigators don't magically know the end of the evidence trail. Show reasonable evidence that you're not the one at fault, and they won't likely even try to build a case against you. Conversely, of course, if you show hostility toward investigators they're going to assume you have something to hide, and that may or may not be related to their case, so they'll try harder to find it.

If I were being questioned, I'd make a basic attempt to cooperate, being fully aware that whatever I say may be used to screw me over. There may be an easy explanation that satisfies the investigators. If they did start asking questions where my answer could, in whole or in part, incriminate me, I'd say I'd like to have a lawyer to help me explain the situation properly.

Police aren't machines. They're people. Be calm, courteous, and reasonably helpful, and they'll treat you well in return. That's how society usually works.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, it isn't "sociopathic nonsense". What it is, is the notion of free speech combined with the notion that being an asshole shouldn't be illegal.

Fine. I'll buy into that theory as soon as it is not illegal for me to beat the fucker up for doing something like this. If it is going to be illegal to give him a good couple of punches, then a legal remedy must suffice. There has to be some downside for these people who think that being an asshole is cool.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[hamburgler007]

Disagree, but why is this rated troll?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Hatta]

It is sociopathic nonsense to believe that an unmoderated forum deserves in any way the trolling it gets.

What kind of nonsense is it to believe that we should throw people in jail for nothing other than typing? Should we jail every troll? How much are you willing to spend on law enforcement and prison infrastructure?

We can't win the War on Drug Users, which involves physical contraband that cannot be produced, transported, or consumed without leaving physical evidence. What makes you think we can win the war against ephemeral packets of mean spirited data?

The tools you would have to give the government to have even the tiniest effect on trolls would be far more dangerous than just living with the trolls.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Snaller]

"The chances of an alcoholic with Asberger's being a master cyber-criminal are approximately zero, especially as he had been suspected of being a long-term troll elsewhere http://forums.readingfestival.com/m995896-print.aspx. "

Being a troll is not illegal, nor should it be - he is an asshole, but the world is full of them and strictly speaking he should be allowed to be a jerk - others will punishing by not caring about his company.

"There was a recent case in which a very stupid woman decided that shouting "bang! bang!" to a policeman who had been blinded in a high-profile shoot-out was amusing. She was extremely lucky not to get a substantial jail sentence...."

That too is a sick society, she shouldn't get a jail sentence for doing that - its stupid, she is an insensitive bitch, but not a jail sentence.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[GameboyRMH]

Haha let them think that...

PH34R TEH CYBER POLICE BACKTRACE!

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech dioes not mean you can say what you like without any consequences, it just means the governmen can't prevent you from saying things in advance.

By that definition China has free speech.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Gr33nJ3ll0]

I shot him in self defense, here's why usually works wonders, assuming it's true and reasonable.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Stellian]

It's perplexing to see in the parent post and it's replies a the failure to differentiate between a physical assault on your property (faeces on lawn) and a purely intellectual endeavour, someone saying things about you online, in the newspaper, etc.

You could argue that some forms of harassment are by their nature an assault on your property, like someone shouting insults through a megaphone in front of your house or defacing you website - no doubt that's antisocial behaviour. But allowing people to comment on a public board is not defacement, it's an invitation for the public to post their thoughts. You are by all means free to censor those thoughts but you have no basis to claim you are harassed by thoughts you don't like.

While it may be easy to spot "trolling" in this particular case, it basically boils down to saying unpopular things that the court finds apprehensible. Trouble is, no matter how unpopular some things are, they still might be right, truth is not decided by vote. And that's why we have freedom of speech ! It's easy to give a huge list of historical examples which would have easily earned you a death sentence a few hundred years ago. In some parts of the world they still do, for example suggestions of religious tolerance in ultra-orthodox theocracies. If I were to post caricatures of Prophet Muhammed on the Iranian govt.'s message board, should I also be jailed or killed ? I'm sure they would find it every bit as apprehensible as this troll here.

To say caricatures of Muhammed are OK but crude humour is not is simply moral relativism, "my truth is better than your truth". You either accept freedom of speech or you don't, there's no way to differentiate a priori "good" speech from "bad" speech. As always, the test case for freedom of speech is not pompous talk about liberty and equality (as this post here); rather, it's the most detested and despicable speech, those words that "clearly" serve no purpose other than insult.

All this is not to say that harassment does not exist. However, harassment is an issue of form not content. "Spreading rumours" is not harassment, is free speech, and the various anti-defamation laws are encroaching on a basic right to hold public opinions about other people. Mail threats or verbal insults are - the recipient is not actively seeking them, and there's little he can do to stop it.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[MozeeToby]

I agree with you, people should be able to leave an memorial page open for anyone to post. I also agree with the people who say that anyone who does so is stupidly naive. Just because I think they're foolish for leaving the page open for anyone to post doesn't mean that I agree with the trolls, it just means that I'm aware that trolls exist and will be ass-hats.

If someone leaves their keys in their car and the car gets stolen, most people tend to say "What an asshole to steal someone's car, but you really shouldn't leave your keys in the ignition." The person who commits the crime is always the one who is responsible for the harm done regardless of how easy the victim makes it for them. But if you want to make your chance of being the victim lower you should take the basic steps to protect yourself.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[MechaStreisand]

"anything you say can and will be used against you" which is clearly nonsense

No it is NOT. It is how the courts and police work in the US. If you have been arrested and you tell them things which support your innocence, they can't testify to them in court (although they could release you or drop the charges). Prosecutors are even worse: their only concern is to convict you unless they both believe you are innocent and have the integrity to not prosecute. But neither of them can testify in your defense base on what you tell them, so telling them anything doesn't help you in any way at all unless you actually manage to convince them that you are innocent.

So the statement "anything you say can and will be used against you" is not nonsensical in any way.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apprehensible -> reprehensible, apologies.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[igb]

It would appear that he's not made enough pleas of other cases to be taken into consideration, either. He's been charged again.

A man has been charged over a doctored "offensive image" on Facebook of a teenage girl who was shot dead, police have revealed.

Sophie Taylor, 16, was accidentally shot by Calum Murray, 18, at a cottage near Tomintoul, Moray, on 12 April.

Her boyfriend, a trainee gamekeeper, then turned the gun on himself.

Grampian Police said a 25-year-old man - who the BBC Scotland news website understands to be Sean Duffy, from the Reading area - had been charged.

Some people really don't get the hint, do they?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[AlXtreme]

If I or anyone else were to have told such a joke in the middle of last weekend's anniversary markings, or on a forum for those affected by the events and subsequent fall-out, or so forth, that would be a deliberate attempt to cause offence. It would be bullying. A petty crime but a crime all the same, and should be punished.

That's not bullying, it's just being an arse. Punishment is fine: someone being an arse should be banned from such a website, but not incarcerated.

Locking people up merely because they said something others find detestable is a slippery slope. An act that one person might find offensive might not be offensive for someone else. Do we now need a judge to figure out what can be said online and what can't? Do we need a judge to rule where I can say something and where I'm not allowed to say the exact same statement?

No, I'd rather have my free speech and the trolls. Being offensive is not a crime.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that ironic given that most British magistrates lack the ability to read.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Louisiana has common law. The difference is that the other 49 states (or the other 45 states and 4 commonwealths if you want to be picky) all have BRITISH common law as the foundation for their common law while the state of Louisiana uses FRENCH common law as the basis for its common law.

This has some interesting implications, such as explaining why Louisiana is often the last state to legalize anything. Under British common law, things are generally considered legal until they are explicitly declared illegal. Under French common law, things are generally considered illegal until they are explicitly made legal.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Moryath]

This is because the US justice system was cooked up by a bunch of people who were used to the way the British PRACTICE, not the way those assholes preach.

In practice, the British system at the time was "tell us everything now. No lawyer in your defence. And when you go to trial you'll be in a cage and made to look as guilty as possible visually." They were used to being abused. So they made damn sure that the people had the RIGHT not to talk to the abusive, corrupt fucks called "police" that are still abusive corrupt fucks today.

The sad part is that in the US, people usually aren't smart enough to keep their damn traps shut, and the police have come up with all sorts of "right up to the line and we'll fudge it and lie about it if we have to" tactics to get around that darn 5th amendment anyways. See previous comment: police are a bunch of corrupt, abusive fucks.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[bkr1_2k]

Deliberately offending people is not the same as bullying people. The fact that so many these days think it is the same thing is where the problem starts with cases like this.

Bullying people provides something to the bully, generally some sort of social or financial gain. Calling people names or saying something in poor taste online provides neither of these in an "anonymous" environment. If he did it with his real name, perhaps you could argue it was intentional bullying but I'd probably still disagree. Yes his actions were intentional, but being deliberate doesn't make someone a bully. It does make them an asshole (I'm from the US, I prefer that to arsehole) but that's not illegal. For that matter, I don't think petty bullying that doesn't actually cause physical harm or threat of physical harm should be illegal either, though. In order to be bullied you must first think of yourself as a victim.

Emotional harm over the internet? Really? Get a grip on reality. Personal responsibility is sorely lacking (on both sides of cases like this) and it's time for that to stop. Grow up, grow a pair, and take responsibility for yourself and shit like this won't matter.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[L4t3r4lu5]

It is the same in the UK. You have a right to legal representation during interview while under arrest, and you can (and should) remain silent until that point. The "...fail to mention when questioned..." part is to prevent fabrication of an alibi while on bail. If you are released pending trial, you have time to talk to others to bring about a story to cover yourself, which you would then present at trial. Obviously this is A Bad Thing, so they changed the spiel.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[operagost]

Perhaps there is not such a large difference between physical and emotional abuse as we might have thought.

Yes there is. Physical damage can usually be confirmed visually or through tests. Emotional damage can be fabricated.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

Posting offensive messages on a tribute page for the deceased is not necessary for free speech.

And it could be treated as a civil matter, such as here. There's no law against suing the "offender". To be jailed for that though? Come on... just sounds draconian to me.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

You need to deal with those gray areas, otherwise, what kind of "rule of law" do you have, and being THE common law state, Britain should really have a better handle on it, don't you think? How hard is that to grasp?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Mr. Slippery]

Posting offensive messages on a tribute page for the deceased is not necessary for free speech.

Which is why the tribute page should be moderated.

The poster was an asshole, and ought to be socially shunned, and perhaps some civil case ought to be brought on infliction of emotional distress; but the gross incompetence of whoever set up an unfiltered memorial page does not justify locking this asshole in a cage.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

For all you know, the police came to Duffy's place to investigate and he broke down blubbering and confessed everything like the anonymous coward he is.

So, being a coward is illegal in Britain? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. I sure did poke holes in the prosecution, for all you know. You're speculating like I am. Yes, the defense was clearly not successful. As I said, IF THEY WERE COMPETENT.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

You guys do have rule of law there, right? You're all really beginning to sound as though its a police state over there.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

So being a nuisance is illegal in Britain?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[mad flyer]

For frack sake, it's a newspaper making crap up on his back. It's not aboot being not offended. It's clearly libel...

It's nice to see psychopath able to twist reality as far as possible to fit their argumentation... But at the end of the day i'd prefer you avoid breeding and report to the nearest asylum....

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Mr. Slippery]

No. He wasn't "just being an arsehole" (we have arseholes over here, not assholes!), he was bullying.

No, this is not bullying. Bullying involves physical force against person or property, or the threat of it. It takes more than insults and rudeness to rise to the level of bullying.

If I or anyone else were to have told such a joke in the middle of last weekend's anniversary markings, or on a forum for those affected by the events and subsequent fall-out, or so forth, that would be a deliberate attempt to cause offence. It would be bullying. A petty crime but a crime all the same, and should be punished.

No, "a deliberate attempt to cause offense" is neither bullying nor a crime, you snot-nosed fetid mother-whoring dog-faced git. (And note the correct spelling, stupid limey poofter.) Bullying would be if I were to threaten to punch you in your misshapen lump of a face. I guess you're just too mentally retarded to grasp the difference between bullying and insulting. </deliberate-attempt-to-cause-offense>

Seriously, if someone cracked a 9/11 joke in the middle of some solemn observance, that would be rude and earn them a social shunning. But there is no rational argument that it would justify locking them in a cage. A society that can't tell the difference between behavior that should result in shunning someone and behavior that should result in locking someone up, is doomed.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ChumpusRex2003]

Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.

Why would they do that?

The UK has a law called the "Digital Economy Act" which requires all ISPs to log all communications (at the IP address/connection level, rather than the contents) together with the identity details of the person on whose behalf they were made.

This means that if you provide internet services to other people (e.g. you are a coffee shop and provide wifi for customers) you are acting as an ISP and must ensure that you verify the identity of all users for the purposes of complying with the DEA. If you fail to do this, then you commit an offence under the DEA, and may additionally be automatically liable for any communications offences committed via your connection (This is in the same way that the CEO of a company is personally responsible for any driving offences committed with a company vehicle, unless they provide details of the identity of the driver at the time. Failure to keep adequate records is not a defence.)

There is no loophole for running a completely open network. It is a requirement that you take all reasonable steps to protect yourself. Running a totally open public network could be regarded as negligence, and therefore may not be accepted as a defence if a crime was committed via your network.

While it is a grey area at present, it seems likely that running a TOR exit node would cause you to be acting as ISP, and therefore obligated to log all connections, hold them for a period of 6 months, and to provide those logs to law-enforcement immediately upon request.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Bugs shit on your lawn, small mammals shit on your lawn, birds shit on your lawn. Tiny little bacteria are shitting all lover the place.

Is this the same thing as a full grown human shitting on your lawn? No, because none of these things lay a foot long turd that takes 6 months or more to break down.

Most dogs are comparatively small, and eat a pretty crappy diet that's already pretty much broken down. Decent size dog turd will break down in a month. Tiny dog turd, maybe a week tops. I'm fine with them. My grass needs the free nitrogen. Potassium is pretty hard to find too.

Signed,
Owner of the dog the shits on your lawn.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[geminidomino]

The continuing adventures of the WBC belies your statement.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with the comments concerning sociopathic nonsense from geeks. Lord knows how many times I've been trolled over my past 20+ years on the BBSes and the Internet.

It's about time someone does something to stop them damned trolls. People should grow up and accept responsibility for their actions. Maybe they'll learn if the get stuck in jail.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Tarsir]

So, being a coward is illegal in Britain? Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

This is a laughable straw man argument.

I sure did poke holes in the prosecution, for all you know.

As per other posts in this thread, Duffy did confess. So I know very well that you did not poke holes in the prosecution.

Yes, the defense was clearly not successful. As I said, IF THEY WERE COMPETENT.

This is a textbook True Scotsman fallacy.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Oligonicella]

Uh no... And your brain isn't thinking that deeply. China actively shuts down access to internet and jails publishers and critics. No. Do some reading, grow the fuck up and quit posting just to be a troll.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[advocate_one]

I will insist on refusing to recognise that caution... and maintaining silence until after, and only until after having discussed things with a lawyer... the whole caution has been cleverly designed to make it seem like you have no right to silence.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interkin3tic]

Sorry to go off-topic here, but what the hell law did shouting "bang bang" break?!? Surely the UK has not outlawed "being an arse," and surely no one thought an actual gun was being fired. That was covered under the same "Malicious communication" that TFA involves?

Mocking a policeman wounded in the line of duty IS despicable, but doesn't seem like something that needs to involve the law or courts.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Oligonicella]

"Bullying people provides something to the bully, generally some sort of social or financial gain."

The satisfaction of bringing torment to someone ain't enough? You haven't known many bullies.

"In order to be bullied you must first think of yourself as a victim."

No, you simply have to be a target of an incessant asshole.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[serviscope_minor]

No it is NOT.

Yes it is:

If you have been arrested and you tell them things which support your innocence, they can't testify to them in court (although they could release you or drop the charges)

Which means that they WON'T be using them in a court of law against you.

[a bunch of stuff]

That may very well br true, but either way, not everything you say will be used against you in a court of law.

So the statement "anything you say can and will be used against you" is not nonsensical in any way.

Given that not every arrest leads to court there is simply no way that everything you say will be used against you. Much of what you say may very well not be used at all.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Mr. Slippery]

Freedom of expression is not a goal in itself

Yes. Yes, it is, and shame on you sir for claiming otherwise. Shame on you, your parents, your teachers, and whoever else taught you such vile garbage.

Freedom of expression is a vital basic natural right. It is not something that is just permitted to "keep a society balanced", it is a fundamental requirement for fulfilled human existence.

There is no expression that a human being can made, spoken or written, that in and of itself justifies locking them in a cage. None. To be a threat requires more than an expression, it requires behavior and circumstances that render the threat credible. Slander and libel are civil issues, not criminal ones.

Offending people just for the sake of the offending is just as much freedom of speech as thrilling people just for the sake of the thrill (any action story), or titillating them just for the sake of the titillation (erotica), or amusing them just for the sake of the amusement (comedy). Speakers and writers do not need to justify their words to you or to the state.

Was this guy an asshole? Yes. What do we do with assholes? We tell them they're assholes, we don't invite them to parties, we decline to be their friends, we mod down or ban entirely their posts, we don't listen to their advice, we point at them and laugh. We shame them, and maybe they eventually get the point. But in a society with any shred of respect for human rights, we do not lock someone up for being an asshole.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Oligonicella]

"Bullying involves physical force against person or property, or the threat of it."

Says who? From Webster's Unabridged:
bully
1. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

No mention of physical force. The rest of your argument falls from this.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Toonol]

Somebody wants Justaguy516 jailed, obviously.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Toonol]

Also... the degree of emotional damage depends to some extent to the willingness of the target to be damaged. That seems a little more cold-hearted than I intended, but I'm not sure how to phrase it any differently. Physical damage cannot be avoided by having a more healthy or experienced mindset, but mental damage can be. The reverse is true, to; a character flaw or weakness can make the emotional damage much worse.

Should the punishment for inflicting emotional pain be worse when the recipient is emotionally immature? That doesn't seem right.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[rocket rancher]

Freedom of expression has to include the freedom to offend people, or it's no freedom at all.

Freedom of expression is not absolute; for example slander and libel are forbidden. Why would someone intentionally abusing his freedoms to hurt others not be punished? Surely the purpose of law is not to give cover to psychopaths as they prey on the weak?

Putting a human in a cage because he hurt somebody's feelings is the real outrage, here. You are sick and wrong to defend it.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[funkelectric]

The focal question in your previous post seemed to be At what point, exactly, do I cross the line on what I say?. That is an impossible question to answer. Libel and slander and parody and indeed abusive verbiage cannot be unambiguously defined, they need to be seen in context, and yes, a lot of that is and will (especially when concerning online behaviour) be tackled in common law. That is an ongoing process, but will never lead to a nice leaflet of bullet points to guide one through lilfe. One needs to be a fairly abusive person however to cross enough gray area in order to go to jail. So, it is not about crossing a line, it is about crossing a sufficient amount of gray area. Similar arguments can be made regarding stalking. When is behaviour stalking? There is no straight answer. And no, you would never go to jail for saying that Clegg is a bastard. On Slashdot there seems to be a sentiment that any repercussions following from abusive online behaviour somehow represent an assault on free speech. It seems to be a geek impediment of all-or-nothing binary thinking. I am not equating your post with this view, but it ties in with the gray areas. It is OK to protest/get angry/slam/mock/whatnot online. But downright abusiveness and targeted bullying is not. As an aside, my remark "how hard is that grasp" did not contribute to the debate - apology.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Oligonicella]

"2) Online culture is different from real-world culture.

Other than being digital, how? Really. How is it different? That you don't see the face of the commenter? Like you don't see the face of someone on a party line?

Other than you *want* it different, that is. Please be a little more specific than a simple, personal assertion.

"Just like open front gardens are the norm, not the exception in the real world."

Another personal assertion, which due to my personal experience, I feel is incorrect.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Ginger Unicorn]

those assholes

Wow, a xenophobic generalisation. That's the exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from an American.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[AVee]

Well in that case, fuck you.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[shentino]

That doesn't excuse the UK parliament from passing the bullshit law that LET him get so harshly punished in the first place.

Or was it the queen that signed it?

I'm an American, so I don't know how the UK politico-legal process works precisely, but I know a restraint on free speech when I see it.

This should have been a civil matter and the victim's next of kin should sue the crap out of him. But leave the cops out of it.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

This is a laughable straw man argument.

So laughable you felt compelled to respond to it. You may believe what you like, of course, even that freedom of speech is a silly, bumpkin-ish American thing. But you really don't compel me to question myself. You're defensive and argumentative only.

As per other posts in this thread, Duffy did confess. So I know very well that you did not poke holes in the prosecution.

What Duffy said or didn't say is irrelevant to my argument.

This is a textbook True Scotsman fallacy.

British Solicitors are above reproach? Why Councillor, your nakedness is showing.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[shentino]

What I'd like to know is WHY this thing is a criminal matter in the first place.

Shouldn't the victim's family just be able to sue the guy?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Oligonicella]

"If you hold your memorial in a public square, your going to get the weirdos."

We agree. Where we differ is I think they should have their asses kicked for being such. They live on the assumed niceness of others so that they may frolic in their Clockwork Orange level of vandalism.

Sorry, but fuck the thugs who think that having something public in reach gives free rein for the destruction thereof.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[asdf7890]

That's not bullying, it's just being an arse. Punishment is fine: someone being an arse should be banned from such a website, but not incarcerated.

Banning from a single site or group of sites wouldn't work though. This sort of idiot would wear the ban as a badge of honour, and would register a new account to tell people he was doing so.

Incarceration is probably not the answer (even if just because our prisons are pretty overcrowded already, but also considering how much physical crime some people get away with without incarceration which makes this seem more disproportionate), but something significantly more than just a site ban is needed IMO but I'm not sure what would fit the bill.

People get all "its a human right" if you talk about a more general Internet ban (even a short term one) and any such ban would be pretty much completely unenforceable anyway. ASBOs are pretty much ineffective due to the "badge of honour" thing, and a curfew would have little effect (unless I'm applying the wrong stereotype and he has a particularly active social life).

That doesn't leave much. A community service order perhaps? Or maybe we could get a bit eye-for-an-eye and put up posters around his home town with his face and instructions to "insult this arse if you see him in the street, let's see how he likes it, I mean look at the podgy slack-jawed idiot".

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

Freedom of expression is not a goal in itself, although lots of people seem to have lost the bigger picture there. Freedom of expression exists because it is required to keep a society balanced, this kind of 'expression' doesn't really help towards that goal.

Who the hell are you or anyone else to decide the "goal" of freedom of expression for every person in a society?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Paracelcus]

"Propaganda or Bad reporting?" Neither, just plain ignorance!

Jailed for being a dick?, priceless!

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[shentino]

There's also civil vs. criminal.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[shentino]

Slander and libel are also civil torts, not crimes.

You get sued, not thrown in prison.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much are you willing to spend on law enforcement and prison infrastructure?

Summary executions are pretty cheap.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[asdf7890]

Deliberately offending people is not the same as bullying people. The fact that so many these days think it is the same thing is where the problem starts with cases like this.

Mental bullying is a real problem (though one that many people grossly exaggerate, I'll agree that far). Personally I preferred the pysical bullies in my younger years, all you had to do to get rid of all of them for a while was to "accidentally" bloody the nose of one of the little cowards. The mouthy ones without the balls to come within arms reach (like this lad) would go running to teacher the moment you even coughed back in their direction.

Bullying people provides something to the bully, generally some sort of social or financial gain. Calling people names or saying something in poor taste online provides neither of these in an "anonymous" environment.

He most likely does gain. The gain is in his head of course, much as the damage he is doing to others is in theirs, but it is still not nothing. He will have felt some sort of superiority or significance beyond that which he normally feels, and if anyone "thumbs up"ed that youtube clip he would certainly have felt a degree of success and even acceptance.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ffreeloader]

This is pure nonesense. There are two ways of offending people. One is inadvertently offending someone and the other is being intentionally offensive like the idiots from Westboro Baptist church and the idiot in question here.

I never set out to offend people, but I've offended a lot of people. I offended one guy simply because I have three Ks in my last name and I was laughing about how that made me the KKK. I was poking fun at myself, and the subject offended his sensitivities. He got pretty angry over the entire incident. I still don't understand how making fun of myself could possibly offend someone else, but I guess there are poeple out there who are looking for something to get offended over.

It's something else altogether to go out and deliberately offend people like the incident in question here, or the woman who so tormented a young girl that the kid committed suicide. There's no way this type of deliberate malicious behavior can be considered protected speech. My rights stop where your nose begins, and vice versa. It's one thing to accidently hit someone in the nose with your elbow when turning around when your hands are held high and you don't know they are standing there, and another thing altogether to deliberately punch them in the nose. Both actions hurt the other person, but only one is considered to be assault.

As to the argument that you can't make it illegal to be an asshole, well, being an asshole is already illegal in many ways. If someone goes out and steals someone else's property they are being a major asshole, and breaking the law. If an asshole goes out and deliberately picks a fight in a bar, he's liable to spend some time in jail. When an asshole goes out and defrauds someone, he's breaking the law. That's just three instances of how being an asshole is illegal. There are many more.

Only assholes steal from others. Only assholes go out and pick fights. Only assholes defraud people. Being an asshole is already illegal.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

it was precisely because he thought he was untouchable that he did it.

Also, maybe he despises suicide so much that he went the extra kilometer to make that point. However crudely and disrespectful as is may have been received by surviving family, friends and everyone else, including the authorities, he probably has some right to do this that also has been trampled on now by more decent folk.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The analogy doesn't depend on it being barbed wire, you buffoon.

And neither did my criticism. Reguilar chain-link fences are just as ugly, you ass.

"People have front gardens without white picket fences, but don't expect people to shit on the middle of the lawn" means the same thing.

Same thing except for that fact that plenty of places have white picket fences around their front yards.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Kavafy]

Why has this post been modded "troll"? The question is legitimate.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Other than being digital, how? Really. How is it different? That you don't see the face of the commenter? Like you don't see the face of someone on a party line?

Sure, great examples. I think you answered your own question sufficiently.
Or in other words a "personal assertion" is good enough when its truth is obvious even to those who are trying their hardest to disagree.

Another personal assertion, which due to my personal experience, I feel is incorrect.

Well then, you should take that up with the guy who's entire argument depended on fenced in front yards not being the norm. All I did was agree with him.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Kavafy]

Free speech dioes not mean you can say what you like without any consequences, it just means the governmen can't prevent you from saying things in advance.

What? As long as the Government restricts itself to punishing after the fact, free speech is not impeded? That's a crazy position.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[gnasher719]

What can I say, in Britain, that won't get me jailed, what doe I say that crosses the line into sociopathy?

Are you saying you are incapable of functioning without a clear rulebook that lays out the laws for you? There is "being a decent human person", there is "being an ass", and then there is "being so bad that you deserve to be thrown into jail". Most people try to fall into the first category, but you enquire where the line between the second and third category is?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ILongForDarkness]

It is also one way. They don't have to use what you say to help you, you can only hurt your self for talking, never do it without a lawyer present even if it is just to discuss something you witnessed.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ffreeloader]

Most instances I've seen of geeks defending trolling have had their base the idea that people should expect it and that most of the victims of the trolling deserve it. I find that a very slippery, dangerous, and sociopathic, slope.

That's like saying I should expect someone to get in my face and go out of their way to offend me just because I'm walking down a public street, and that because I'm out there walking on a public street I deserve it. Behavior like that is illegal and will land you in jail. There's no reason the same type of behavior on the internet should'nt result in the same penalties. They are moral equivalents and should be considered legal equivalents too.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[anyGould]

I don't think there's a parallel here - Atkinson's court case related to a newspaper publishing articles containing falsehoods that would actively harm his career. (Reading the article, it was that he was suffering mental illness, having to take time off from acting, his family was afraid for his life). And not a word of it was true. (Also worth mentioning that he donated his "payout" to mental health agencies).

I don't know if jail time was the appropriate response for 1st degree Trolling - getting kicked off the internet strikes me as a far more appropriate punishment.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[rerogo]

The key word being "ludicrous". Libel requires falsehood, which it isn't clear was present in this case.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I mean that my facebook account would be really DELETED?
Man, you saved the world, now i know how to delete my facebook account.
And if you patent your method, you will be a billionaire in no time.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[bkr1_2k]

I've known plenty of bullies and they all amount to nothing if you don't give them the power they want. I spent my entire teenage years being "bullied" by your definition. At 14 years old I was under 5 feet tall and weighed 70 pounds and literally was the smallest person in my school. I've dealt with plenty of so-called bullies of all types, both kids and adults. Somehow I still hold the definition I hold because I refuse to let someone scare me or victimize me.

Maybe I'm special, but I somehow doubt it. I still say that in order to be bullied you have to allow it to happen. You choose to be a victim and let the assholes of the world bully you, or you choose not to be a victim and you realize that there will always be assholes and they generally have very little impact on your life in the long term.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[jahudabudy]

What kind of nonsense is it to believe that we should throw people in jail for nothing other than typing?

Right, and what kind of nonsense is it to believe that we should throw people in jail for nothing other than saying words? Just b/c those words are "I will pay you $10,000 to kill my wife", really when you boil it down, all I did was say words. Context be damned.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Yer Mom]

On the other hand, if someone punches you and you fall and bang your head on the ground, but end up with nothing but scratches and bruises, it's assault.

If you have a weak skull and die from the injury, they will be charged with manslaughter. (UK law, your jurisdiction may vary.)

The basic principle is that the one that committed the assault, without bothering to find out if their victim had a condition that would make the outcome especially serious, bears full responsibility for the consequences. If things came out worse than they intended, that's their problem.

So, since there's precedent for this with physical assault, why not with emotional assault as well?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[chihowa]

I shot him in self defense, here's why usually works wonders, assuming it's true and reasonable.

In the UK? I'm thinking any sentence that starts with "I shot him..." ends with you in prison.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ChumpusRex2003]

Shouldn't the victim's family just be able to sue the guy?

Harassment and making malicious communications are crimes.

In the UK, there would be little to be gained from suing. With a few exceptions (notably libel), there is no principle of "damages" in UK law. Broadly speaking, if you sue someone, you can only claim for demonstrable financial loss directly arising from the act or omission. You cannot sue for "compensation" or "damages".

In this case, the postings were distressing and offensive, but no financial loss was suffered, and therefore there is no claim to be sued for.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put the man in jail is a way of dealing with it. Maybe people will learn to behave online like they know that behaving like this in person it risks to get a punch in the face.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue that what was done was beyond offensive, but rather would be deemed traumatic to the parents of the deceased children. I also fail to find any purpose to the action that would justify the actions of the convicted other than to cause offence. I see this as a form of assault. The offensive material is not portraying an opinion, or a response to an opinion. Nor do I see anything that could be in the public interest in it creation.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[asdf7890]

Bullying would be if I were to threaten to punch you in your misshapen lump of a face. I guess you're just too mentally retarded to grasp the difference between bullying and insulting.

I suppose the difference here is that I know that this is "playing" and I can't say I offend easily through words on the Internet anyway (there is a good bad joke mentioning the Special Olympics that is relevant here, you probably know it as it is an old one, but it is not the sort of line I drop into general conversation). Even if you were genuinely trying to wind me up that isn't quite the same as what he did. For a start I at least implicitly invited opinion by state my own on a general forum, and I'm not already in a mentally weakened state due to serious adverse circumstances (which the family of the girl he was a fuckwit towards would have been. He took open shots at people who ere already down. It would appear that my poofy limey tendency to jump to the defence the little guy and/or the weakened conflicts with your loud lardy yank tenancy to want to be able to mouth off anywhere at any time at any volume without negative consequences.

ps. your spelling is fine IMO (but I'm a tad dyslexic, so you might want to run it past others rather than just taking my word) though as poofter is slang you could probably get away with many other spellings ("pufta" to give the impression of a more aggressive tone and/or a harsher accent for instance). I might suggest "thick limey poofter" instead as it scans better to my mind, or "fuckwitted limey poofter" as fuckwit is one of my favourite words and I think it should get more use.

pps. I've already replied to someone else on the "this is not bullying" and "locking in a cage" bits. I'll not split the thread by copying it here. Scroll up if are in the mood to care.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[jeremyp]

This is a laughable straw man argument.

So laughable you felt compelled to respond to it.

He responded by demising it as a straw man argument, so no, he did not take it seriously.

What Duffy said or didn't say is irrelevant to my argument.

Your argument is relevant if the defendant is denying the crime. The defendant made a confession in this case. No amount of checking MAC addresses etc is going to convince a jury (or magistrate) that the defendant didn't do it if the defendant has already said he did.

This is a textbook True Scotsman fallacy.

British Solicitors are above reproach? Why Councillor, your nakedness is showing.

The point is that there is nothing to suggest that the defence legal counsel was incompetent in this case.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

For one, the family still ends up having psychological pain inflicted on them by trolls who intended to do just that (or do you think they have money shooting out of their ears to hire a moderator?)

You are looking to the law to solve a problem first and foremost when the law should always be the last resort.

If the family expects well wishers to actively use the website it isn't a stretch to ask those people to delete anything that they think is inappropriate. It isn't like some dinky memorial website is going to have to worry about edit wars. That plus something to prevent message flooding seems like a very reasonable minimum standard.

On "money shooting out of their ears" bit - how'd they pay for the website in the first place? I'm guessing it was ad-supported. If ads can pay for the website it seems reasonable that the same service provider could provide some sort of moderation service - perhaps as part of posting to one website you have to moderate a message from another website on the same host.

It is sociopathic nonsense to believe that an unmoderated forum deserves in any way the trolling it gets.

You are arguing for victimhood and almost a learned helplessness. Your constant use of the word "deserves" to describe the situation is emotional and misleading. Nobody "deserves" what happened here. But neither does anyone "deserve" to be shielded from offense by the law.

Trolling someone's web forum is little different than going to their home and shouting obscenities from the sidewalk.

It is hugely different. There is no "off" button for someone yelling at your house. These people had all kinds of options to make the asshole go away that don't exist in your sidewalk analogy.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[lee1]

The wonderful short story by Rex Stout called "The Next Witness" is germane here.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ultranova]

Putting a human in a cage because he hurt somebody's feelings is the real outrage, here.

Why is it that people keep on talking about feelings like they were nonexistent? Is this somehow related to the "hardness is good" -meme and its ideal of humans as emotionless robots? Or the related ideas in ideological capitalism where nothing has value besides the financial?

In any case, how can a few weeks in jail be an "outrage" if hurt feelings don't matter? Because that's all it's likely to result in.

You are sick and wrong to defend it.

You are sick and wrong to defend a sick person's right to act his sickness out on others without consequences.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurting your feelings isn't a crime.

I guess now it is because it's done via a computer? How stupid.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[defaria]

Incorrect. In the US, your testimony counts as evidence for the prosecution, hearsay for the defence. Anything you say can be used against you in America, never for you.

Nonsense! Your testimony most certainly can be beneficial for you. It depends largely on the facts of the case and what you said. To say it is never for you is just plain wrong. You certainly can say things that the jury will see as favorable to your defense. Chances might be low, but it's not impossible!

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[defaria]

Man, the UK is more fucked up than I had originally imagined. At first I thought it was just bad teeth, bad food and bad weather. Now I hear of the shitty liable laws and rampant pseudo science. But now stupid cyber bullying laws. Geeze, note to self - never consider move there - they are barbarians fer sure...

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Fned]

Unfortunately, un-doing them, when you fuck up and convict the wrong guy, is prohibitively expensive...

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what they say in Iran, the DPRK, China and other nations not in favor with Western nations but they are viewed as forbidding freedom of speech, etc. Why can Western nations violate freedom of speech and rationalize it but others can't?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Res ipsa loquitur...

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

Your argument is relevant if the defendant is denying the crime.

Incorrect, the truth is the truth, and has nothing to do with what the defendant says. Defendants admit to crimes they didn't do all the time. Do you still jail him even if its shown that he didn't do it, even if he continues to admit that he did it? I hope not. But that has nothing to do with my point, never the less. I'm not speaking to the guy's culpability, but weather or not its ok to jail people for what they say. You're still arguing with me based on some weird assumption this has to do with the guy's guilt.

The point is that there is nothing to suggest that the defence legal counsel was incompetent in this case.

You don't know that. As I said in my previous post, suppose a defence hired investigator finds that the mac addresses don't match. I'm suggesting that a host of possibilities COULD show that he didn't do it, and that a defence worth its salt would look into those possibilities. The original argument was that the transactions were traced to his machine. Case closed. I say not necessarily. Its not just a simple matter of tracing the ip traffic to his machine.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[interval1066]

I'm saying that being thrown in jail or being an ass is foolish and bound to be easily misused. let me say that again since it seems to be difficult for you: BEING AN ASS SHOULDN'T"T BE A CRIME. Period. Its laws like that that become tools for tyrants.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between making fun of someone and stating untruths as fact.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[fyngyrz]

So is the thinking that leads to them, idiot.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[fyngyrz]

There's no need to criminalize those words. Criminalize the giving of funds or barter for murder-for-hire and you have the problem 100% covered at the source. Criminalize the killing, and you have it 100% covered at the operational level.

On the other hand, criminalize the words and you have one of the components of a repressive regime. We tried not to do that here in the US, but unfortunately, a lot of people don't think very well and as a result our free speech is significantly tainted by corrosive and toxic laws that should never have reached the books.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[fyngyrz]

Moderation has only become the norm because it has had to because of jerks.

Really? I browse at -1 all the time so as to not miss posts by anonymous posters, who often have valuable and interesting things to say. I see the trolls and etc., but they don't bother me. I neither need or depend upon moderation to sanitize the world for me. And frankly, if you do, that's your own fail. I see no need to have moderation just because you're unable to correctly parse what you read.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Spykk]

I shot him a furtive glance?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[nfc_Death]

It's no different then realizing your father was a complete asshole to your family as you were growing up, stating that fact, and then reformulating your household so as to not end up being viewed that way.
Calling an American a xenophobe essentially is like admitting to everything your child feels about you.
An asshole-ish statement after being called an asshole just proves their point.
Way to fall directly into a poorly made and obvious trap.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[quacking duck]

Also, why should we be able to mock Michael Jackson's death but not a random passerby's? It doesn't cause anyone close to him less grief just because he was a public figure. Which, by the way, anyone who appears in the news once or has a Facebook profile/shrine seems to be, to varying extents, in the web 2.0.

Because Michael Jackson, other celebrities, politicians, etc are public figures by choice. Less so royalty since they are born into it, or family of public figures.

The News of the World scandal has been around the better part of a decade--everyone *knew* they hacked into voicemails of the rich and famous, and they didn't really care, but it wasn't until it became known that they hacked into and tampered with VM evidence in the case of the murdered girl, and possibly also grieving war widows and widowers, that the line was crossed and the public turned en masse against Murdoch and his media empire (for all the good that did, admittedly). Because the public identifies with random passerbys who could be themselves. And in wonderful irony, Rupert Murdoch, who jealously guards his own privacy while implicitly approving the violation of others', was put under the media spotlight himself.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

"he was taking time off acting and his ability to continue working was seriously called into question." from the article in question.

That comment could seriously harm someones ability to work. There was harm from that irresponsible article and no evidence to back up their claims. It was not offensive speech, it was libel and illegal, quite different than making fun of someone. Probably more damaging since it was an AP article.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[nfc_Death]

What are you people, stuck so deep in the forest you cannot see the trees?
The american justice system provides you with fair warning about incriminating yourself.
The British justice system threatens you into speaking with a vague warning that if you don't you wont be able to later.

Honesty versus underhanded double-speak, yeah I think the Americans got it right.
In Britain your citizen rights are protected by a royal mandate, which protects the institution and allows for the citizen to retain some independence.
In the US (recent freedom reductions notwithstanding) it is part of the formulation of the core values of the nation that citizen rights be protected.

If your argument is that for a lawyer there is slightly more wiggle room in the British method of dealing with self-incrimination, I cannot count that as a good thing.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[jahudabudy]

It goes back to intent, which we mostly have to rely on context to infer. If we're rehearsing a play, sure, nothing wrong with those words. Or if we're drunk and bitching about our wives and I make a poor taste joke, it shouldn't be illegal. But actually intending to murder someone and taking steps towards that goal SHOULD be illegal, IMO. It is certainly a grey area when you start judging other people's intentions, but I think necessary. You say criminalize the giving of funds, but giving funds isn't illegal. You then have to include the aspect of saying "Here's money for murdering my wife". Which makes not the action illegal, but the context as judged by the words is illegal. You're still making the words themselves meaningful in a legal sense, just one step removed. I'm not sure why that is cleaner.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Moryath]

No. The british legal system really were a bunch of corrupt fucking assholes.

They regularly used crap like this to make defendants appear guilty in courtrooms. Take a tour of historic courthouses in the "colonies" (what we Yanks call "New England" today) and you can see where in many cases there are still the marks on the floor from where the cages were originally screwed in over the defendant's station, where the poor soul would be made to stand up all day long during court proceedings, not even offered a chair to rest his feet while the corrupt Limey judge decided whether to hang him or toss him into prison for life.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[metrix007]

Who defines what is a behavioural norm? In the real world you would have the police remove someone troublesome, not put them injail for being mean. Why is jail warranted because it was done online? Why not a fine and restraining order?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[metrix007]

There is no trade off. You simply don't have an important freedom.

In the real world you would have the police remove someone troublesome, not put them injail for being mean. Why is jail warranted because it was done online? Why not a fine and restraining order?

I would say that is further evidence that the UK is on a slippery slope, that their residents think it's ok for people to be jailed for being mean.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I shot him a furtive glance?

Did it hurt his feelings? If so, I don't know if you'd want to confess to it...

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Belial6]

People are selfish, self serving animals that would happily throw a stranger under a bus if it made their life easier. So, yes. Police are people, and thus you must expect them to behave as anyone else would, except with guns and a large powerful organization behind them that will lose face if the person is found to be abusing other people.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[LanMan04]

But in a society with any shred of respect for human rights, we do not lock someone up for being an asshole.

Yes, yes, a million times yes!

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

I said nothing about jail. Jail nearly always takes a bad situation and makes it worse for everyone involved. I would be in favor of eliminating it as an option for the vast majority of offenses and for 100% of non-violent offenses.

One answer might be to decriminalize the fist to the face in cases of "sore provocation". Perhaps we should reach to the mental age of the trolls and have the judge paddle their asses in public until they actually can't sit down. We can encourage other trolls to get it out of their system throwing rotten fruit at those found guilty.

In this particular case where he claims Asperger's, he should be sentenced to counseling where he is expected to develop and use some sort of compensatory strategy that will allow him to avoid doing anything like this again. It's probably cheaper than jail, allows him to be a productive citizen, and is more likely to actually prevent a repeat incident.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[toriver]

Ah, yes - one man's insensitive asshole is another man's freedom fighter.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

A website can be had for a LOT less money than a moderator. $10/month gets you a website. Know anyone willing to moderate a website for $10/month?

As for getting the law involved, we can either criminalize this sort of trolling (let's face it, it goes WAY beyond mere annoyance and deep into deliberate infliction of emotional harm territory) or de-criminalize the 'self help' approach (going to his house and beating the crap out of him).. Take your pick.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[HiThere]

I'm sorry, but they MUST expect trolls. If they don't come from the UK, they'll come from elsewhere.

N.B.: It's not only commemorative pages that end up needing to defend against such people. It's everyone. But certainly those who have been in any way prominent are more subject to attack, and they MUST expect that.

This is not a justification for such an attack, and while I think the sentence is too harsh, only by about 50%. Maybe 60%. And it won't do any good, as there are so many inconsiderate (sociopathic?) idiots that removing one doesn't noticeably reduce the problem. And it's not a deterrent because, as I said, they are in certain ways idiots. You can't really think that they are motivated by rational considerations.

Maybe I do think the sentence was too harsh. Not in principle, but because it won't do any good. Possibly he should be publicly whipped instead. Something that will leave scars in places that restrict what clothing he must wear to hide it, so he'll remember, and also something quite painful. And embarrassing. Not something that's expensive, or crippling. And maybe a week or two in jail.

Once upon a time the stocks were used for people like this, but I think that currently there would need to be heavy guards to ensure that he wasn't permanently injured while helpless. (They didn't used to worry about that, but to me it seems an appropriate consideration.)

So the reason I consider the sentence too harsh is that it's too expensive to carry out. And it won't do any good. We need something quick, cheap, and effective (on the one being punished). And we can't expect it to affect deter others. That effect, if it exists, is minor and will not serve as a justification.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Johann Lau]

yeah.... free speech, heh. he didn't get jailed for what he said, but his intent. way to dilute the issue of free speech to defend that asshole.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Johann Lau]

It has zero to do with free speech, that's just used as a hostage. And "being an asshole" applies to many things up to murder, so you don't have a point there, either. "I didn't do X, I was just being an asshole". Holy crap.

The slope is only in your bullshit arguments. This has zero to do with being mean to a telemarketer, are you on crack? And "by fax", what about it? Try sending someone death threats repeatedly, or some other such thing. You'll get problems, hopefully -- what is so hard to understand about it?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Johann Lau]

You're right, there's no parallel, because wtf is a "career"? Does the guy have to expect starvation? What a joke.

Compare to suicide. You may say mocking something that's already happened doesn't do any harm, but I say accepting that gives bullies cover. So fuck that.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Belial6]

I'm not going to say you are all wrong, but you must also acknowledge that the American rights only go into effect when they "Arrest you". If they don't say "Your are under arrest", you lose all those rights. In fact, you can be, and people are regularly arrested for exercising the right to remain silent while being held by the police, prior to being "Arrested". There are legal terms, and there are normal language terms. An "arrest" (legal term) happens well after an "arrest" (American English).

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[treeves]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Unkyjar]

It is always better to not speak to the police regarding any matter without your lawyer present.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Belial6]

And it does this after the fact. Exactly as the AC said. Your comment doesn't change the fact that China fits the description that tehcyder gave for free speech.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if it's a detail you didn't know the context of which would make it important?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Belial6]

Your definition ends up as, "You can only be bullied if you are willing to kill the bully". Bullying situation can and do escalate. They can and often do escalate to physical violence of a level where people end up dead.

It is kind of naive to claim that "in order to be bullied you have to allow it to happen" without considering that dealing with murder charges is a real possibility when following your advice.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Thomasje]

I think it's a genuinely dangerous slippery slope.

This "slippery slope" meme seems to be the libertarian's favorite argument against any legislation, but how do things actually happen in the real world? Certain people behave in ways that happen to be legal but which most of us find immoral (which, in fact, most of the perpetrators would find pretty nasty themselves, if it were to happen to them). So, we change the law and ban something. Libertarians immediately extrapolate the new legislation to a ridiculous extent (straw man argument) and thusly "prove" that even the non-exaggerated legislation is wrong. The rest of us ignore the screechy libertarians, and wait for any actual *evidence* that the new law is abused, and, lacking such evidence, sleep soundly at night. Many countries in Europe have limitations on public speech that would give a U.S. constitutional fanatic a brain embolism, and yet magically Europe persists in being a place of open discourse, not a police state. So, relax, and give some thought to the people that some of these "dangerous" laws are actually meant to protect.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

A website can be had for a LOT less money than a moderator. $10/month gets you a website. Know anyone willing to moderate a website for $10/month?

Again you are choosing to ignore reasonable options. You are stuck on this "it costs too much" jag. It's not a valid excuse and the fact that you are ignoring other proposed options, never mind trying think of some more yourself, shows you are more interested in punishing this guy, consequences be damned, than you are in finding a solution that works.

Take your pick.

Yeah, jail or beating are the only two options here. Making obviously disingenuous arguments isn't particularly convincing.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Belial6]

There seems to be a myth that bullies are always weak cowardly people. That just isn't the case. Sometimes they are people that just like to fight, and enjoy the rush of a fight more than the dislike the pain of the fight.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

Again you are choosing to ignore reasonable options.

How, you haven't suggested any! Letting others delete posts seems to be justy begging for some pointy headed moron to delete all but his own filth

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ultranova]

He hurt someones feelings.

He defaced a memorial to a dead person. Now he gets some time to think whether it is any more acceptable behaviour on the Internet than it is in meatspace.

Thats not exactly a crime AFAIK.

The British court seems to think it is.

Maybe people will learn to keep things private online. If you open everything up to the wider internet, thats going to come with the good and the bad.

Maybe trolls should learn to keep their shit to themselves, rather than go "Wahhhh!!! I'm being oppressed" when they get what's coming to them. If you insist on being a jerk, that's going to have consequences, and you have no one but yourself to blame.

My response: Deal with it, or make it a private page.

It was dealt with. All this whining is because people insist that they have rights without duty to think how using those rights affects other people, and that weird delusion just ran headfirst into the rock wall of reality.

Now all we need to do is extend this to economic rights, specifically to realize that the right to private property in no way implies unelected individuals or organizations should be allowed to wield economic power on the scale of elected governments, and we can start getting our economy and society back on track.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting a human in a cage because he hurt somebody's feelings is the real outrage, here. You are sick and wrong to defend it.

You can put a human in a cage for hurting someone physically, or even just trying to (just touching someone is technically assault). Why is hurting someone's feelings such a huge leap. You can suffer more pain from a well-placed word than from a smack across the face, why is it unreasonable for it to be as illegal?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

How, you haven't suggested any!

I haven't? You mean, I didn't suggest this:

Letting others delete posts seems to be justy begging for some pointy headed moron to delete all but his own filth.

I didn't even think through the implications and address your objection regarding edit wars either.

When your own arguments boil down to two sentences that contradict each other I think its time to throw in the towel.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

That's quite correct, you didn't suggest any reasonable alternatives because they remained just as vulnerable to abuse as the original and yet added complexity, lose-lose is not reasonable.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Johann Lau]

he wasn't expressing himself, period. now stop huffing and puffing. and fuck you for bringing up respect, for human rights or not. respect human rights of others or have yours revoked, that's how it works.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Johann Lau]

it's not trolling, it's bullying. the intent is clear and the punishment the result of it.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Really? So now simply deleting messages should be a jailable offense? I think you've made explicit just how extreme your position is.

But even then you didn't pay attention - I did suggest a way to avoid your criticisim - having posters to other sites run by the same host make the determination. That prevents one guy from specifically targeting any particular web site.

You want this guy in jail and in order to justify what you want you are advocating that nobody try to fix the problem in any other way. Like I said in an earlier post you are going to the law as a first resort against the basic principle that the law should always be the remedy of last resort.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Kagato]

> which makes a lot mroe sense than "anything you say can and will be used against you" which is clearly nonsense.

It makes perfect sense. What you say to the cops can be used against you in court, it can never be used for your defense because it would be considered hearsay. Seriously. Never talk to the cops in the US. Ever.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Unkyjar]

"You are by all means free to censor those thoughts but you have no basis to claim you are harassed by thoughts you don't like."

It would appear that under your logic death threats should be protected and not considered harassment. As I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, I would like a little more clarification for your stance on threats of physical harm?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yes it is iv dealt with some police men and if you say nothing you get charged with every thing on the books they need to clear

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

I never said that, I said offering that capability was not a viable solution. But do feel free to keep hacking away at those strawmen Baldrick!

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Hatta]

I said nothing about jail.

The article is about a man going to jail for trolling. If you're arguing in favor of consequences for trolling in an article about a man going to jail for trolling, then it's reasonable to assume you're in favor of the consequences talked about in the article, unless you explicitly say otherwise.

One answer might be to decriminalize the fist to the face in cases of "sore provocation".

You can't think of a better idea than countering words with violence, and you're complaining about the mental age of trolls? That's rich.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I never said that, I said offering that capability was not a viable solution.

Ok, so then you agree it is sufficient enough of a solution to deal with the problem of an asshole causing somebody mental harm. I don't see any other way for you to have it, unless your interest is in punishing people for being assholes rather than preventing harm.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

And I said to myself, "These sacks of straw shouldn't be difficult to outwit in a combat situation!"

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[MechaStreisand]

You are a pedantic little shit. In the US, they go over everything you say to see if it can be used against you in a court of law. That in itself is a use of what you say and makes the statement valid. Moreover, it's important to realize that they are going to do that, which makes the statement important.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

I am suggesting that a measured application of an evolutionary socialization mechanism embedded in our genome might be useful for the more egregious cases of failed socialization rather than jail, which has been proven to be not only ineffective, but actually counterproductive.

And your suggestion is to ignore him and he'll stop? I have never heard of that working anywhere at any time.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Unkyjar]

I'm sorry, but since you're speaking in broad generalities allow me to do the same. Exactly how are death threats (credible or otherwise) different from any other form of expression? What about standing behind someone and insulting them day in and day out for weeks or years on end?

If expressing yourself is a vital basic natural right no matter the impact on who you express yourself to, shouldn't death threats and harassment also be held as inviolate acts?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And I said to myself, "These sacks of straw shouldn't be difficult to outwit in a combat situation!"

Since you've been reduced to snark it's seems you have no interest in meaningful participation. That's usually what happens when someone can't rationalise an argument that was based on emotion.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[asdf7890]

Most bullies are not weak and cowardly in my experience either, but they do tend to be quite canny in their choice of target. A target that will properly fight back is usually not preferred over one that won't.

Of course there are a few true psychopaths. Don't push back too hard or too often or you'll attract them by seeming to be a challenge. For the most part they tend to bully the lower bullies in the pecking order, or at least they did where I grew up. Us nerds presumably weren't enough of a high for them.

It is surprising how many of the kids that gave hassle to myself or people that I know fitted the stereotypes, and how many of them have done so in later life too. Of the ones I know about from what people back home have said, the ones that were the most bigoted have come out of the closet at some point since, and the ones that were most just-plain-thugish have amounted to nothing other than a few write-ups in the court reports in the local paper.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[sjames]

Actually, meaningful participation ended when wou started holding both sides of the conversation by putting words in my mouth. I just chose a funny way to acknowledge that the conversation ended a few turns back. How that interacts with what you just said is an exercise for the reader.

Thanks for playing!

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Unkyjar]

Now that was one of the most interesting side notes I've read. Totally didn't realize that. Cool, +1 informative.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[fatphil]

Try to map this to the pen and ink domain.

If he's have (snail-)mailed the families messages like "your daughter was too fucking stupid to [do whatever activity she was involved in] and deserved to die", then that would be clear harassment, and if done more than once, close to stalking too, perhaps. Mapping it to the internet domain doesn't decrease the seriousness of the offence, surely? So I think there is a precedent for criminal punishment for such asocial behaviour. Additionally, once in the internet domain there's the public nature of the outburst to consider and it's presumably libelous too (yes, that's a civil twist rather than a criminal one, but again doesn't diminish the seriousness of the action).

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[lostthoughts54]

From the US here(alabama) and I have to disagree. I have been in light trouble with the law since i was 13(only major thing was a possession charge in High School), As a rule of thumb, cop is out to get you. I have had some exp with law enforcement that was good, but these are few and very far between. Current favorite is i had a flat tire and while i was changing it a cop walks up and just starts looking in my windows, no "are you ok" or "can i give u a hand", just walking around not saying a word to me while trying his hardest to find something to arrest me for. When he didnt see anything in plain view he just walks off. Or the one who said i was causing a disturbance when i wore my Tripp pants to the mall(the kind with chains and whatnot, this also wouldnt fly now with the popularity that scene has gained but back there i was one of the few in the area and as such was the subject of lots of discrimination). I had a older sister that was arrested for possession, My younger sister was at her house when the cops got her. The younger has never been in any form of major trouble(nothing bigger than late for curfew stuff). When i arrived, she was in tears because the sheriffs told her that she was going to jail because she was with my older sis but if she had info they could work it out. Really? Where is that law?
    The position of law enforcement tend to attract a few types of personalities. Most of these are variation of Asshole, jerk, powerhungry dick. Sometimes you get a good one in it for the right reason but the vast majority are just there for the untouchable quality of the power. You do what i say or you get in trouble. Now i hear problems like this arent as rapant elsewhere(we had a new police chief that said he was gonna clean up abuse of power of police in my city, we had a 10th of our force go into early retirement or move off within 3 months.)

so

Police aren't machines. They're people. Be calm, courteous, and reasonably helpful, and they'll treat you well in return. That's how society usually works.

atleast where i live this is far from true. The only way to protect yourself is to know the laws associated with what you do, and this has kept me out of jail numerous times.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most jurors are simpleton proles and average joe lay-people, who couldn't care less about what's proper. Most jurors are either pissed off because jury duty sucks, or extatic to be entrusted with the opportunity to play god with someone's life because they are powerless during the course of their normal day-to-day hum drum routines.

Naive nerdy dorks who obey the rules when acting as jurors are the exception, not the rule. Fact is even if most ordinary douchebags don't understand the concept of jury nullification, I'd say oh... 95% practice it.

So to recap, if you've ever been a juror and you obeyed "the rules", that makes you a gigantic sucker. Everyone else just blunders forth with their puppeted emotions and biases, and there you are expending ten times the effort, when there is neither reward, nor consequence for your behavior.

"Evidence"... HA!

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Actually, meaningful participation ended when wou started holding both sides of the conversation by putting words in my mouth.

No, what I did was attempt to read past your literal words and try to make the meaning behind them explicit. That's how reasonable people come to better understand a topic of debate. Instead of offering up a better explanation you just played the snark card.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your post to be deeply offensive. I am goong to do everything in my power to lock you in a room with real criminals because that's what you deserve for this miserable display of disgusting opinions. You are the worst kind of person, and ai want to see you suffer. You stepped on my feelings, and because you stepped on my feelings with all this awful, awful typing and mouse clicking you did, all while sitting in the comfort of your own home.l, I'm goong to make sure that you are branded as a common criminial.

Why? Because while sitting in the comfort of my own home, I turned on the computer, and navigated to a website of my own choosing, and found what you wrote, and it hurt my feelings. It hurt very sensitive special feeling. It hurt them a lot and now I feel really bad about certain things. So now, I'm going to find any way I can to make you stop poating these mean awful things on the internet. And whatever happens, that' what you get.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right on the money here,
Tor when used properly

There are many ways to trick users into revealing their real IP address, and often TOR is perfectly safe, it is when you accidentally reveal your identity when not using Tor that they identify you.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Do you even know how hard it is to actually convict of libel in a free country like the US?

2. Your 'intentionally abusing freedoms to hurt others" could be someone else's "standing up for your rights against tyrants".

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I'm sorry but causing someone to get mad over teh internets does not amount to causing bodily harm as what might result from shouting fire in a crowded theater and that is the bar we normally use.

In case you missed it here in the US we allow that crazy religious family to picket dead funerals of dead soldiers telling them they're all fags and are going to hell and shouting mean things at them. I don't think they should be arrested even though I despise what they do and through their actions they are in a perverse way preserving MY rights to free expression.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Xest]

No it just seems you don't get it either, which is odd, the concept isn't difficult and has been proven many times to be the case already.

This guy is an asshole no matter how you look at it, I imagine no one would ever see him as anything but.

But the point is, to catch and deal with this asshole, you make it possible to deal with people that really are "freedom fighters" or whatever in the same way. Each time this has happened in the past, this has been the inevitable consequence. A fine example was the British government's introduction of a law to allow them to seize funds of someone arbitrarily designated as a "terrorist" with no real solid legal process needing to be followed before that action was taken. During the financial crisis the British government decided to deem pretty much the whole of the Icelandic banking system as a "terrorist" and seized all their assets. Obviously there were far better ways of going about solving the problem than that and it was a rushed decision that seems likely to have made the problem worse in actually causing the collapse of those Icelandic banks.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Deadite81]

A major point, aside from the dog shit, is that the entire world doesn't have unmitigated access to my lawn. If they did, I would have a barbed-wire fence, mostly because people would probably be shitting there all the time.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Xest]

"his "slippery slope" meme seems to be the libertarian's favorite argument against any legislation, but how do things actually happen in the real world?"

Well they follow the slippery slope. That's kind of the point.

As I suggested to someone else as an example, the UK government introduced legislation to allow parliament to arbitrarily seize assets of terror suspects. This was then used in the financial crisis to seize the assets of pretty much the entire Icelandic banking system. This arguably actually caused the collapse of Icelandic banks because they lost so much of their assets in that single move.

It's not that the law was necessarily bad per-se, it's that the implementation was bad and ill-thought out. Had their been a requirement of judicial oversight or greater scrutiny of such orders then it may not have happened. This is all most people are arguing for when they bring in the slippery slope argument - that when you leave too much open to personal interpretation someone will inevitably interpret it in the broadest possible sense- i.e the British government deeming the Icelanding banks to fall under the classification of financial terrorists.

Laws that are so broad are abused, almost inevitably, it's sad that you're completely ignorant to this fact and believe it doesn't happen.

"yet magically Europe persists in being a place of open discourse, not a police state"

Yeah? I live in the UK where much of the worst arbitrary anti-terror laws were implemented. Photographers were getting their cameras seized for taking photos that were actually legal. People have been getting stopped and searched because the police didn't like the person in question. Councils used RIPA to perform covert following and spying on people for such simple offences as who hadn't picked up dog poo their dog had created, and to make sure parents lived where they said they did so they could go to the right schools the council wanted them too. These are three more examples of ill-defined laws being abused well beyond their original remit. The fact you think this doesn't happen is a really really sad illustration of the level of ignorance some people have of the problem - of course the police and government would never get things wrong, they're perfect, they'd never put self-interest above anything else! You keep telling yourself that. You probably even think warrantless wiretapping laws in the US designed for anti-terrorism operations were only ever used on terrorists too don't you?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Xest]

"Most instances I've seen of geeks defending trolling have had their base the idea that people should expect it and that most of the victims of the trolling deserve it."

I've not seen much of this either, maybe you hang around on 4chan or something, but this isn't a common attitude on the more civilised sections of the web.

"They are moral equivalents and should be considered legal equivalents too."

The problem is, you're making a rather broad assumption here. People have been known to shout at people on the edge of suicide to jump off a building and get on with it or whatever with no punishment. Your assertion that someone getting in your face and insulting you would land them with jail time is false too, it'd likely not land them with anything more than a caution, if even that.

So if you think online activities should suffer the same penalties as real life activities then you're actually arguing that this guys sentence was overly harsh because it is much more harsh than the equivalent activities in real life would've netted him. Just to give you some context, in the UK you can kill someone by driving dangerously and get away without a single minute of jail time.

This guy was an asshole and deserved punishment, but that doesn't change the fact there's a question as to whether this punishment was overly harsh compared to equivalent real life crimes and other crimes, and whether this interpretation of the laws used to deal with him were a bit of a stretch of their original intention, and further, whether now that the law has been stretched whether there's a risk that it's too loosely defined such that it could be stretched to more borderline cases.

Again let me reinforce the point that I don't deny this guy deserved punishment. But I think it's naive to assume that the law wont be stretched further and further and there should always be scrutiny of these sorts of things, else you may find that even you've been guilty of what would then legally be defined as trolling yourself one day.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Ginger Unicorn]

WHOOSH!

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ffreeloader]

Where I live, if there is a person who is constantly going around and harassing people in public places, the cops haul them off. They don't allow public harrassment, and that's exactly what we're talking about in relation to these cases.

It's true they don't haul off everyone, but if it is a recurring offense they most certainly do. They don't allow one person to get up in the face of someone else and start screaming at them in public places, and this is the equivalent of the outrageous trolling. Harassment is harassment, wherever it takes place. There are harrassment laws everywhere, and just because the harassment takes place on the internet doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[WNight]

Or maybe we could get a bit eye-for-an-eye and put up posters around his home town with his face and instructions to "insult this arse if you see him in the street, let's see how he likes it [...]".

Well, you've got one good idea. I was beginning to think you were an irredeemable ass. "Ban him! Ban him!" and all.

I mean look at the podgy slack-jawed idiot

Hmmm, no. You just seem mean. Two of your insults are based on physical features and the last on a congenital mental defect. You're a bully. Go rag on someone with a hair-lip, why don't you?

ASBOs are pretty much ineffective due to the "badge of honour" thing

If they're handed out by people like you, flipping out over insults and looking for any handy revenge, yeah.

People get all "its a human right" if you talk about a more general Internet ban

Too bad we can't get all eye-for-an-eye on you and ban you from the net for trying to do it to someone else.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[rocket rancher]

Putting a human in a cage because he hurt somebody's feelings is the real outrage, here.

Why is it that people keep on talking about feelings like they were nonexistent? Is this somehow related to the "hardness is good" -meme and its ideal of humans as emotionless robots? Or the related ideas in ideological capitalism where nothing has value besides the financial?

In any case, how can a few weeks in jail be an "outrage" if hurt feelings don't matter? Because that's all it's likely to result in.

You are sick and wrong to defend it.

You are sick and wrong to defend a sick person's right to act his sickness out on others without consequences.

Your point, sir, if you have one? The issue is not about the non-existence of feelings. Nor is the issue related to the hardness-is-good meme or the ideal of humans as emotionless robots, nor even ideological captialism.

Rather, it is about depriving somebody of their freedom *because* of feelings. If someone puts their emotions on display in public, they are going to be mocked in public. I submit that people should not have to fear incarceration because they mock somebody's hurt feelings. I eagerly await your (hopefully) strawman-free response.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[ultranova]

Your point, sir, if you have one? The issue is not about the non-existence of feelings. Nor is the issue related to the hardness-is-good meme or the ideal of humans as emotionless robots, nor even ideological captialism.

The issue is related to all of those. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that hurt feelings aren't sufficient cause for any consequences. The UK court disagrees, and I agree with them.

Rather, it is about depriving somebody of their freedom *because* of feelings. If someone puts their emotions on display in public, they are going to be mocked in public.

And if you mock someone's feelings beyond a certain point you're going to face jail time, at least in the UK. What's your point, sir?

I submit that people should not have to fear incarceration because they mock somebody's hurt feelings. I eagerly await your (hopefully) strawman-free response.

The UK court disagrees with you, and I agree with the UK court. As for strawmen, I could hardly attack your points since you didn't make any, besides asserting your opinion.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[rotorbudd]

I was thinking that one of the dead girls family members might want to give it a try.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[rocket rancher]

Your point, sir, if you have one? The issue is not about the non-existence of feelings. Nor is the issue related to the hardness-is-good meme or the ideal of humans as emotionless robots, nor even ideological captialism.

The issue is related to all of those. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that hurt feelings aren't sufficient cause for any consequences. The UK court disagrees, and I agree with them.

Rather, it is about depriving somebody of their freedom *because* of feelings. If someone puts their emotions on display in public, they are going to be mocked in public.

And if you mock someone's feelings beyond a certain point you're going to face jail time, at least in the UK. What's your point, sir?

I submit that people should not have to fear incarceration because they mock somebody's hurt feelings. I eagerly await your (hopefully) strawman-free response.

The UK court disagrees with you, and I agree with the UK court. As for strawmen, I could hardly attack your points since you didn't make any, besides asserting your opinion.

First a bunch of strawmen, and now you are being disingenuous. Throwing somebody in a cage for mocking someone's grief is an heinous overreaction, precisely because it is coming from a court. Forgive me for not spelling it out for you; I truly thought it was fucking obvious to even a casual observer. It sets a bad precedent for freedom of expression, and sets an horrible example for dealing with an otherwise harmless jerk. The legal system that can throw somebody in a cage for mocking somebody is flawed, dude -- that is my point, and my only point. If you can't/won't defend the legal system that did this, then you are wasting my time. You've had two chances; if you don't respond with an argument that is on point, this conversation is over.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[smisle]

you've obviously never seen my neighbor's dogs turds which get left all up and down the sidewalk every morning.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Stellian]

As I said I think harassment is an issue of form, not content. So you can certainly make harassing death threats, but not all death threats should be harassment. However that does not mean it's protected speech: it's a incitement or confession of illegal behaviour to follow, and of course the law enforcement should pick up the cue.

You should be free to say "I believe Las Vegas deserves to be wiped out by a nuclear bomb because it's a mockery towards God", but you should not be free to publish a newspaper add where you are seeking to buy plutonium.

The definition of harassment as "everything that a person find offensive, however delivered" is what bugs me.

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[mooterSkooter]

Who are you?
And is the aforementioned console the Pandora?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[Unkyjar]

Missed the meaning behind my question. I'll rephrase.

What is a form in which a credible death threat to a specific individual isn't harassing?

Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting?

[matfud]

He plead guilt in court. Perhaps he did do what the prosecution claimed he did? If he had any possible defence he may have taken it. This is not the US so freedom of speech is not quite the same here. You can be prosecuted for writing nasty letters to people. Why is it hard to understand that the same laws will apply to something you do on the internet.

Impersonating a dead person

[Roland Piquepaille]

That's just despicable...

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes! I'm offended!

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[cowboy76Spain]

That's just despicable...

The issue is if it should mean jail time.

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[Joce640k]

They have lots of "antisocial behavior" laws these days in the UK...

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[Antarius]

Hahahaha!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/rest-in-peace-roland-piquepaille/1138?tag=search-results-rivers;item1

Well played, sir!

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[foobsr]

They have lots of "antisocial behavior" laws these days in the UK...

Big question: Does this make them an 'antisocial' or a 'social' society ?

CC.

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[Lexx Greatrex]

He knew the penalties when he plead guilty

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[Cwix]

Laws against being antisocial is akin to tilting at windmills.

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[retroStick]

In case anyone's unaware of what the parent is referring to... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/rest-in-peace-roland-piquepaille/11430

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when it's Roland though, he was a despicable excuse for a human being. Now he's a corpse. If only the universe handed out justice so swiftly in all such cases of human excrement, Malda might have retired earlier.

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[Anonymous Coward]

ohnoitsroland!

Re:Impersonating a dead person

[foobsr]

Laws against being antisocial is akin to tilting at windmills.

Granted; however, looking at social intelligence (if there is such a thing), this gives us a striking example on how little progress has been made since Cervantes.

CC.

ok

[Osgeld]

if they are going to start to arrest people for trolling, then they just need to build a wall around the country and monitor it form outside Escape from new york style.

yes its in bad taste, but fuck, so is most of humanity, or did we forget that over the last 30 years?

Re:ok

[Anonymous Coward]

yes its in bad taste, but fuck, so is most of humanity, or did we forget that over the last 30 years?

YES. We did forget.

Re:ok

[Megane]

I wouldn't call this "trolling". When you're baiting random people, even a group of like-minded people, that's trolling. That's why it's called trolling, as in trolling for fish/newbies/etc.

When you're targeting one specific person, that's called "harassment".

Not in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he lived in the U.S. it wouldn't be an issue.

Re:Not in the U.S.

[tehcyder]

If he lived in the U.S. it wouldn't be an issue.

Tell you what, why don't you give the little cunt a green card and his one way are over when he's out of prison?

Re:Not in the U.S.

[readin]

Green card? What for? Ever hear of the Rio Grande?

Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

mocked a dead teenager who had jumped in front a train by posting offensive remarks on a page dedicated to her memory, and creating a YouTube parody of Thomas the Tank with the deceased girl's face in place of Thomas

It's Thomas the Tank Engine, not Thomas the Tank. How would it make any sense it make a parody of her as a tank?

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[nfc_Death]

Wow I'm glad someone said something. That was seriously irking me.
Why even use that example of his 'trolling' and then fail to provide the terminology of an item correctly so that a correlation could be made by the reader.

I figure A: The contributor expects everyone to know what they're talking about when it comes to Thomas the Tank Engine lore
or B: It's just a stinkin' random omission (wow an irritating one though)

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Xest]

I apologise for that. I made the submission just before home time as I didn't realise what time it was and had to dash off so didn't get chance to give it a thorough proof read before I submitted it. Unfortunately it would appear the editors didn't bother to proof-read it and fix it either!

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Xest]

It was an omission on my part- sorry about that. The editors changed my title from my rather more simple "Man jailed for trolling", but for some reason didn't fix that it would seem!

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[infolation]

The fact it was Thomas the tank engine rather than Thomas the tank has legal significance when the person's face plastered on the front of it died by being run over by a passenger train.

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately it would appear the editors didn't bother to proof-read it and fix it either!

Yes, it's the fact that the "editors" didn't fix it that annoyed me - the intitial mistake I can understand well enough and proof reading your own work is always difficult (there was a typo in my post pointing it out in fact).

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[game kid]

That said, Thomas the Tank sounds far more badass.

"What, you want me to send them some honeybees? I got some honeybees, right here with my tactical nukes, bitch!" *blasts Sir Topham Hatt*

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a surprisingly common mistake for people to call him 'Thomas the Tank'. One of those things that makes no sense but has caught on somehow - like writing 'loose' for 'lose'. The company which licenses the character has given up and now calls the franchise 'Thomas and Friends'.

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Tank Engine is colloquial for train engine over there.

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Thomas the Tank simply loosted his engine.

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Because she was assigned to soak up the train's attack while other team members were dealing damage?

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Hatta]

How does it make any sense for her to be a tank engine? What does the engine of a tank even look like? Now if the parody had involved a locomotive, that would have made sense.

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in the UK it IS Thomas the Tank. (And in the UK versions of the videos, Sir Topham Hatt is simply called "The Fat Controller".)

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[bkr1_2k]

The fact it was Thomas the tank engine rather than Thomas the tank has legal significance when the person's face plastered on the front of it died by being run over by a passenger train.

What legal significance is there? Is it in poor taste? Absolutely. Is it funny? I thought so, at least the description. How does the parody have any legal impact at all?

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[infolation]

The person (Natasha MacBryde) whose tribute site he defaced had committed suicide by throwing herself under a train. She had committed suicide because of online cyber bullying.

He defaced her family's memorial page with the altered train photo knowing that her family would see the connection between the altered train and the cause of her death. A reasonable person could be expected to know that would be grossly offensive to her family.

In the UK sending a message that is grossly offensive is considered an offence under the Communications Act 2003 section 127.

That is why the parody has legal significance.

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[canajin56]

A tank engine is a type of steam locomotive. It's called that because it carries its water in a tank that's on-board, rather than in the coal car. They are pretty distinctive in appearance because of the long cylindrical tank that makes up most of the engine. Shining Time Station used them as characters because the flat end of the tank sticking out the front was perfect for drawing a face on ;)

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[bkr1_2k]

The person (Natasha MacBryde) whose tribute site he defaced had committed suicide by throwing herself under a train. She had committed suicide because of online cyber bullying.

He defaced her family's memorial page with the altered train photo knowing that her family would see the connection between the altered train and the cause of her death. A reasonable person could be expected to know that would be grossly offensive to her family.

In the UK sending a message that is grossly offensive is considered an offence under the Communications Act 2003 section 127.

That is why the parody has legal significance.

Thank you. I knew the girl committed suicide by train but didn't have more detail than that.

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam train engine. Because they have tanks in which the steam is generated.

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anomalyst]

not as badass as Wendy the Warthog http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

Re:Get the basic facts right at least

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, is there an anthropomorphic character called Thomas the Tank with a face on the glacis plate?

Solving this problem

[Omnifarious]

This is a problem best solved with a severe (but non-fatal and non-permanently injurious) beating by one of the family members of the victim. That punishment is both less harsh and likely much more effective than having your activity on the Internet be severely restricted and monitored for years on end.

I've encountered people willing to do this kind of thing before. They seem to think that everything that happens on the Internet is just a harmless game and that anybody who's feelings are hurt is just being overly sensitive and deserves the pain caused. Some in-person exposure to the raw emotions this kind of nastiness creates is probably the surest antidote.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

Exactly. If anyone disagrees with what you say, they should be beaten until they understand! That'll prove that you're not being overly sensitive!

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree. But setting limits to verbal output and your freedom of speech is what this is about and your words merit a beating from me for the fact that you suggest limiting my freedoms as well, and this causes me much grief. Would you please state your name and address and a convenient time for me to administer your punishment to you?

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If anyone disagrees with what you say, they should be beaten until they understand! That'll prove that you're not being overly sensitive!

You miss the GP's point, what he's saying is that the great and powerful curse of the internet is that it allows anyone to interact with anyone while actually increasing the distance between people.

The jerk in question was able to interact with the victim's family without actually having to interact with or be near them. It's a bit like shouting at someone from afar with a megaphone, you don't hear anything back from them if you don't want to, and the other party would have a hard time shutting out the megaphone.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

The jerk in question was able to interact with the victim's family without actually having to interact with or be near them.

But I don't consider that a bad thing. In fact, I think that works nicely. If you don't want to read or listen to something, then just don't do it. Likewise, they needn't be offended (as far as I know).

Re:Solving this problem

[Adayse]

Here you are advocating violent crime in response to somebody showing disrespect for the dead on the internet. Is that civilized? Being asbergers is a mitigating factor but his lousy lawyer said there were none.

Re:Solving this problem

[roc97007]

It looks like that may be meant partly in jest, but it's actually brilliant.

I was having a conversation just tonight at dinner with my daughter that relates somewhat. One of her classmates is struggling with an almost complete lack of empathy, but hasn't yet become a full blown sociopath, although on the verge of adulthood. When he does something that hurts others, he often doesn't mean it, he truly doesn't understand (in her opinion) the hurt he's caused. (Geeks often share this affliction to a lesser degree.) Her solution, when he hurts someone, is to hurt him back. Hurt his feelings if that's called for, or hurt him physically if it's appropriate. Then she talks to him about it, drawing out how he felt about the experience, and drawing parallels with the damage he caused. I'm not a psychologist, dunno if this could possibly do any good, but she insists that he hesitates now before committing an action, and you can see him thinking through possible consequences. I'm really not sure what conclusions to draw from this. I think in the case of the article outright over-the-top intent to cause emotional harm should be met with some action, but I'm not sure simply confining him in a cage for a given amount of time does any good. That might be a different conversation, though.

Re:Solving this problem

[roc97007]

One of the interesting things about living in a culture (or microculture) where physical response is absolutely forbidden, (say, certain college campuses) is that the inhabitants tend to be really rude and emotionally abusive. Because they know they can get away with it.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The person in question would sensibly be fearing for his life and could justifiably defend himself in any available way, including shooting the family member to death. Besides, your post impinges on my sensibilities. Please post your address, full name and a picture in order that I can come around and administer a "severe (but non-fatal and non-permanently injurious) beating". If I'm reading your post correctly, it should be acceptable to you that insane perfect strangers evaluate your need for a beating and then administer it based on whatever insane criteria they choose. So get to it. Lucky for you I have no actual intention of beating you despite your impinging on my sensibilities. Lucky for me too, as then I don't have to go to jail. Perhaps at this point you are realizing a few problems with your stance on vigilante beat downs.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd rather have that (assuming that it's even true) than people getting into fist fights because of a mere disagreement.

Re:Solving this problem

[nfc_Death]

Unfortunately this is a little bit of a Honey-pot situation. Using the logic given above, you could effectively lure someone into making a stupid remark in an inappropriate forum, then beat them silly for it (and maybe with good moral cause) and then claim emotional excitement of some kind.
Or, such as in this case, sue them for 'trolling'.

The reality of this situation is, poor emotional and scholastic education created an individual who would step to the level required here, to make light of another's loss.

Take a lesson from 'The Little Prince' though, do not expect more of others then they are capable of giving. Or translated for this situation 'If you give an Ass-hat an opening...'
How many years would you give a homeless person for bursting into a funeral parlor and doing something heinous, such as acting out the death of the deceased?

Re:Solving this problem

[cowboy76Spain]

One of the interesting things about living in a culture (or microculture) where physical response is absolutely forbidden, (say, certain college campuses) is that the inhabitants tend to be really rude and emotionally abusive. Because they know they can get away with it.

Does this "finding" hold when you are talking about, say, a monastery? After all, if you need some physical action, getting out of campus to get it is easier than getting out of the monastery.

It sounds more likely than the issue "human teens are more aggressive as a way to get influence in their group. When they are conditionated not to resort to physical violence, they use emotional abuse (or just break social rules to show they are beyond them).".

Re:Solving this problem

[VoidCrow]

It's an interesting idea. The sticking point is the fact that it requires someone with a great deal of emotional insight and patience to administer the feedback. If it were translated into a mass-market counselling context, it could get a little ugly. I think it's the right solution, given the right circumstances and the right people, but the prospect of it being incorporated into someone's grab-bag of shamanistic panaceas is kind of frightening.

Re:Solving this problem

[CarbonShell]

Sady you are spot on. People want freedom of speach, but only as it offends someone else.

Besides that I find the laws in the UK increasingly a joke.

IMHO the guy is a royal jerk. Was it offensive what he did? Yes! Rude? Yes! Immoral? Yes! But it is his right.
In this case I say it us up to you and I to decide not to listen to him. As long as people like this think there are other people willing to listen to his drivel, they will do it.
It is like a child that cries wolf. As long as it gets attention, it will continue to cry wolf.

If someone were to reply offensively, physical or not, he will win! A$$h0les live on provoking people to the point where they lash back. Let's not give them the satisfaction.
And this laughable jail term is exactly what we should not do.

Sometimes it is the person making the statement that is offensive, sometimes it is the message that is offensive. Sometimes it is even the agenda that is offensive.

I personally draw the line at those who use their freedoms as a goal to restrict the freedoms of others. Maybe I am a hypocrit (and would not shy a discussion about it), but that is just the way I am.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude I really hope you don;t have anyone you care about die and then have them publicly mocked in this horrific way by a troll.

I rather think your attitude would be somewhat different in that case,

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

I rather think your attitude would be somewhat different in that case,

You didn't seem to state that as an absolute fact, but I disagree. What would that mean? That I would be more biased than usual? Even if I did change my mind, that wouldn't mean that my previous belief was "wrong."

That said, I don't think it would be so simple to offend me. Unfortunately, I don't think that there will be a simple way to test this as I don't think that anyone in my family would post anything on the internet if someone they knew died.

Re:Solving this problem

[malkavian]

So, when your loved ones die, you'd be happy with someone putting posters up around the church and outside the house where the gatherings are held saying how funny they thought it was? Complete with video displays showing the comic nature of them dying in a very distressing fashion?
Really, if someone did that, they should expect everyone present to walk on over and deliver a solid kicking. It's what's called "Consequence". I suspect nobody would take the option that "They needn't be offended".
In your little utopia, you're free to create as nasty an environment as you choose, and people are merely free to leave town to avoid you. You, of course, must be completely free to do what you wish.
That's what's termed "bullying". It's not a nice trait.
Considering that before you do anything you have the options:
a) Have a quick think, and if you're talking on a subject that'll upset, you opt to take a diplomatic stance, and try to improve lot of those around you.
b) You have a quick think and choose to say something that'll upset, devastate and generally make the world a more unpleasant place for those around you.
What you do says a lot about you. It dictates how people will react to you. Yes, you're free to say what the hell you want. You're also absolutely free to reap the consequences of doing that.

Re:Solving this problem

[malkavian]

No, you're free to say what you want. You're also free to accept the consequences. Quite happy to meet you, and you're quite at liberty to meet a few heavies I happen to know. And you're quite free to say whatever you want around them. You're also quite free to receive whatever response their human natures happen upon depending on your behaviour around them.
It's what's called society. We agree to restrict our offensiveness to others so that they in turn honour an agreement to do likewise.

Re:Solving this problem

[sumdumass]

Strangely, that's the same problem that thousands of battered women face every day.

Re:Solving this problem

[L4t3r4lu5]

Exactly. I could be sat here saying all manner of atrocious things about the person, family, their pets etc. However, I'm more than likely not even in the same country. They can just ignore me!

If you come face to face with said person on a daily basis, e.g. School together, workplace etc then there exists already legislation covering harassment and improper conduct. If not? Accept that someone somewhere else is a dick and move on.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here: You think there is a problem.

Grow the fuck up. The world is offensive. If you think this kind of shit deserves to be punished by physical violence, you're a sick, sick fuck.

Re:Solving this problem

[MrHanky]

True, that would be terrible. They should fight speech with speech, and put up posters all over his neighbourhood accusing him of being a pedophile.

Re:Solving this problem

[AlexiaDeath]

I think what your daughter describes is pretty much how you teach someone with Asperger's to consider others. It takes a lot of patience but it might actually work. Your daughter has the makings of a teacher I suspect:)

Re:Solving this problem

[St.Creed]

Except this was on the memorial page, which was unavoidable for the family to visit. And the troller knew that. Or would you like someone to deface the grave of your mother with the statement "hey, if you don't like it, just don't visit"? This is basically the same thing and the court looked upon it in the same light.

If he had posted this only on his own blog, and on youtube without posting a link on the memorial page, the sentence would probably have been much reduced if given at all. But that wouldn't have been fun, now would it?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

So, when your loved ones die, you'd be happy with someone putting posters up around the church and outside the house where the gatherings are held saying how funny they thought it was?

I'm not sure how I'd feel about it as I don't think I can see into alternate realities, but, in my opinion, I don't think I'd be happy. That does not mean I'd be offended, however. I don't think I would be.

But, as I said to someone else, me changing my position because it happened to me doesn't necessarily prove that my previous position was "wrong." It would, however, probably indicate that I was acting based on emotion.

It's what's called "Consequence".

I call that physically attacking someone. But I suppose it's both (as well as something I think should be illegal).

In your little utopia

You call it a utopia and then proceed to call it a place where the environment could be "nasty"? Interesting.

Re:Solving this problem

[St.Creed]

This was the virtual equivalent of defacing someones grave. Ignore that as well? Hey, it's merely offensive - no need to get upset about it. After all, you can always have it cleaned, even if I wrote on the stone that your mother slept with everyone. Take it like a man, it's just words...

If you don't see the problem with this, or its virtual equivalent, I suggest you talk to someone who had this happen to him or her. Might give you some perspective.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

which was unavoidable for the family to visit.

No, it wasn't. Its existence wasn't even unavoidable. Not only that, but I don't care if it was unavoidable. I think people in general need to stop being so easily offended. I'm not in favor of limiting speech because they are easily offended.

Or would you like someone to deface the grave of your mother with the statement

Wouldn't that be vandalizing someone's physical property? I don't think that's the same thing at all.

Re:Solving this problem

[St.Creed]

Cool - she's basically doing his parenting, then, and socializing him. Because this is part of what upbringing is about: socializing your kids to the point they understand what is acceptable in society.

Re:Solving this problem

[Hazel Bergeron]

Are you sure it's not just that he knows now that his actions might lead to negative consequences from your daughter? IOW is it that he can't think or that he previously saw no reason to think?

The Internet Asperger defence often comes down to "I didn't think". Well, think. Learn what it means to be a dick. If you're not sure, try to find out. If you're still not sure, just don't do it. If you decide to do something anyway, without researching the consequences, whose fault is that?

Re:Solving this problem

[sjames]

I would rather the occasional fistfight than the sue everyone for everything alternative. It tends to actually help resolve the emotional issues and bad feelings (yes, really), it tends not to leave any lasting harm as long as weapons don't get involved, and it lets both parties get on with their lives rather than dragging on and on with lasting financial repercussions.

A punch in the nose is both more satisfying to the offended party and less cruel to the offender than an employment ending, house losing, family going hungry month in jail.

Why does it work so well? Because our genetics have hard wired it as a control mechanism to allow us to be social animals.

None of this is to say people shouldn't give each other a bit of slack and try to talk it out first, just that cops and court should come after talking it out and a punch in the nose have both failed to settle the matter.

I would go so far as to say that a person rude enough to jump directly to calling the cops and suing deserves a good punch in the nose.

Unfortunately, not that police have gone from peace officers to law enforcers, the whole social order is crumbling and the evolutionary solution is forbidden.

Re:Solving this problem

[dugeen]

This is just something you like to fantasise about, right, rather than something you're admitting to having participated in? Either way, it puts you in no moral position to look down on alleged internet trolls.

Re:Solving this problem

[tehcyder]

This is a problem best solved with a severe (but non-fatal and non-permanently injurious) beating by one of the family members of the victim. That punishment is both less harsh and likely much more effective than having your activity on the Internet be severely restricted and monitored for years on end.

No, I think preventing the little fuck from accessing the internet is precisely the best punishment.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

I would rather the occasional fistfight than the sue everyone for everything alternative.

Sue everyone? I didn't say they should be able to do that, either. I think absolutely nothing should happen.

Re:Solving this problem

[sjames]

Monasteries are very small societies with an Abbott who can and will correct that sort of rude or abusive behavior. Everyone there self-selected to be in that society and in fact, had to work hard to get there.

Adults are somewhat better than teens, but only somewhat. Are you really oblivious to the uncivil behavior out there coming from adults? There's everything from the guy who nearly causes an accident jumping into a parking space while someone else is clearly pulling in already to firing someone in a voicemail.

Re:Solving this problem

[Monoman]

When he was younger maybe his parents didn't straighten him out enough when he did inappropriate things. Some things are best left to laws and police and some things are best left for a good ass kicking. The problem is people can't agree where to draw the line between the two.

Re:Solving this problem

[tehcyder]

The jerk in question was able to interact with the victim's family without actually having to interact with or be near them.

But I don't consider that a bad thing. In fact, I think that works nicely. If you don't want to read or listen to something, then just don't do it. Likewise, they needn't be offended (as far as I know).

I look forward to your reaction when some random retard mocks the death of one of your loved ones. Personally, I'd track the fucker down in real life and give him the good news from Mr Cricket Bat, in just the same way I would if he turned up at the funeral making fun of them.

Your right to say what you like does not mean that I have to let you, you know.

Re:Solving this problem

[sjames]

I'm fairly sure that jail as currently implemented is the wrong answer to most questions, but agree that something must be done.

Re:Solving this problem

[tehcyder]

I'd rather have that (assuming that it's even true) than people getting into fist fights because of a mere disagreement.

There are some things that, if you say them to the wrong person's face will get you fucking battered. The law/campus code of conduct and subsequent punishment is irrelevant.

Anyone who forgets this is going to get in serious trouble one day.

Re:Solving this problem

[sjames]

Society in the U.S. anyway seems to be fairly sue crazy. We could use more fistfights and less lawsuits here. Perhaps it's different in the U.K.

As for cop calling, we have people calling 911 because they think McD's shorted them a dime.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

I look forward to your reaction when some random retard mocks the death of one of your loved ones.

Assuming that I'd be offended, you'd see my reaction, and such a thing would happen in the first place, of course. As I said to two other people, my bias would likely not indicate that my previous position was "wrong."

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

I know that. I know that disagreeing with some people could cause you to get hurt, but I will support someone's ability to disagree.

Re:Solving this problem

[xaxa]

Or would you like someone to deface the grave of your mother with the statement

Wouldn't that be vandalizing someone's physical property? I don't think that's the same thing at all.

Maybe, but it would still be hate speech (whatever the legal term is).

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that physical violence is quite appropriate. Why not respond in kind: the perpetrator hurt the victim's feelings, so the victim has the opportunity to hurt their feelings in return?

Re:Solving this problem

[tehcyder]

IMHO the guy is a royal jerk. Was it offensive what he did? Yes! Rude? Yes! Immoral? Yes! But it is his right.

The laws in the UK say otherwise. He pleaded guilty at a trial to a criminal charge and has been punished.

Just because he did it on the internet is irrelevant.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, I don't really agree with anti-hate-speech laws. But I do think it would be vandalizing someone's property.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

that won't work.

Re:Solving this problem

[tehcyder]

Being asbergers is a mitigating factor

Can it be treated? If not, why shouldn't the little fucker be locked up indefinitely in a secure psychiatric unit rather than spending a few weeks in jail?

Re:Solving this problem

[tehcyder]

It's like Pavlov's dogs. I suppose if that's the only way you can get a sociopath to learn decent behaviour, why not?

Re:Solving this problem

[tehcyder]

How many years would you give a homeless person for bursting into a funeral parlor and doing something heinous, such as acting out the death of the deceased?

What's being homeless got to do with anything?

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is defacing a dedicated memorial site not "vandalizing someone's property"?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

At what point does a website owner's little rules for their own website apply to the real world? I'd rather not have a website owner say, "I don't like your comment. Therefore, you defaced my website!"

Re:Solving this problem

[characterZer0]

Unless it is true, that would be libel.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, at any point? Besides, you didn't answer the question. So, coming around again: why is defacing a dedicated memorial site not "vandalizing someone's property"?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

why is defacing a dedicated memorial site not "vandalizing someone's property"?

Because you didn't actually destroy anything in any hard to remove manner. In any case, even if you did consider it vandalizing someone's property, I'll just have to disagree. I care more about property in the real world.

Not only that, but what qualifies as defacing a website? Posting a comment that the website owner doesn't like? I don't agree with that at all.

Re:Solving this problem

[Megane]

You're not in the USA, are you? Over here we have "fairness" in our schools such that the victim is given equal punishment to the agressor for fighting back just a little bit. (Yes, it's stupid.)

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

you and your entire family should be beaten and shit on. fuck you for thinking you get to say what other people can and cannot say.

Re:Solving this problem

[malkavian]

I'm not sure how I'd feel about it as I don't think I can see into alternate realities, but, in my opinion, I don't think I'd be happy.

Yes, you can see into 'alternate', or rather 'potential' realities. You do it every day as part of a process called 'planning'. Empathising, to some extent, is part of most humans. There's no magic, just the ability to predict likely outcomes, and base it on previously observed behaviour.
I suspect you're more than bright enough to extrapolate from existing life experience and make a fair (if not 100% precise) stab at working out your reactions. Most of the time, mine are perfectly civil and often quite reserved. If someone hounds me, then yes, I can revert to more primitive behaviour; I have limits.

I call that physically attacking someone. But I suppose it's both (as well as something I think should be illegal).

Physically attacking someone is illegal. As is harrassment. Harrassment is illegal as it is an emotional form of that physical response (a direct attack, which this was). Same as 'Happy Slapping' is an illegal physical attack, despite people saying 'Hey, it was just a joke'. It isn't.

You call it a utopia and then proceed to call it a place where the environment could be "nasty"? Interesting.

I was being sarcastic, which you picked up on (I'm pretty sure you did anyway, you don't strike me an being an unperceptive person)

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, you can see into 'alternate', or rather 'potential' realities.

I was just referring to the fact that I can't predict what will happen with 100% accuracy (despite what you said, I don't believe that very many things can be proven with 100% accuracy). However, if I were to take a guess, then I'd say that I wouldn't be offended.

As is harrassment.

But I'm only speaking of my opinion. I know that the laws are different than what I think they should be.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And if he's bigger and stronger? What then?

Dont reply, I work out and I'll just kick your ass. Just accept that I'm right and you're wrong.

Re:Solving this problem

[malkavian]

You do have interesting posts.. But one thing you seem to be doing is chasing a "letter of the law" where there are cases that the "spirit of the law" is also under consideration.
What's being taken into account is the likelihood of causing harm and suffering. Which is an objective viewing and debate about a subjective matter.
What the judgement will have taken into account is that the likelihood of the comments/videos causing harm and undue suffering were large (bordering on certain). That the intent was of a malicious nature (they were put there to cause harm and suffering; it's what trolls do; evoke a response, primarily negative).

Must say that you've successfully diverted the question of whether the chap maliciously caused harm and suffering (which he happily admitted to, which caused him to be locked up) and started asking whether it's now ok because he's not caused anything to be 'damaged or irretrievably broken'.
Very nice straw man.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You may find you have difficulty pronouncing words like "Consequence" and "physical assault" through broken teeth.
On a more serious note, how has anyone not noticed that this dickhead just posts to troll or play devils advocate?
Gee gosh, I wonder what " CheekyJohnson" Could be taken to mean?

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't usually say, "Hey everybody, feel free to write a comment on the grave of my dead relative!" The memorial website, on the other hand, was apparently open for comment.

Try drawing an accurate parallel.

Re:Solving this problem

[slackbheep]

This isn't rocket science. Think back to your days on the school yard, there was never a mouthier kid than the one who believed he was protected from retaliation whether by proximity of authority figures, older siblings, or whatever.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

He vandalized her memorial page. I don't see why vandalizing her memorial page should have no consequences, yet vandalizing a grave stone should have consequences. There seems to be an inconsistency here.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

You may find you have difficulty pronouncing words like "Consequence" and "physical assault" through broken teeth.

The same could be said about anyone, and not just this guy.

On a more serious note, how has anyone not noticed that this dickhead just posts to troll or play devils advocate?

I'm not trolling or playing devils advocate.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

In that case, I don't care about a polite society. I don't even want it.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

I already basically answered this in another post.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

Many people don't know that "polite" was how you acted in the city ("polis"). You acted polite because offending people was likely to end up with somebody's (probably your) corpse rotting in the gutter.

Re:Solving this problem

[MrHanky]

Yes, for some reason the law recognises that expression can do actual harm. Autists on Slashdot like cheekyjohnson may believe that hey, taunting someone over a suicide is simply a matter of difference in opinion, whereas normal human beings are able to see that it's simply harassment and expresses fuck all except contempt. Libel is actually closer to what freedom of speech is supposed to protect, as it's what the philosophers label a 'constative' expression, which you may or may not agree with and which therefore is possible to debate.

Re:Solving this problem

[roc97007]

> Are you sure it's not just that he knows now that his actions might lead to negative consequences from your daughter?

It's possible. But isn't that an analog for the feedback we get from society?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

What's being taken into account is the likelihood of causing harm and suffering.

I've already basically answered this, though. I believe people should not be so easily offended and should train themselves to control their emotions.

It doesn't matter to me what the current law or procedures are; I disagree with them.

Must say that you've successfully diverted the question of whether the chap maliciously caused harm and suffering

I did? I remember answering that multiple times. I stated that I didn't care what his intention was.

Very nice straw man.

Where is the straw man? I merely replied to what people were saying. I began talking about vandalism because of this comment: "Or would you like someone to deface the grave of your mother with the statement "hey, if you don't like it, just don't visit"?"

I felt that wasn't a very good analogy, so I replied to it.

Re:Solving this problem

[CraftyJack]

Exactly. If anyone disagrees with what you say, they should be beaten until they understand!

Well, I'm glad we're in agreement.

Re:Solving this problem

[roc97007]

I am in the USA, but daughter is in a very different type of school. For instance, there's no dress code, no rule against hugging, and it's the first school that hasn't pushed us to put the kid on Ritalin. So yes, very different from the usual public schools here.

Re:Solving this problem

[roc97007]

I agree.

I think the main issue is that it requires that someone care, as opposed to simply being assigned to manage the child, and to actually get to know the child, as opposed to following a procedure for the "type" the child is supposed to be. I think I'm just paraphrasing what you said.

Re:Solving this problem

[rohan972]

I think people in general need to stop being so easily offended. I'm not in favor of limiting speech because they are easily offended.

If you think applauding someone's death at a memorial tribute site isn't enough to be truly offensive then your emotional responses are so far outside the normal range that your opinion will be considered irrelevant by the vast majority of people.

Re:Solving this problem

[rohan972]

I look forward to your reaction when some random retard mocks the death of one of your loved ones.

Having read some of his posts, I have significant doubt that he is capable of love as most people would describe or experience it.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

My opinions will likely be disregarded no matter what.

then your emotional responses are so far outside the normal range

I think that should be rather obvious by now. Of course, that is the behavior that I advocate.

Re:Solving this problem

[St.Creed]

Okay: the guestbook at a funeral then. Doesn't change my point.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

When you get down to it, removing paint from stone isn't very hard to do either. It doesn't seem to me that you "care more about property in the real world" but rather that you only care about property in the real world. That's okay, but you should be honest about it. It may be harder to clean a gravestone, but that doesn't mean there isn't effort involved in deleting someone's offensive messages and banning them posting further. Additionally the punishment for defacing a gravestone is likely to go beyond merely the cost of cleaning it up.

What qualifies as defacing a gravestone? Writing a comment that the gravestone owner doesn't like?

I don't know that I agree with the crime that the guy plead guilty to, but it may be that it allowed him to avoid a harsher punishment or harassment or stalking laws, because it takes someone pretty screwed up to taunt grieving parents. In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not too dissimilar to the point Heinlein makes in starship troopers - pain is the in-built method our body uses to teach us not to do something again.

Treating something so effective as "crude" does seem unnecessarily reactionary.

Of course, there are issues with taking it too far, and various other practical problems make the implementation somewhat less ideal than the theoretical concept.

It's not something to be dismissed arbitrarily, however.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

When you get down to it, removing paint from stone isn't very hard to do either.

The only thing you can do on a website is whatever it explicitly allows. Unless you hack the website, you must follow its arbitrary rules. I'm simply not in favor of going after people for their speech. Especially on a website. If the website was public, then too bad for you. The same would apply, for instance, if you were letting everyone draw on a gravestone. I don't think you should then be able to decide that someone vandalized it because they drew something you didn't like (even if they didn't follow your arbitrary rules).

but rather that you only care about property in the real world. That's okay, but you should be honest about it.

I only "care" if the website has been hacked or something similar.

It may be harder to clean a gravestone, but that doesn't mean there isn't effort involved in deleting someone's offensive messages and banning them posting further.

I don't care about that effort. Sorry.

What qualifies as defacing a gravestone? Writing a comment that the gravestone owner doesn't like?

Did they tell everyone that they could leave comments on the gravestone?

In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.

I'm glad that we have the internet, then. That way you don't have to deal with people that I deem as "insane" and "unstable."

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Im struggling to find the relevance of this comment.

Re:Solving this problem

[LordLimecat]

Yes, because as we all know the best way to deal with insensitivity is to commit slander against that person.

And of course one shouldnt feel any guilt for absolutely wrecking someone's life with such accusations; after all, they made you feel bad!

Re:Solving this problem

[jgtg32a]

Get a bat

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not a true sociopath then. He might be BPD (borderline, not bipolar), but there's no amount of the caring love of a pretty girl that's going to stop a sociopath from being a sociopath. A lot of the time it's some nerdy goth kid pulling the Beauty and the Beast card to get pretty girls to pay attention to him.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a complete idiot.

Physical punishment because someone's "...feeling are hurt..." Ok, if that's the way you want it. You hurt my feelings with your comment. Is it ok if I get together a group of my friends/relatives and beat the crap out of you because you hurt my feelings.

If you actually used your brains you'd understand why freedom of speech is so important. The family and the police had a simple option, just ignore the jerk that posted the "hurtful" comments because everyone reading his comments knew he was just a jerk and wasn't using his brains when he made his postings....kinda like you with this posting.

Two idiots do not a smart person make.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.

I'm glad that we have the internet, then. That way you don't have to deal with people that I deem as "insane" and "unstable."

"Unstable"? Definitely. Of course, the guy in question sought out the parents of dead children because he knew they would usually be at least temporarily unstable. He sought them out for the express purpose to seeing how much harm he could inflict with his words. And he did it more than once, to people he had no reason to interact with other than to, deliberately and with foreknowledge, cause distress.

I find it interesting how some people, like you seem to dread physical violence and yet take so much delight in emotionally torturing your victims as if emotional pain and violence aren't intrinsically linked together. Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

I find it interesting how some people, like you seem to dread physical violence and yet take so much delight in emotionally torturing your victims as if emotional pain and violence aren't intrinsically linked together.

Like me? Where did I indicate that I am such a person?

Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?

If there was a magical way to ward of physical pain and damage, yes.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

People use the 'its the internet' excuse just to be jerks. It is a poor excuse to leave manners at the door...

Look at the backlash google got with its + system. 'You must be who you say you are'. Is that really to much to ask to use their system? Google wants a 'facebook like' friends thing going. Look at the difference between what people say on facebook vs youtube. The comments are night and day. Yet logically there is an overlap of people here... You can see why Google wants a 'nice' place. As nice places attract customers. Not so nice places repel them.

People say things when they think there are no consequences (ie I see something is wrong but can not speak up without being punished or loosing my job). Which is a good reason to have anonymous speech. However, people are also using that tool as a way to not have any consequences for their actions (ie I just want to be a troll jerk and can get away with it with no consequences). Which is a bad reason to have anonymous speech.

The threat of a beating keeps many people from acting like jerks (even though they may be one).

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You are fucking insane. To somehow equate posting material you disagree with on a public site to assault and battery with a deadly weapon is bordering on the criminally insane. Do you beat the shit out of the McDonald's drone for giving you the wrong change too?

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you are the one that should be locked up. You clearly have some major issues with cognitive abilities being able to judge degrees of offenses.

In the meantime, let's make sure we lock up or physically assault anybody that personally offends you. We wouldn't want you to have your little feelings hurt.

Re:Solving this problem

[durdur]

People with Asberger's and more generally autistic spectrum disorders may "just not get" the effect their actions have on others. They don't read social cues or understand/accept feedback very well. And they can have a tendency to break social rules (or even laws) that other people respect - they either don't see the boundary they are crossing, or (at least temporarily) don't care. The solution though is not to "hurt him back." You can to some extent teach someone to understand people better, recognize and follow social rules better, regulate their own emotions better. That is part of treatment. Most people learn this fairly easily and at a young age but Asberger's makes it much harder. That is not an excuse for behavior that breaks laws. But it is a mitigating factor.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So as the parent of an autistic child, can I sue you for using "Autists" as an insult? It causes "actual harm" and it's "simply harassment and expresses fuck all except contempt".

No worries, I'm not really offended, lots of people use psychological disorders as insults so I've learned not to let it bother me. I'm just pointing out your double standards.

Re:Solving this problem

[Kielistic]

Nobody is saying it should be okay to get into fist fights over a disagreement on what type of pitcher to buy (although maybe if it's consensual it should be?). It's people like the one in the article. The ones that lash out emotionally, or constant badgering. They do this because they know there is no repercussions to their actions. If all physical acts of violence are illegal then so must be all attacks on emotions otherwise you will create a power imbalance. Just like you would if the law of the land was "might makes right". The people who know they are untouchable will abuse that.

Now I don't think either should be disallowed. A repressed society is unhealthy. Things should be judged on their merits and not with a zero-tolerance mindset.

Re:Solving this problem

[MrHanky]

It wouldn't seem so bad if you just understood sarcasm.

Re:Solving this problem

[roc97007]

> Does this "finding" hold when you are talking about, say, a monastery?

Nope, never been in one. What I've observed in certain environments (college, some work environments) is that given the protection of a system that takes fast and decisive action against any kind of physical response but no or very little action, or a lack of even understanding how to handle emotional abuse, the "jocks" who tended to dominate in grade and high school tend to be confused, (although some adapt) and the abuse tends to come from little stringy people who were most likely dominated in their younger lives and now see the current opportunity as their turn to dish out some.

But just human teens? Nope. I've been in work situations amongst supposedly mature adults who apparently never learned to move past the "lord of the flies" attitude, or just don't care. Has anyone reading this ever thought "if only I could get him to hit me, it'd solve the problem because he'd be fired"? Has anyone also thought "I need to put my hands behind my back if he does resort to pummeling me, because the slightest indication that I was defending myself and I'll get fired too"?

Re:Solving this problem

[anyGould]

I'd rather have that (assuming that it's even true) than people getting into fist fights because of a mere disagreement.

See: hockey.

Re:Solving this problem

[gfreeman]

Defacing a grave is vandalism, which is already a crime.
Your analogy in car terms would be that it's ok to key someone's car. You can always have it repainted.

I get what you're trying to say, but the way you drew a parallel with defacing of graves is not in the same ballpark at all.

Re:Solving this problem

[Raisey-raison]

IMHO the guy is a royal jerk. Was it offensive what he did? Yes! Rude? Yes! Immoral? Yes! But it is his right.

The laws in the UK say otherwise. He pleaded guilty at a trial to a criminal charge and has been punished.

  Just because he did it on the internet is irrelevant.

Just because 'the law' takes away a civil right does not make it right or just. Some human rights such as freedom of speech are inalienable.

The whole point of freedom of speech is the freedom to say something that someone else doesn't want heard. Even in North Korea you are 'free' to say how you love the regime. Regulating speech just because it's offensive is repugnant to the values of a free society.

How far would you reference 'the law'. Would it be ok if people got jailed for 18 weeks for saying to someone else that they were a 'dickhead'? Should all rudeness be a criminal offense? Would you say that being locked up for opposing a dictator is just a matter of disobeying the law and being punished? Or would you agree that 'the law' has limits and is not absolute and that it does not always merit being obeyed or being referenced as some kind authority.
ind authority.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This was the virtual equivalent of defacing someones grave

Except it wasn't. No-one had to scrub the grave clean.

Take it like a man, it's just words...

That's right - just words. Sticks and stones..

Re:Solving this problem

[nfc_Death]

I'm using a homeless person as an example of an emotionally and possibly mentally crippled (Such as the gentleman in the court case) with minimal social/secular education.
The question I pose isn't rhetorical either. Since this falls exactly in line with what the accused did in this case. A mentally/emotionally broken man, burst into an open funeral parlor and made obscene statements and gestures.
This sort of thing happens in meat-space too. It's why we have doormen at fancy hotel entrances, or ushers at a wedding. To keep those with poor self-management skills out, or remove them when they become unruly.
If they become highly offensive or violent the police are called.

Re:Solving this problem

[Omnifarious]

It's not about agreeing, it's about having even a modicum of civility and tact. People commit suicide over the kind of behavior that guy exhibited, and while I think anybody committing suicide is doing something fairly stupid most of the time, I think we should discourage people from actively engaging in behavior that's likely to push people like that.

I know that if I knew who he was I would never go to a party he was invited to. I don't need that kind of jerk anywhere nearby me, and nobody else does either.

Re:Solving this problem

[mdielmann]

This is like telling the colour blind guy to avoid the red tiles. How do you give someone with virtually no capability to assess a certain situation the ability to do so? Well, you have someone who can see the difference to show you. Sure, you might not do as well as someone who can see those minute differences naturally, but you may have a better idea of what is definitely not acceptable, what is definitely acceptable, and you may narrow the (very broad) grey area this person lives with. The pain is a nice behavioural association in an area where almost nothing else can attach a negative feeling to your actions, and done in a way that closely associates it for him.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes local jurisprudence has the opportunity to make the right decision without getting caught up in all the broader implications. It comes closest to handling the situation properly. If this case had risen to the level where a handful of scholarly-type judges had to render verdict, I dare say all of the free speech implications would more likely have been considered and interfered in the proper course. Similar to the family taking matters in their own hand, I believe that justice carried out at the local and community level tends to be truer to the facts and less blurred by over-reaching comparisons. Two hundred years ago, this boy would have been taken out and whipped, and nobody would have doubted the punishment fitted the crime.

Re:Solving this problem

[roc97007]

Mod up Kielistic.

Re:Solving this problem

[mdielmann]

Hurt his feelings if that's called for, or hurt him physically if it's appropriate. Then she talks to him about it, drawing out how he felt about the experience, and drawing parallels with the damage he caused.

Even near-sociopaths or sociopaths still feel physical or emotional pain, and don't like it any more than normal people. Empathy is feeling a hint of what you cause to others. If your daughter is doing it in a reasonable way, it could very well make him into a well-adjusted near-sociopath. He may even desire to be a 'good person', and this could give him a set of rules to do that with.

Think of this as the difference between morals and ethics. A good set of ethics can be a reasonable facsimile of a good set of morals. It's just not something you see every day.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

Like me? Where did I indicate that I am such a person?

Frankly, it's all over your posts. You have little empathy for others, you seem to consider people who are grieving to be "insane" and "unstable". You seem to think harassment and defamation are perfectly reasonable behavior. You under react to antisocial behavior but over react to physical violence.

Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?

If there was a magical way to ward of physical pain and damage, yes.

Know what? Telling grieving families to "not be so sensitive" doesn't magically work either.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing what this creep did to a "disagreement" is like comparing showing some ankle, or Gods forbid some calf,
to making hardcore porn.

It takes some mighty ignorance or an agenda to blur those lines.

Re:Solving this problem

[LordLimecat]

Maybe you should read the comments in this thread. There are a LOT of people in this topic advocating this type of response. Jail time? What do you think that does for your resume?

Sarcasm like that doesnt work so well when a ton of people are making the same statements sincerely.

Re:Solving this problem

[nosferatu1001]

This would be the same US which has unprotected speech, yes?

Re:Solving this problem

[Vaylent]

I think that people who take things people say to their face to heart and have their feelings hurt are also being overly sensitive. Excluding provocation, you really shouldn't care what anyone says to or about you. Being insulted by anyone else to the point of emotional distress, especially by a total stranger or an anonymous stranger, is seriously one of those things you do to yourself. What I'm trying to say is that people need to protect themselves by learning that some people are rude or insulting, and that you just need to ignore them.

Re:Solving this problem

[westlake]

This is a problem best solved with a severe (but non-fatal and non-permanently injurious) beating by one of the family members of the victim. That punishment is both less harsh and likely much more effective than having your activity on the Internet be severely restricted and monitored for years on end.

I find this proposition quite remarkably stupid and quintessentially geek.

Expecting an enraged father to recover his self- control once he has begun beating a creep like this to a pulp is nonsense. The world doesn't work that way.

That is why the law tries to take private vengence out of the picture and legal penalties are meant to hurt.

Re:Solving this problem

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) If you're severely impaired to the extent that you have no capability to assess the situation, simply don't do what you're planning to do until you've received advice;

(2) If you are not severely impaired (and most people playing the Internet Asperger card come under this category), assess it yourself;

(3) If you're proceeding and you receive negative feedback, go back to (1);

(4) Carry on.

There is no grey area to lots of people who you know telling you that you are being mean.

Anyway, basing morality purely on whether something "feels" right is a very primitive and potentially dangerous way to go about things: any thinker, autistic or otherwise, can apply reason to premises. If he is having trouble reasoning, he can study the reasoning of others.

Re:Solving this problem

[Hazel Bergeron]

No. There is this misconception that humans are stupid and react only to reward / punishment. In fact, given the opportunity, we're also really good at responding to reason.

Re:Solving this problem

[Omnifarious]

I predict that this legal penalty will have absolute no effect whatsoever on the person's behavior.

Re:Solving this problem

[roc97007]

Well, some of us are. For instance, I do things because they need doing. Or because they are the right things to do. And I can be convinced to do something by a good enough explanation, and they don't even have to appeal to my own self-interest. Which I think is what you're talking about.

In fact, I'll go further than that. Someone who responds to reason, who will do something because it needs doing, is likely to be insulted by an appeal to their own self-interest. Which I think is also what you're talking about.

So, ok you're absolutely right. And presuming that everyone responds only to carrot or stick leads one down a dark road.

But I'm not withdrawing my observation.

Because, I submit that, even though it's insulting and in many cases unnecessary, the feedback from society really *is* primarily carrot-or-stick. Can you honestly say this is not true?

Oh, there are exceptions. I recently got a politely worded letter from the sheriff's office saying I was observed doing something with the car that was technically illegal and potentially dangerous, and they explained why I shouldn't do it and asked that I stop. And I *did* stop, because they made a good case and appealed to reason. Score one for your argument.

Also recently I followed a car through a left turn. There were only two of us and plenty of time to make the turn. The car had to cross railroad tracks at the end of the turn and for God only knows what reason, stopped just short of the tracks for a significant amount of time, causing the light to go red and for me to get trapped in the intersection.

I got a ticket. I explained what happened, still got a ticket. I explained to the judge that I began the turn legally and had no legal option to avoid getting stuck in the intersection other than foresee that the guy in front of me would behave irrationally before I started the turn. He reduced the ticket from $250 to $125. (Gee, thanks. You usually get that much reduction just by showing up.) In this case, reason absolutely did not enter into it. I don't want to go through red lights, because I don't want to be t-boned, especially since half the time I'm on a motorcycle. I'm really careful about that. But I can't control the car in front of me. And upholding the law was in that case so absolutely carrot-and-stick that it could not account for extenuating circumstance. It wasn't enough that I wanted to do the right thing.

I would submit that most traffic tickets, in fact most fines and penalties including incarceration, are not appeals to reason, except the reason that if you do this and get caught bad things will happen, so don't do it. Which is an appeal to self-interest, not (I submit) doing the right thing.

I hasten to add, you're right! There *is* a misconception that humans are stupid and react only to reward and punishment. (although I can think of a few humans who don't respond to reason...) But I submit that regardless, this is the feedback we get from society. I will amend that to say "usually get from society", if you wish.

Re:Solving this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is physical pain more important than emotional pain? I can't help it either way. Especially in a case like this. Once you read something you can't unread it and you can't unfeel the pain you felt.

It was a deliberate act of torture. That being illegal is not something I have a problem with. If someone invented a neuronic whip that caused debilitating pain without damage, should it be legal to use it on anyone you want?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

They disagreed (or were offended) with what he said. Then he was punished.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

you seem to consider people who are grieving to be "insane" and "unstable".

Actually, I consider those who would attack or kill another person because they've lost control of their emotions to be "insane" or "unstable."

You under react to antisocial behavior but over react to physical violence.

But I don't react to physical violence, either. I just think it should be illegal.

Telling grieving families to "not be so sensitive" doesn't magically work either.

Are you saying that it is not possible for someone to desensitize themselves and/or realize that words are just words?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

People commit suicide over the kind of behavior that guy exhibited

I disagree that that's enough of a reason to ban such behavior. What if people tended to commit suicide when they learned that someone was an atheist?

My answer is for them to just realize that words are just words. They can't actually hurt them unless they let them hurt them.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

It's people like the one in the article.

I disagree that it's "okay," then.

They do this because they know there is no repercussions to their actions.

In this case, there was. If laws were written the way I want them to be, there wouldn't be. And I think everything would be working as intended.

If all physical acts of violence are illegal then so must be all attacks on emotions otherwise you will create a power imbalance.

Power imbalance? Of what? It is not necessary, as far as I know, for people to fight one another.

In any case, I suggest having firmer control over your emotions or desensitization.

Re:Solving this problem

[Kielistic]

If everything were perfect then no, no one would have to fight one another. Fighting is not "necessary" as long as everyone functions exactly like you (or close enough to not cause problems).

The power imbalance is exactly how i explained it. If everything were perfect then you are right and no one would need to fight one another. I think it is clear, however, that the world is not perfect. Fighting is extremely prevalent in the world and pretending that everything is peachy will not get you anywhere.

Firmer control over emotions is great but it's just not realistic. This article is perfect indication that some people are just assholes. Why should people be expected to bow down to a shithead in the name of "desensitization"? If this guy wasn't an asshole there wouldn't be a problem but he was an asshole. Eventually the "bigger man" gets fed up and decides the jackass needs to be taught a lesson.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

Fighting is not "necessary" as long as everyone functions exactly like you

Please tell me why people must fight over "petty" disagreements, then.

The power imbalance is exactly how i explained it. If everything were perfect then you are right and no one would need to fight one another.

Why are they fighting? You've yet to explain that.

Firmer control over emotions is great but it's just not realistic.

It's perfectly realistic to me.

This article is perfect indication that some people are just assholes.

This guy was particularly successful because people are so quick to anger.

Why should people be expected to bow down to a shithead in the name of "desensitization"?

Because I think losing control of your emotions is a sign of weakness. And they're not bowing down to them. Technically, if they weren't so easily offended, this guy probably wouldn't even bother. I don't really care whose fault it is in the end, though. All I care about is people being overly sensitive.

If this guy wasn't an asshole there wouldn't be a problem but he was an asshole.

By your definition maybe. I think he was just having fun with words.

Eventually the "bigger man" gets fed up and decides the jackass needs to be taught a lesson.

I wouldn't describe them as the "bigger man," then. I would describe them as a primitive human that is quick to anger.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

Actually, I consider those who would attack or kill another person because they've lost control of their emotions to be "insane" or "unstable."

Then we are all "insane" or "unstable". We are all capable of visiting violence on others in a blind rage. It's an essential part of the human condition and part of the reason why temporary insanity is actually a permissible defense in most modern legal systems.

Are you saying that it is not possible for someone to desensitize themselves and/or realize that words are just words?

But words are not "just" words. They have the power to heal and to harm. Words have raised up empires and toppled them. Words have enabled tyrants to stride the world and thrown them back down. As they say "the pen is mightier than the sword", and they say it because swords "merely" end lives, whereas pens write words. The essence is that words are more powerful than death. So, words are "just" words in the same way that the Sun is "just" a giant nuclear furnace. They are "just" words only if you choose to be ignorant of their fundamental nature.

Grieving parents, in particular, are at one of the most vulnerable moment in their lives. It would require extraordinary self-control to deal rationally with someone who chose that particular time to attack them and the child they are grieving. It's all well and good to say they should control their reactions, but it's probably not going to happen. It is irrational to expect it to happen, and it begs the question why the attacker shouldn't control his actions or be forced into controlling his actions if he is unable to do so. Why should the world accommodate the reprehensible and reckless behavior of an evil man and instead put the burden of enduring his evil on good people who have done nothing to deserve his assaults?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

Then we are all "insane" or "unstable".

The people you know of, anyway. In any case, I was referring to people who would have this easily happen to them.

They have the power to heal and to harm.

Another human thing. Only if they let them.

Words have raised up empires and toppled them.

The words didn't do anything. People heard the words, and with their own free will, they acted. Of course, I don't expect such illogical creatures to really change.

It is irrational to expect it to happen

It is? I guess it is irrational to have any sort of high expectations for humans when it comes to controlling their own emotions. I still believe they should, however. And I will say that I still do not support physical violence against anyone (no matter what the other person said).

and it begs the question why the attacker shouldn't control his actions

Where did I say that he shouldn't? I just don't think it should be enforced by the law.

Why should the world accommodate the reprehensible and reckless behavior of an evil man and instead put the burden of enduring his evil on good people who have done nothing to deserve his assaults?

"Evil" is likely subjective (as well as "good"). Why, you ask? Because it's my opinion. That is the way I think it should be. It's obvious that you disagree, but I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

"Evil" is likely subjective (as well as "good").

Many people don't think evil is subjective at all.

I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you.

It appears unlikely, I can find no grounds other than an absolutist's overly romantic view of freedom to justify not intervening.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

Many people don't think evil is subjective at all.

And? Some people do. I said "likely."

It appears unlikely, I can find no grounds other than an absolutist's overly romantic view of freedom to justify not intervening.

I don't think it's "overly romantic," but it doesn't really matter.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

Many people don't think evil is subjective at all.

And? Some people do. I said "likely."

If you want to consider evil as subjective, then you must acknowledge that you have no grounds for defending this man. The evil done by imprisoning him must be subjective and therefore exist only in your opinion.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

What? I don't understand what you mean. I don't agree with the fact that this man was imprisoned so I voiced my disagreement, Those are my "grounds." I don't believe I said that it was factually evil to imprison him.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

Let's see if i can explain this:

You object to the fact that this man was imprisoned because you think it was wrong. "Right and wrong" is essentially the same concept as "good and evil", just with different labels. If good and evil are subjective so are right and wrong. If right and wrong are subjective, then you have no basis upon which to object to his imprisonment because it is only wrong in your own mind.

That's one of the major flaws in subjectivist morality. If morality is subjective then there can be no agreement on right or wrong and the subjectivist should refrain from commenting on morality at all since by his own admission his statements are nothing but baseless opinion. Of course, the objective moralist is under no such constraint because his philosophy ascribes actual meaning to statements of right and wrong.

Essentially, It becomes very difficult to critique laws without some objective measure of right and wrong. For example, in this case the perpetrator has plead guilty, thus admitting that he broke the law. If he has admitted that he broke the law, then he must suffer the consequences. For a subjective moralist there is no basis for objecting because the consequences have only subjective moral value.

Essentially, I'm saying you're being inconsistent here. You clearly believe that imprisoning people is wrong unless they have done something that deserves such punishment (such as assault or murder). That belief contains at least two objective moral statements: 1 - that imprisoning people is wrong and 2 - that assault and murder are even more wrong.

Re:Solving this problem

[Kielistic]

"Petty" by your definition maybe. Few people turn to violence over what they consider to be "petty". Some would, but they just like to fight. I don't have to explain why people fight; it is certain that they do. I'm talking about violence in general. Take a look out of your basement, grab a history book, hell, turn on the TV and what do you see in all of it? It's pretty safe to say that conflict is every bit a part of the human condition as love, curiosity and any other trait you would consider "good". My point is you can't pacify humanity on wishful thinking.

Violence does not indicate losing control of ones emotions. No more than marrying someone because of love. Emotions are part of us to help guide our actions. We have to decide whether or not those emotions are pulling us in a sound direction (they sometimes do not). You have decided that violence is bad but others disagree. I don't get into fights and avoid them at all costs but I'm not going to sit here safely in front of my computer and assert that there is never a reason for violence.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

If morality is subjective then there can be no agreement on right or wrong and the subjectivist should refrain from commenting on morality at all since by his own admission his statements are nothing but baseless opinion.

I still don't know what you mean. There's nothing stopping a moral relativist from commenting on anything.

Moral relativists can have moral codes of their own. Moral relativists can try to convince others to follow their moral code. Moral relativists can act against those who do not follow their moral code. None of those things are inconsistent with moral relativism as long as they admit that their personal morals aren't absolute fact.

That belief contains at least two objective moral statements

No, it doesn't. "I believe" is different from "I know." I don't like sports, but that doesn't mean I consider them factually bad. I believe in opinions. Do you?

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

"Petty" by your definition maybe.

Exactly. I consider it petty. That is my opinion. Nearly everything I've said has merely been my opinion (and I've tried to indicate that).

My point is you can't pacify humanity on wishful thinking.

I don't want to pacify them. That would be rather boring. They can get into fights, but I just think those people should be arrested (depending on the circumstances).

Violence does not indicate losing control of ones emotions.

I think it does when someone says something to you, it angers you, and you physically assault them.

Emotions are part of us to help guide our actions.

And, in many cases, letting yourself lose control of them will likely guide you down the path of being illogical. Any of them. Though, I think the most destructive one is possibly anger.

and assert that there is never a reason for violence.

I didn't assert that at all.

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

I still don't know what you mean. There's nothing stopping a moral relativist from commenting on anything.

The point wasn't that a moral relativist couldn't comment on anything, it's that a moral relativist's comments on questions of right or wrong are worth nothing by his own admission.

A moral relativist arguing that other should follow his moral code is inconsistent with moral relativism because there can be no actual arguments for or against the code, only pleading, threats, or bribes.

No, it doesn't. "I believe" is different from "I know.

Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

it's that a moral relativist's comments on questions of right or wrong are worth nothing by his own admission.

And? Should everyone just accept that morals are objective fact because it would make someone feel better? People who believe morals are objective can only offer words. "This is right." "This is wrong." That's it. They likely can't prove anything. I don't see their claims as being worth anything more or being any more convincing.

A moral relativist arguing that other should follow his moral code is inconsistent

No, it isn't. It may not be successful, but there's nothing inconsistent about it as long as they accept that their views on morality aren't absolute fact.

only pleading, threats, or bribes.

None of which are inconsistent.

Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.

What are you talking about? Do you believe in opinions at all? "I believe that football is boring."

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.

What are you talking about? Do you believe in opinions at all? "I believe that football is boring."

That's a strange question. Believe in opinions? Why should anyone care what your opinions are? There are almost 7 billion other people on the planet, your opinions do not matter. The only opinions that matter to other people are informed ones with reasons to back them up.

In other words, if it's just your opinion he shouldn't go to jail, why should anyone else care? I see no more reason why I should care about that opinion or your opinion on football or your opinion on pink unicorns for that matter.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

That's a strange question.

You acted as if stating something as an opinion (or saying that you believe in something) was the same as stating something as an absolute universal fact.

Why should anyone care what your opinions are?

Was that my question? Did I say that they should?

The only opinions that matter to other people are informed ones with reasons to back them up.

The value of an opinion is likely subjective. And I think just about everyone thinks that their opinion is "informed." I'm sure most people believe that they are 100% correct without even doubting themselves.

In other words, if it's just your opinion he shouldn't go to jail, why should anyone else care?

I'm not going to restate everything I've already said, but I gave my reasons. You just didn't agree with them. That's too bad, but that's sort of how opinions work.

I see no more reason why I should care about that opinion

I didn't say that you should. That said, the same applies to you. I do not care about your opinion (nor do I agree with it).

Re:Solving this problem

[tbannist]

I do not care about your opinion (nor do I agree with it).

That much is obvious.

I didn't say that you should.

Then I shall not trouble you any more with reason or logic. Clearly you have no need for either.

Re:Solving this problem

[cheekyjohnson]

Then I shall not trouble you any more with reason or logic. Clearly you have no need for either.

I actually enjoy both. I don't see where I've failed.

trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

There are issues of free speech here. But having said that though I think that anyone behaving like that gets all they deserve. Making flippant or inflamatory comments on forums is one thing, being offensive and posting 'hate-speech' needs to be punished. It'd be the same if he'd sprayed grafitti on a gravestone.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm highly offended by your comment. You need to be put in jail!

It'd be the same if he'd sprayed grafitti on a gravestone.

Except that he didn't actually vandalize anyone's property...

Re:trolling vs free speech

[chrismcb]

being offensive and posting 'hate-speech' needs to be punished

Really? Offensive to whom? Who decides what is 'hate-speech'? You should have a right to hate someone, and have the right to proclaim your hatred.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[mattventura]

Exactly. I'm not a UK law expert, but if he said offensive things to the person's face, what would the punishment be? I'm tired of punishments being much worse due to the fact that a computer was involved.

Also, they need to learn a bit more about the internet. I didn't RTFA, but it appears that the memorial page had an open comment section and they expected it to not get trolled. It doesn't matter who is in the right here, but that's an unreasonable expectation. If they don't want bad comments, then moderate them before letting them appear on the page.

Car analogy: pedestrians have the right of way. That doesn't mean you should try to walk across a 6 lane road with heavy traffic.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Sparx139]

Agreed. It's more like these guys, except not bat-shit crazy.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[chepati]

> There are issues of free speech here.

????

Don't confuse free speech with hate speech. I'm as big proponent of free speech and freedom of expression (be it verbal, written, etc) as the next guy, but I'm pretty hard on cowards who hide behind the faceless anonymity of the internet to spout awful hatred. This is emotional bullying and just because it's impersonal (as opposed to physical) doesn't make it any less damaging and devastating to a person. As it has been shown lately, bullying (or hate speech) can and will sometimes destroy a person psychologically and lead some people to suicide at worst, or great anguish at best. And don't give me none of that crap that the target of this particular bully is already dead and thus beyond any real harm.

People should be responsible for their deeds *and* their words, regardless of technology used. Desirable behavior should be rewarded, while an undesirable one should be punished so it doesn't repeat. It's called raising a child. Looks like someone didn't do a particularly good job at raising this "child".

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I'm not a UK law expert, but if he said offensive things to the person's face, what would the punishment be?

A well-deserved punch in the throat, hopefully.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[TapeCutter]

that's an unreasonable expectation

No, respect for the dead is not an unreasonable expectation, but in a world full of arseholes it is a naive one.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I'm not a UK law expert, but if he said offensive things to the person's face, what would the punishment be?

I'm not sure about any legal punishment, but I'm pretty sure he'd find himself on the wrong end of a beating.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

"Really? Offensive to whom? Who decides what is 'hate-speech'?"

The people that feel offended enough to make a case out of it, on which a court of law decides. It's simple.

"You should have a right to hate someone, and have the right to proclaim your hatred."

Sure, but there's a difference between unintentionally causing offense and willingly doing so by targeting an individual. That last is distastefull and should be punishable IMHO.

It's like the difference between stating that you hate people who commit suicide or trolling like said person in the UK did.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[jedidiah]

Hate speech is nothing more than speech that has been classified in a way that makes it easy to devalue.

It's much like using the same sort of racial and ethnic slurs that Nazi's employed.

Dehumanizing the person or the speech is just the first step in tyranny and oppression.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Cederic]

Why should I respect a bag of rotting flesh? This may be a societal norm, but that doesn't mean that it's unreasonable to disregard it.

It probably is unreasonable to seek out grieving families and taunt them, but I also think it's unreasonable to use Facebook so my sympathy levels are low.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[DerekLyons]

Also, they need to learn a bit more about the internet. I didn't RTFA, but it appears that the memorial page had an open comment section and they expected it to not get trolled. It doesn't matter who is in the right here, but that's an unreasonable expectation. If they don't want bad comments, then moderate them before letting them appear on the page.

Translation "I blame the victim".
 

Car analogy: pedestrians have the right of way. That doesn't mean you should try to walk across a 6 lane road with heavy traffic.

Bad analogy (pedestrians don't always have the right of way). Better analogy: It doesn't matter whether your door is locked or unlocked, it's still wrong for someone to enter and spray graffiti on the walls.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

Sure, but there's a difference between unintentionally causing offense and willingly doing so by targeting an individual. That last is distastefull and should be punishable IMHO.

I don't really care what their intent was so long as it remained mere words. For one thing, unless they openly state what their intent was (and I think this guy did), it's difficult to know. Second of all, what does it matter? These people could probably just choose to not be offended. Essentially, I'm saying that people need "thicker skins."

That and I support free speech.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Totenglocke]

A yes, "hate-speech", the politically correct term for "thought crime". Is the guy a dick? Sure. However, only in a truly fucked up police state can what he did be considered criminal.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

There are issues of free speech here.

No there is not...

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communicadtions, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Tim C]

Who decides what is 'hate-speech'?

A court; that's why we have trials rather than summary punishment.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[malkavian]

The punishement is more lenient than it would have been without (if he'd been physically present, I suspect a thorough beating would have been administered, plus jail time for antisocial behaviour, vandalism of the memorial etc.).
You need to learn less about the internet, and more about society. Having a memorial dedicated to the life of someone you love is not an invitation to be trolled. It's an invitation to help alleviate suffering. You shouldn't need a moderator (same as if you leave your house door open to look under the hood of the car, it's not an invitation for everyone to be free to run in and burgle your house). There has to be a working social contract for a society to work.

Amendment to your car analogy: Pedestrians have the right of way. I have the right to mow them down where I find them because I'm driving a car so it doesn't hurt me.

These guys in question aren't on a 6 lane road in heavy traffic. They're the equivalent of a sleepy back road, on the edge of church ground coming to pay their respects to the departed. And you choose to say it's their fault when a car driver comes and mows them down for kicks for having the temerity to be out in the open.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[overnight_failure]

but if he said offensive things to the person's face, what would the punishment be?

I don't think that's an equal comparison, that'd be more equivalent to sending a user a message.

I didn't RTFA, but it appears that the memorial page had an open comment section and they expected it to not get trolled. It doesn't matter who is in the right here, but that's an unreasonable expectation.

And people on the internet need to learn a bit more about real life. The internet does not actually define the rules of law.

Car analogy: pedestrians have the right of way. That doesn't mean you should try to walk across a 6 lane road with heavy traffic.

In the UK any road of that size is likely to be a motorway where pedestrians do not have the right of way :)

At the end of the day, your behaviour online still falls under the laws of the Real World. You can be held accountable for copyright infringement, libel and malicious communications amongst many things.
In this case the length of the sentence is likely to have been weighed up with the seriousness of the intent involved, along with how public it all was. Don't forget he'll likely serve less than 12 weeks of the sentence (assuming good behaviour).

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The word is "assholes", you illiterate git. :)

Re:trolling vs free speech

[St.Creed]

You could say the same for cannibalism. Just don't look surprised when the police comes to take you away and puts you in the house with the other funny people in padded rooms.

There is a difference between being right in the abstract (yes, you are) and being a part of society. You can be right while society will have nothing to do with you. This is such a case. Yes, you can choose to be a cannibal. There are consequences for violating societies laws and customs however, as the troller discovered.

I'm not in favor of blindly accepting all the customs and morals of society - "the rubbish of ages" - but in this case there was no point in trolling except to hurt someone else. So good luck with the troller in jail, I hope he learns a bit. 18 weeks is, after all, not the end of his live.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Cederic]

18 weeks would lose many people their job, their home, possibly their spouse.. It maybe wouldn't be the end of someone's life but I know it would completely disengage me from society.

Cannibalism has health implications but hey - once I'm dead feel free to tuck in. I'll be dead, and it wont matter to me. I don't want to be killed so someone can eat me, and I certainly don't want to be eaten alive, but once I'm dead anyway..

Re:trolling vs free speech

[TapeCutter]

No, I meant arseholes, and I am not a useless bit of waste iron. :P

Re:trolling vs free speech

[TapeCutter]

There is a difference between being right in the abstract (yes, you are) and being a part of society. You can be right while society will have nothing to do with you.

Excellent post, most nerds have no idea why they are frequently ostracised.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Hognoxious]

Exactly. I'm not a UK law expert, but if he said offensive things to the person's face, what would the punishment be?

Depends. If it's once it might (at a push) be breach of the peace, or behaviour likely to provoke one. Do it every time you see them, it's harassment. Follow them around doing it repeatedly, it's stalking.

If you'd bother to RTFA, you could work out which of those scenarios is most apt.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

He would be infringing the Public Order Act quite heavily:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -

        (a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or.

Section 4 of the Public Order Act carries up to a 6 MONTH term in prison.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[tehcyder]

I'm highly offended by your comment. You need to be put in jail!

It'd be the same if he'd sprayed grafitti on a gravestone.

Except that he didn't actually vandalize anyone's property...

There are worse crimes than property damage, you fucking right wing retard..

Re:trolling vs free speech

[xaxa]

The offence was "Malicious Communications". See http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#p_14

Note also that "One of Lauren’s friends was unfairly blamed for the hate campaign and took a drug overdose." Still think it's wrong to punish this guy? I certainly don't.

You might be interested in this, a speech "Free Expression and the Rule of Law" by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[tehcyder]

Also, they need to learn a bit more about the internet. I didn't RTFA, but it appears that the memorial page had an open comment section and they expected it to not get trolled. It doesn't matter who is in the right here, but that's an unreasonable expectation. If they don't want bad comments, then moderate them before letting them appear on the page.

I doubt if setting up a fucking moderation system was top of their priority list when they thought about providing a tribute page for their dead daughter.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

There are worse crimes than property damage

"Worse" is subjective, and I was referring to the fact that it wasn't the same. But, in any case, I don't think saying something is worse than vandalizing someone's property.

right wing

That's probably the first time someone called me right-wing.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[MoanNGroan]

I see your mistake: you've mad the common and dullardly assumption that punishing assholes will inevitably lead to a totalitarian big brother state.

I'm actually not aware of any dictatorial regime that started out by smacking people with the shut-your-fool-mouth stick and evolved into say a Libya or Nazi Germany. I'm pretty sure they started immediately with that suppressive agenda.

Yours a slightly more complicated version of the chicken little game, similar to the one GWB used to get America lined up behind him for Iraq. "Do nothing and the sky will fall". "Punish mouthy jerks and we'll end up with numbers instead of names and pity our tiny chocolate ration." Punishing social malformity is done to moderate dick heads, a necessary preoccupation of liberal societies who have marginal elements who are dicks simply because they feel they are privileged to be so. It's not the first step to totalitarianism, but rather the government's way of clipping you on the back of the ear, much as your parents should have done when you demonstrated this behavior at a younger age ... but that is another argument entirely.

And in answer to your question, the punishment for shouting that in somebody's face would likely be far, far more immediate and painful than a few weeks in jail and no internet. And they'd probably get off for the beating they handed him, as it would be seen as justifiable by any jury. But lets face it, trolls do so because they are Anonymous Cowards, so your RL scenario is going to be a lot more rare.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[tehcyder]

Why should I respect a bag of rotting flesh? This may be a societal norm, but that doesn't mean that it's unreasonable to disregard it.

It probably is unreasonable to seek out grieving families and taunt them, but I also think it's unreasonable to use Facebook so my sympathy levels are low.

Ah yes, because they have offended your geek sensibilities by using the popular but oh-so-unhip facebook, the family did in effect deseve to have this shit-brained fuckbag intrude on their grief. I see now, it's all become clear, thanks for your clarification.

Now fuck off back to your basement and don't bother trying to understand the real world again, your failure is embarrassing.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[tehcyder]

being offensive and posting 'hate-speech' needs to be punished

Really? Offensive to whom? Who decides what is 'hate-speech'? You should have a right to hate someone, and have the right to proclaim your hatred.

The fucking law of the land decides, you utter moron.

They didn't just make up a law on he spot to convict this cuntbag troll, you know. He broke a real law, and yes, here in the socialist UK we don't have the right to do things like disrupt militay funerals by shouting abuse at the dead soldier's relatives. Sorry.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[tehcyder]

These people could probably just choose to not be offended.

That's not how real human beings behave. If you seriously offend someone, they're going to want to punish you. At some level of unpleasantness, it becomes better for the legal system to deal with this, rather than the individuals resorting to physical violence.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[tehcyder]

A yes, "hate-speech", the politically correct term for "thought crime". Is the guy a dick? Sure. However, only in a truly fucked up police state can what he did be considered criminal.

It's not "thought crime" when you go and make comments on a tribute page or create an ofensive video and post it on YouTube, is it genius?

You can think whatever vile thoughts you like, but once you move those outside of your fucked up head and start communicating them to other people, there are consequences.

If we lived in a real fucking police state, turds like this piece of floating human garbage would simply be disappeared one night. Now, however tempting this is as an idea, and because of the "first they came for the retard trolls..." argument, in fact he just faced a proper trial and has been convicted of a crime.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Zironic]

It would be considered criminal in any society that expects people not to fuck with peoples funerals and memorials. Which is almost every society I know off.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[martas]

Nope; legislators define, courts only test whether individual cases fall within the bounds of the definition. Courts don't define what 'hate speech' is, they only apply definitions. The former responsibility falls onto those wonderfully responsible people in Congress you see on the TV so much these days. Comforting, huh?

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up - Free speech goes to the heart of this issue, however stupid and derogatory this person was.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[pjc50]

This got modded insightful? You should *not* have an absolute right to proclaim hatred, because then we can't have public order. Proclaiming hatred in front of people can and does start fights which can result in people being killed or seriously injured. See in the UK the Public Order Act, especially section 5 which is used quite often (sometimes overused, admittedly). That normally results in a moderate fine, but I think this particular case was dealt with under the more severe anti-harrasment law.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

That's not how real human beings behave.

It is how some of them behave. But in a society that, in my opinion, teaches people to be easily offended, that is probably going to be the outcome.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

Proclaiming hatred in front of people can and does start fights which can result in people being killed or seriously injured.

What? So if an opinion could make other people angry, that opinion should be banned? If telling people that you were an atheist would make them angry and start fights, people shouldn't be able to say that they're an atheist?

I'm going to disagree. I say that is the fault of the "idiots" who start the fights, and they are the ones who need to be dealt with.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm pretty sure they started immediately with that suppressive agenda.

Yeah. They all just appeared out of nowhere. The people definitely wanted them.

But even if it didn't happen in the past, that does not mean it wouldn't happen at all. The "First they came" speech comes to mind. I'd say allowing them to slowly erode rights (such as free speech) would be a good way to do that. Start out by doing it to the unpopular people and then move your way up.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have a right to hate someone, and have the right to proclaim your hatred.

I hate you. I have no idea who you are, but you just rub me all kinds of the wrong way.

That better?

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Cederic]

Your lack of empathy appears to be at least equal to my own.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Trepidity]

Listen here, Anonymous Coward, you might think you can hide your anti-democratic hate speech behind a veil of anonymity, but we WILL track you down and find who you are, and then your offensive comments, that dishonor the memory of the American Founding Fathers, will be properly punished.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Trepidity]

The U.K. doesn't have freedom of speech, as the passage you quoted aptly demonstrates. Any speech that "cause[s] distress or anxiety" is illegal in the UK, if an authority elects to prosecute it, which is a very wide range of speech.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with this. Courts sometimes are given vague definitions in the legislation they are expected to enforce and are called upon to fill in the blanks. Once they fill in the blanks, THAT becomes the gold standard that all others that come after must either abide by, or prove why the current case is different than that standard.

A good example of this is patent law, where the courts filled in the blanks for the "machine/transformation test" currently used.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation "I blame the victim".

Translation: "I enjoy pigeonholing people"

Bad analogy (pedestrians don't always have the right of way). Better analogy: It doesn't matter whether your door is locked or unlocked, it's still wrong for someone to enter and spray graffiti on the walls.

Bad analogy (commenting on the internet does not equate to trespassing and property damage). Better analogy: Going to a wake and writing 'Derek was a douchebag' in the condolence book... in pencil... lightly.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

a jury of your peers

Re:trolling vs free speech

[MrMickS]

Exactly. I'm not a UK law expert, but if he said offensive things to the person's face, what would the punishment be? I'm tired of punishments being much worse due to the fact that a computer was involved.

If they done the same sort of thing offline then the punishment would be similar. I.e. if they sent the same comments via the post, or sent a copy of the video on physical media. The press are more interested in this because its on the internet, but its the reporting that's making this a big thing, not the medium that it took place on.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go. You seem to have trouble grasping complete sentences. So, in your world view, if you shout "Go Lakers!" in the middle of a field of Chicago Bulls supporters, the 500 people that want to bash your head are idiots, and you are completely sane?

I suggest you attend a virginity pledge naked. You won't even have to say anything, just be there. Be sure to post your mugshots before and after.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

Way to go. You seem to have trouble grasping complete sentences.

This is highly offensive to me. Do you want to be sent to jail?

So, in your world view, if you shout "Go Lakers!" in the middle of a field of Chicago Bulls supporters, the 500 people that want to bash your head are idiots, and you are completely sane?

Yes. Why would they attack you for such a "petty" thing? To me, they are mere imbeciles.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[jopsen]

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

That's from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Sure you have free speech, but you also have a right to protection from attacks upon your honour and reputation.
And if you choose to use your free speech to express hate for innocent people, I sincerely hope any judge will hold the right for protection against such attacks higher than your right to express your hate.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation "I blame the victim".

The family may have expected their facebook wall to be a safe space,
but their expectation was wrong and they could have prevented the harm.

If you left your keys in the ignition and your car was stolen, I'd blame the victim and the thief.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, they need to learn a bit more about the internet. I didn't RTFA, but it appears that the memorial page had an open comment section and they expected it to not get trolled. It doesn't matter who is in the right here, but that's an unreasonable expectation. If they don't want bad comments, then moderate them before letting them appear on the page.

Translation "I blame the victim".

 

Car analogy: pedestrians have the right of way. That doesn't mean you should try to walk across a 6 lane road with heavy traffic.

Bad analogy (pedestrians don't always have the right of way). Better analogy: It doesn't matter whether your door is locked or unlocked, it's still wrong for someone to enter and spray graffiti on the walls.

No: Translation, "We live with a LOT of different people and some of them are assholes and highly inconsiderate of other people; so if you are going to have a social forum, prepare for that."

Better analogy: Someone invited to a wedding writes fuck you on the Memories & Goodwishes board (key here is that they were invited, and it was a place intentionally meant to be written on)

Re:trolling vs free speech

[pjc50]

It's not just the opinion, but the manner and circumstances in which it's expressed. It's not a simple always/never allowed issue.

(Even US law allows the recognition that the person using abusive language can be the "idiot who starts the fight")

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

And I've already said that I don't care about those. I've already acknowledged that the laws aren't what I think they should be. I'm only speaking of my opinion.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate you and hope someone "noodly appendage fearing" person kills, maims and rapes (in that order) you, your children and your family (ditto).

Still having fun?

Re:trolling vs free speech

[LordLimecat]

Translation "I blame the victim".

I want to be clear, that I think the guys a jerk and what he did was wrong.

At the same time, Im not sure I would call "having my feelings hurt" something that makes me a "victim". Good grief, how did you ever make it through high school?

Better analogy: It doesn't matter whether your door is locked or unlocked, it's still wrong for someone to enter and spray graffiti on the walls.

And the wrongness of it doesnt mean you shouldnt lock your doors. If you want to stop getting burglarized, you lock your door; if you want to stop having your feelings hurt (and on the INTERNET no less), you moderate your page.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

>pedestrians don't always have the right of way
IIRC, in Germany, they do. Always. Not everywhere is the US dude.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This is highly offensive to me

I thought you said you were thick-skinned? Or just thick?

Do you want to be sent to jail?

Hiding behind the law now, are you? I thought you disagreed with that law? You can't act offended and offend in the same post unless you're... wait for it... trolling.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

I thought you said you were thick-skinned? Or just thick?

Well, you said something so mean to me! I couldn't help but call the cops and be terribly offended.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[spire3661]

Then they had no idea of the medium in which they were working and very little concept of human nature.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[spire3661]

Just because something is enshrined in law, doesnt make it right or just, merely empowered.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Paracelcus]

In what we used to call the "free world" you actually needed a reason to deprive someone of their liberty. Now in the "free world?" You can be locked up for anything, anytime at the whim of a politically ambitious prosecutor or a bad tempered cop or both!

That's why in the USofA we have the largest prison population in the world and the second largest number of executions (after China) and the weight of the "prison-industrial" complex and the "surveillance-society" is helping to choke America to death!

"Freedom is cheap" -Desmond Tutu

Re:trolling vs free speech

[DerekLyons]

At the same time, Im not sure I would call "having my feelings hurt" something that makes me a "victim". Good grief, how did you ever make it through high school?

You're seriously comparing high school nonsense to grief after someone died? Now I know why you're so intent on blaming the victim - you have utterly no clue to the emotions they're experiencing. It's much more than "getting their feelings hurt".

Re:trolling vs free speech

[anyGould]

18 weeks would lose many people their job, their home, possibly their spouse.. It maybe wouldn't be the end of someone's life but I know it would completely disengage me from society.

And would that not make a fantastic deterrent to other DBs out there considering similar activity. It could be this guy's purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others. Yep, he'll probably lose his job. House depends on family circumstances (I don't know what UK law is in relation to that sort of thing). Spouse... it's only four months. People serve in the military for longer than that.

Cannibalism has health implications

Actually, it's the social implications that are more worrying. You may not have noticed, but being classified as "food" does not tend to increase one's standing in the world.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[anyGould]

being offensive and posting 'hate-speech' needs to be punished

Really? Offensive to whom? Who decides what is 'hate-speech'? You should have a right to hate someone, and have the right to proclaim your hatred.

And here's the rub. If this guy had *known* the women, then you can say it's free speech, it's speaking an opinion, it's telling the truth... there are lots of valid defenses I can think of to saying something at a memorial that could be considered "offensive".

This guy didn't know any of the girls he was commenting on. He's just making shit up, specifically to *get* the reaction. This, in my mind, removes most of the "freedom of speech" defenses. To use your example, you can't legitimately hate someone you have no awareness of (or have any other opinion of them, for that matter).

If I walk up to my mom's funeral and say horrible things about her, that's one thing. If I walk up to *your* mom's funeral ("your" being the great anonymous /. masses) and say horrible things, that's quite another.

(Aside: Canada does the "hate speech" thing too, and I dislike it - if it's BS to say to one group, it's BS to say to any group. Shouldn't be bonus prison points for picking on one particular group.)

Re:trolling vs free speech

[anyGould]

A yes, "hate-speech", the politically correct term for "thought crime". Is the guy a dick? Sure. However, only in a truly fucked up police state can what he did be considered criminal.

I'd disagree. If you show up on my property and start spouting BS, I am fully within my rights to force you to leave (up to and including pressing charges). The same applies in nearly any real-life space. There's a reason why you don't hear much about real life trolling - because someone *will* deal with you.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[djrogers]

being offensive and posting 'hate-speech' needs to be punished

Really? Offensive to whom? Who decides what is 'hate-speech'? You should have a right to hate someone, and have the right to proclaim your hatred.

Well, the Thought Police, obviously...

Re:trolling vs free speech

[gfreeman]

Actually the people who made the unsubstantiated claims that it was the friend are as much to blame, if not more so. They DIRECTLY caused her actions, whereas the guy merely INDIRECTLY caused them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah you can link to CPS info all you like, that merely supports the fact that it's currently a crime in England and Wales. What the original question was though, was "is it RIGHT to be a crime?"

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

it's still wrong for someone to enter and spray graffiti on the walls.

Certainly - but that's not what happened here.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[xaxa]

The first link was to explain which crime it was.

The second is the more interesting one, and it's well worth reading, at least for anyone interested enough to comment on this story. Although most of the situations it covers are more general (offending large groups of people, like Welsh / Muslims, rather than individuals).

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Jibekn]

Yeah! What kind of arse backwards country is that eh?! Not even progressive enough to legalize traumatizing another human being! All these comments from idiots who think this guys punishment is unjustified makes me happy I live in a socialist country with anti-hate and anti-harassment laws, no wonder Americans are so fucked in the head.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[MooseTick]

I've seen a lot of hate speech against Casey Anthony. No one seems to care about that.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[toriver]

Slashdot is full of people making up excuses for assholes today.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[toriver]

Freedom of speech generally meant freedom from persecution for speaking against the Government. Not freedom to be a total asshole to other people with no consequences. Nor freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowd. Or a lot of other expressions that infringe on other people's right NOT to be subject to your expression.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Trepidity]

There's a pretty large gray area between yelling "fire!" in a crowd and any speech that causes someone "distress or anxiety", though.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Totenglocke]

You're clearly not from the US where we have freedom of speech. Protests are funerals happen often and as long as the people are not physically interfering with the funeral, it's totally legal.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[Grumbleduke]

A court; that's why we have trials rather than summary punishment.

It's interesting that you should say that, as the offence he was apparently convicted for *is* a summary offence, so you can't get a full trial under it at first instance. These days the UK has quite a few summary offences and punishments (on-the-spot fines, ASBOs etc.); it's part of the "keep the plebs away from the higher courts" drive the last couple of governments have been running.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[mdervin2001]

Unless he owns a part of facebook, youtube or the rights to Thomas or the Girl's picture he vandalized somebody else's property.

Let's take the situation into the real world, the family gets a permit to hold a small memorial service in a public park. Her family, friends show up and are having a nice moment. Strangers walk by, see what's happening and either stay and be quiet, say some meaningless words of comfort or just walk away. Now let's assume a couple of douchebags walk by, Gallant Douchebag looks around figures out what's happening stifles a laugh walks out of earshot and then makes fun of everybody. Doofus Douchebag looks around, figures out what's happening proceeds to go to the center of the crowd and starts making fun of the girl, her friends and everybody else. When asked to leave, Doofus Douchebag makes an even greater scene, more offensive statements, in the middle of it all.
Should the gathered just sit there and take it?
Should they call the cops?
Should they beat Doofus Douchebag within an inch of his life?

Apparently you think everybody should just sit there and take it. He's not actually vandalizing anybody's property.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

Unless he owns a part of facebook, youtube or the rights to Thomas or the Girl's picture he vandalized somebody else's property.

I've already basically answered that here (and in some subsequent posts).

I don't see how he could have vandalized a picture (I think you're referring to something else in that case).

Apparently you think everybody should just sit there and take it. He's not actually vandalizing anybody's property.

Yes.

Re:trolling vs free speech

[alexo]

Who decides what is 'hate-speech'?

The Canadian Human Rights Commission?

Re:trolling vs free speech

[alexo]

Who decides what is 'hate-speech'?

The fucking law of the land decides, you utter moron.

They didn't just make up a law on he spot to convict this cuntbag troll, you know. He broke a real law, and yes, here in the socialist UK we don't have the right to do things like disrupt militay funerals by shouting abuse at the dead soldier's relatives. Sorry.

The law of the land is vague enough for you to serve six months in prison (if you get an unsympathetic judge on an off day) for posting your reply. Don't have a problem with that?

Re:trolling vs free speech

[alexo]

Sure you have free speech, but you also have a right to protection from attacks upon your honour and reputation.

If I repeatedly post that you are a craven traitor, that would be an attack on your honour.
If I repeatedly post that you rape baby seals, that would be an attack on your reputation.
If I call you a fucking moron who quotes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without having a clue what the text means, that would be neither.

And if you choose to use your free speech to express hate for innocent people, I sincerely hope any judge will hold the right for protection against such attacks higher than your right to express your hate.

See above.

Pair of Dies

[CuteSteveJobs]

> he must tell police about any phones he buys that can provide internet access.

Duffy called the local constabulary: "Sure it looks like an iPhone, but on the inside the Galaxy S is a web-browsing, media-playing beast of a smartphone, and one of the best Android phones available!"
The constable listened with interest, thanked Duffy, hung up then hopped on to Google to order one. He mused "I didn't really understand the point of that court order, but it's certainly useful!"

In other news CuteSteveJobs was arrested for posting a mocking parody of Sean Duffy who was jailed for ... etc ...

I like it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling, racist, hateful bullshit is all around the internet and it's time for it to stop. People are assholes, give them anonymity and they are double super assholes. Is being an asshole illegal? Soon enough I hope.

Re:I like it...

[Trilkin]

Funny coming from an AC.

non-recidivist

[roc97007]

> or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?"

Well, he does NOW.

Re:non-recidivist

[Philbert de Zwart]

That quote irked me as well. The fact whether his actions would be taken seriously by the authorities has nothing to do with this. He should have realized how hurtful his actions were to the people grieving for this girl, and based his moral decision on that. I'm not sure where to draw the line in cases like these, but I find it very hard to argue that this person does not deserve punishment.

Re:non-recidivist

[roc97007]

Agreed.

Oh, chances were he knew. To some people, social networks are like a video game. You're safely ensconced behind your monitor where nobody can break your nose for being a jerk. It leads to different behavior.

In other news, 42,000 Slashdotters were jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

for hurting the feelings of the dicks who work for the MAFIAA, then another 42,000 were jailed for hurting the feelings of the dick cops given the power to trample free speech by making such judgments, then one Anonymous Coward.....wait.

Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see how this is morally wrong. But how is it criminal?

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Gordonjcp]

In the UK, we have two classes of offence, civil offences and criminal offences. Now, civil offences are generally not terribly serious things; a speeding ticket won't get you a criminal record, it'll get you a £60 fine and an endorsement on your licence for four years. However, 30mph over the posted speed limit is frequently prosecuted as "dangerous driving" which is a criminal offence.

TL;DR - it's all a matter of degree. It's perfectly legal in the UK to be a dick to someone, but not to the extent that this guy took it.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Lemmy Caution]

Morality has always been embodied in law. We just usually distinguish between the kinds of morality we can safely disagree about and still run a society, and the kinds of morality that, in practice at least, are not really up for discussion. I have to say, his behavior, for me, veers to the latter. I feel freer knowing that someone who trolls a tribute page for a deceased loved one will be punished than I would knowing that I was free to troll tribute pages for other peoples' deceased loved ones.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it happened on the Internet. People have to be made afraid to post anything that could be remotely objectionable, to keep them in check.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Dilaudid]

Can you see why death threats and mock executions are criminal? If the US jailors in Abu Ghraib doctored pictures of the prisoners' families to show their children being executed, then presented them to the prisoners as real photos, would that be criminal, in your eyes?

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[malkavian]

No, he'd have done time (longer) for doing it outside the net. And received the due kicking as well.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[chewy_fruit_loop]

its criminal because theres a law saying you can't do what he did
he was charged and confessed to the crime

think that pretty much wraps up how its criminal

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[jareth-0205]

In the UK, we have two classes of offence, civil offences and criminal offences. Now, civil offences are generally not terribly serious things; a speeding ticket won't get you a criminal record,

*What*? Speeding is a criminal offence! Why do you think the police enforce it?? It's just not one generally considered serious enough to have to be declared. Civil offences are not 'lite' criminal offences, they're a completely different category.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[tehcyder]

I can see how this is morally wrong. But how is it criminal?

It's criminal because it contravened a criminal law on the statute books. And it is a criminal law on the statute books because society has decided that such offences are seriously anti-social enough to warrant punishment.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

> In the UK, we have two classes of offence, civil offences and criminal offences

While strictly true, it's not relevant to the point which you're trying to make. In the UK, the only civil offences are contempt of court, non-payment of maintenance, and non-payment of fines.

Anything else is either a criminal offence, or not an offence at all (although it may still constitute grounds for civil action for damages and/or equitable remedy). Traffic offences are still criminal offences, albeit minor ones.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Trepidity]

I personally feel that people who advocate on the internet for criminalizing speech would be better off in jail. Where does that put me? =D

If of course believe in free speech in normal circumstances, but when people take it to the extreme of attacking freedom of speech itself, well then maybe there need to be limits.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

then you're an idiot. you're not freer in any way.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[LordLimecat]

The problem I have is, the old standard of "eye for an eye" (which is usually criticised for being harsh) would dictate that this person have his feelings hurt in return for hurting other's feelings.

Im not clear how jail time is the equivalent punishment for hurting someones feelings, honestly.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[matfud]

I think the poster did not mean civil offence. There are three kinds of criminal offence in the UK. And the court procedures are different. Summary - magistrate. Inditable - Crown court (jury). Triable either way - you get the choice of magistrates or jury trial.

Not all criminal offences are recorded on your criminal record and not all are declarable. Speeding tickets are (as far as I know) not recorded apart from on you license.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[AkkarAnadyr]

By definition, because they've written a law against it. That's as far as the label 'criminal' goes, notwithstanding its incorrect and loose uses in the media and other propaganda.

Many criminals have done nothing immoral or harmful, including you. (Do you know for a fact that you've never broken some Victorian-era Taliban-style law which still has force today?)

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. I agree the guy's actions were despicable... but trolls will be trolls. As a long-time forum moderator, I think it's up to the sites to keep these people in line - not the criminal justice system. If we're going to jail one guy for being a moron, then we'd better get bigger nets because there are a LOT of stupid people on the internet. Delete his crap, prevent him from posting, IP ban him, yes. Jail him? No.

And if you're going to jail him, then I have a lonnnnggggg list of others that I have personal experience with in similar circumstances - so you'd better start building jails.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Morality has always been embodied in law. We just usually distinguish between the kinds of morality we can safely disagree about and still run a society, and the kinds of morality that, in practice at least, are not really up for discussion. I have to say, his behavior, for me, veers to the latter. I feel freer knowing that someone who trolls a tribute page for a deceased loved one will be punished than I would knowing that I was free to troll tribute pages for other peoples' deceased loved ones.

So what about cheating on a girlfriend or dumping someone insensitively? They both cause severe distress too.should such behavior be against the law? Where do you stop?

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

because society has decided

The missing words are "a small part of". What do I win?

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

"freer"?! what freedom is this you speak of fool?

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the UK does not have legally enforced freedom of speech. It is far too easy for the government in the UK to decide what is acceptable to say and what isn't. Why not just report the offending content and have it taken down?

We have to put up with public services being cut and yet we need to spend money putting some ass through trial and then pay to house and feed him for 18 months for what? Offending someone? Why don't we just lock up the entire population of the UK?

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Lemmy Caution]

The idea that there are two separate realms - "speech" and reality - and the former can be completely free while the latter is regulated - is a fragile fiction. We use "speech" to do all sorts of real-world things: make promises and contracts, marry people, hire people, fire people, threaten people, give orders and commands, give warnings, besmirch the reputations of others, confess to crimes, etc. The troll was using "speech" to harass people for his personal amusement: he was not expressing a perspective or belief system. The kind of naive, simplistic "speech is just speech and should always be free" position comes from not understanding that speech is simply human activity, and not autonomous of other human activities.

But really, you're grasping at straws.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Lemmy Caution]

Causing distress is not in and itself the issue. There are many times we do have to cause distress to others: firing them, dumping them, etc. There is something more fundamental about the mourning of one's dead than something to be "distressed" about. It's pretty much a human universal - the fact that you're alienated from that understanding shows just how atomized and autistic our culture has become.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Trepidity]

I actually think plenty of your arguments can be applied to criminalizing your own speech here, though, so I didn't mean that entirely facetiously.

Germany has a notion of "advocating against the Constitutional system", which holds that any political position within the Constitutional system is legal but people expressing political viewpoints against the fundamentals of the system can be restricted, or in more extreme cases criminalized. So, for example, arguing for or against state healthcare is legal, but arguing against Germany's Constitutional principles that grant Jews citizenship, or provide for democratic elections, are both illegal. The obvious goal of course is to criminalize neo-Nazis, but it also includes revolutionary leftists, and can include severe criticisms of Germany's constitutional structure, depending on how broadly a procedure and court wish to read it (they generally choose to read it narrowly). Under such a principle, certain arguments criticizing Germany's version of freedom-of-speech, depending on how strongly and how extensively, can themselves be prohibited speech!

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[MBGMorden]

This post is so meta-hypocritical it pains me.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[toriver]

I guess the equivalent American concepts (severity of criminal offenses) would be a misdemeanor compared to a felony.

Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see how this is morally wrong. But how is it criminal?

It's criminal because it contravened a criminal law on the statute books. And it is a criminal law on the statute books because society has decided that such offences are seriously anti-social enough to warrant punishment.

i agree with. that will pay if he can't pay here maybe he can pay that in his afterlife.

Really?

[xenobyte]

Prison time for trolling?

Now, trolling takes many forms, of which cyberbullying is just one (small one actually). Most trolling is harmless and fun - FTA's example of Apple-bashing in an Apple forum is typical. It harms nobody except filling up the forum with off-topic messages. Good moderators can curb this quickly and no harm is done.

Going after people though... Doesn't have to be cyberbullying and when it isn't, it also can be fun and mostly harmless. But the border between deeply hurtful and just fun is rather thin, and some trolls cross without realizing it. I'm actually fairly convinced that Sean Duffy didn't intend to make what happened happen. It was just fun going too far. I think prison is too harsh here. He should just be punished financially by being forced to pay an insane restitution to the victims family - at least in the two-digit millions. Then he could go to prison for failing to pay, but that's a different thing.

Re:Really?

[mattventura]

Your comment offends me. Please pay me restitution.

Does the UK not have an equivalent of the first amendment or something?

Re:Really?

[mvdwege]

I'm always surprised that in these discussion someone always turns up to find excuses for twits like Sean Duffy.

What he did was harassment, and that's a crime everywhere. That it's happening via the Internet is irrelevant here.

And as for intent: if you go as far as he did, to deny that there was intent to harass becomes just plain silly.

Mart

Re:Really?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

That really comes down to whether or not prison is an adequate deterrent for a wide variety of crimes. I'm finding it hard to muster up any sympathy for this genius though, I mean if he was calling them up on the phone with caller ID blocked, making nasty comments about the dead kid, nobody would have any doubts about whether or not he should be imprisoned. He comes across as a vicious, sadistic coward. Just because it's the internet doesn't make it different.

Re:Really?

[mjwx]

Prison time for trolling?

First off, he didn't get time for simple anonymous trolling as happens everyday here on trolldot. He targeted the families and friends of the deceased specifically, that demonstrates a clear malicious intent. Lets remove the Internet from the current scenario, say he mailed hateful letters to the family, played that YouTube video on TV et al. It's the same thing minus the Internet and we'd call that stalking.

Secondly, this is the UK govt over-reacting. Since the recent riots they've been taking every oportunity to prove they are "tough on crime" in an attempt to make it look like they aren't letting the real perpetrators of the riot get away (because finding evidence and trying them would be hard and going after people who post stupid things on facebook is easy). Yes this guy is a dick, a complete dick who deserves some jail time and community service but that's it.

So dearest Australians and Americans, read the above paragraph and remember in 2012, conservatives don't fix problems, at best they don't create new ones.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! You are the first commenter to even comment on the fact that "... on the Internet" is completely irrelevant to the crime and punishment.

Re:Really?

[Tomato42]

Internet is a harsh mistress. If you can't be thick-skinned, go find different way to spend your time. And posting on-line, to world at large, "look how miserable we are" is just whoring.

Re:Really?

[Cant use a slash wtf]

>conservatives don't fix problems, at best they don't create new ones.

You haven't been in Victoria during a state-Liberal government have you?

Re:Really?

[NickDB]

Maybe 18 weeks of supervised community service would of been better. Somewhere where he can see the damage that actions like his do.

Re:Really?

[malkavian]

A voice of sanity! Thank you.

Re:Really?

[malkavian]

Except this isn't an overreaction. He got off pretty lightly for harassment, possibly stalking and a whole boat load of antisocial activity that would have earned him the time, AND a thorough kicking if he'd done it in person.
Last I checked, this was nothing to do with Conservative/Labour/Lib-Dem, and everything to do with a court of law.

Re:Really?

[jonbryce]

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the equivalent, but there is also article 8 about the right to respect for private and family life which Sean Duffy was infringing.

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf

Re:Really?

[TapeCutter]

Your comment offends me. Please pay me restitution.

You my be surprised to learn that until recently that was the way it worked in both the UK and the US.

Does the UK not have an equivalent of the first amendment or something?

From WP - Lord Justice Sedley, in his decision regarding Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999), described Speakers' Corner as demonstrating "the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear." The ruling famously established in English case law that freedom of speech could not be limited to the inoffensive but extended also to "the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome, and the provocative, as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence", and that the right to free speech accorded by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights also accorded the right to be offensive.

OTOH, the right to be offensive in the US was not properly established until 1988, and it's unclear (to me) if that right extends beyond the parody of public figures. There's an excellent documentary about Flynt called The right to be left alone, I recommend it to anyone interested in the recent history of free speech in the US.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

its nothing to do with the current government
the laws on hate speech where brought in by the last one
they've been on the books a few years

Re:Really?

[TapeCutter]

I'm always surprised that in these discussion someone always turns up to find excuses for twits like Sean Duffy.

Sadly, I'm no longer surprised that people will defend the indefensible.

Re:Really?

[St.Creed]

Very few countries do. For several reasons. But the UK specifically has really un-cool laws concerning free speech. Mostly they're used to stop government critics, whistleblowers and paparazzi, to protect the wealthy. Sometimes they can also be used by commoners like ourselves, such as in this case.

Re:Really?

[St.Creed]

Thank you for your opinion. I value it at a negative value. Basically worthless, but perhaps even less than that. I might want to charge you for the time I took reading it.

If you don't like this message, just ignore it. You're really thick-skinned. And thick-skulled. Shouldn't be a problem. After all, common human interactions are beyond you, so it's not like I'm hurting you or anything.

Hey, here's an idea: why don't you tell everyone the ads for deceased people are just "whoring". And all the people putting them up are pimps. Why not make it an article in the newspapers. You're so thick-skinned, I'm sure you can take the abuse that will follow.

Oh, did you start disliking me already? No problem, you have a thick skin. I'm sure you can take it.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

The Internet is a communication device. Nothing more, nothing less.

You aren't allowed to phone people up to verbally abuse them, you can get arrested for sending abusive letters to people, so why should the Internet be treated differently?

And if you are unable to treat people in a civilised way, then don't be surprised if there are legal repercussions. Hopefully you'll be "thick-skinned" enough to accept them.

Re:Really?

[Your.Master]

I wonder if we could use a solution where, if convicted, his name and face are plastered over radio ads, tv ads, billboards, etc., with a message that basically says "This man is a total asshole. Seriously, he's a douche. Nobody was physically injured by his actions, but holy shit he's a dickbag. Don't do him any favours."

Something like that might help kindle the sort of social ostracism that seems like a more appropriate response than jail time.

I guess that's sort of related to what is done with sex offenders already in some places, but in that case actual prison time seems the most appropriate response.

Re:Really?

[dugeen]

Again, 'if he'd done something that was actually illegal, no one would have any doubt that he should have been imprisoned, therefore he should be imprisoned for doing something that did not constitute an offence' ?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

not strictly no. There are articles of the UN/European Human Rights Bill which provide for free speech but we don't have anything resembling a constitution here

"There has been no major codification of the law, and subject to statute, the law is developed by judges in court, applying statute, precedent and common sense to the facts before them, to give explanatory judgements of the relevant legal principles" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom

In some ways it is better as it is more adaptable, but it is also subject on occasion to the whims of judges and magistrates (the harsh sentencing during the riots being a prime example)

All in all though it looks like this guy is being punished for being a dick. I can't really argue with that.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

But he did commit an offence, something that he was "let off with a caution" with in 2009. He didn't just post a single message, he posted a series of them. This is what is called harassment (and as a side note he did this against a further three families). Yes, what he did was illegal. The fact that the Internet was the method used for the harassment doesn't matter. He broke the law, was let off, and did it again. Repeatedly.

So, should he have gone to jail after repeatedly breaking the law?

Re:Really?

[tehcyder]

Internet is a harsh mistress. If you can't be thick-skinned, go find different way to spend your time. And posting on-line, to world at large, "look how miserable we are" is just whoring.

"The internet" is not in a separate universe from reality. Just because you can generally get away wih being an anonymous arrogant arsehole doesn't mean that you aren't often dealing with real people and the real world. Do something illegal and get caught doing it, whoops you are not above the law, however fucking brilliant you are at World of Warcraft.

Re:Really?

[kevinNCSU]

Internet is a harsh mistress. If you can't be thick-skinned, go find different way to spend your time. And posting on-line, to world at large, "look how miserable we are" is just whoring.

Society is a harsher mistress, if you can't follow it's rules, society will find a different way to spend your time. Generally, locked in a small windowless room. Basically the internet is society's bitch. When it was young, society made the internet do it's homework. Now society makes the internet follow it around wherever it's going holding it's papers and documents and everything else society can't be bothered with lugging around. Society even makes the internet come into the shitter, and dictate trivial messages to society's "friends". How you ever got the impression that the internet is a bad-ass that can take society on I'll never understand.

Re:Really?

[malkavian]

That should be put on the Terms of Service of every ISP. Excellently put!

Re:Really?

[malkavian]

Maybe. But maybe 12 weeks (likely result with behaviour) in a hard environment where some seriously unpleasant people take a serious dislike to that kind of behaviour may make a more lasting impression on someone who's already shown that they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else's feelings.

Re:Really?

[LordLimecat]

I'm always surprised that in these discussion someone always turns up to find excuses for twits like Sean Duffy.

Its because there are a number of us who arent convinced that this is an attempt at justice, rather than some emotional "he hurt my feelings and must pay" response.
Harassment it may in fact be, but I tend to think that if you get upset that someone speaks their mind on facebook and you cant deal with it, the law isnt really the best vehicle to "fix" the situation.

I might be wrong here, Im just really suspicious of the emotional response and the call to jail time for what amounts to "he hurt my feelings".
For the record, I am also not familiar with the UK's laws on harassment, but again jail time doesnt seem to meet (IMHO) any real standard of "proportional punishment".

Re:Really?

[phorm]

Some people would like the publicity... mega-trolls like this already fall towards the end of "like attention, even when it's negative" so such publicity might be an attraction rather than a deterrent

Re:Really?

[anyGould]

I'm always surprised that in these discussion someone always turns up to find excuses for twits like Sean Duffy.

Sadly, I'm no longer surprised that people will defend the indefensible.

I'm glad they turn up - the guy is entitled to the best defense possible. (I almost said "that money can buy", which is less idealistic yet more truthful).

Re:Really?

[Tomato42]

Sorry, but reading your reply actually made me like you. Must be my highly gestated Asperger's or something else I obviously have.

There's a difference between putting an ad in local newspaper or in private profile and placing a globally writable comment section without moderation. It's not like he was famous even in its local society, let alone to people around the world. That's demanding attention - in harsh words - whoring.

Maybe the Internet desensitized me but I can't see this as anything else but parents trying to make publicity around their kid. That's quite typical, only it's despicable to me considering the kid is dead.

Next thing we well be putting people in prison because they didn't post positive comments on Yet Another Teenage Girl Sweet Duckface Photo...

A LITTLE too harsh?

[Anonymous Coward]

4 and a half months in jail for offending some people? What he did was no good and just plain stupid, but this is going a little too far. It was a 'joke' after all, a fine and maybe a week in jail would be more than enought, that would have teached him, and that is the whole point of going to jail.

Re:A LITTLE too harsh?

[malkavian]

I think 4 months in jail is a jolly little jape they've played on him. Can they get applause for that too? Or is it only a problem because you don't find it funny?
Harrassment is not a joke. It's actually a crime. For very good reasons (psychological torture). He made people suffer to a very large extent at a time when they're not psychologically capable of having strong defences.
The punishment is fitting, now he has to accept the jokes being played on him behind bars (he'll be out in a month of so with good behaviour, hopefully suitably chastened).

Obligatory

[Nialin]

Because trolls trolling trolls.

This should not be a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes free speech means putting up with ass*****.

Re:This should not be a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech does not protect sadism (or if it does, I posit that it shouldn't). Here in The Netherlands, some immigrant kids started disrupting funeral services just for the fun of it (and yes, I said 'immigrant' instead of Moroccan or Muslim, I don't intend to be minority insensitive). Would you say that should be equally protected by free speech doctrines? And before you start: protesting during a military funeral is equally insensitive but is a political act. "For the lulz" is not a political rationale.

Re:This should not be a crime

[RightSaidFred99]

Shrug. Sounds like it's just a difference in opinion between authoritarian Europe and the US. 75/100 people in the US would say someone should be allowed to do all that shit.

We'll see if your tight control over thought in the EU helps when some minor government cutback triggers the next mass riots.

Re:This should not be a crime

[Totenglocke]

This is the UK - they don't have free speech over there.

Re:This should not be a crime

[malkavian]

In the US, many say they just have the right to shoot people who do that, and let God sort it out.

Re:This should not be a crime

[RightSaidFred99]

True, you never hear of any mass shootings in any of those civilized EU countries. Their strict anti-gun laws prevent lone nuts from going and getting some guns and shooting a bunch of kids, for example.

Re:This should not be a crime

[Hognoxious]

75/100 people in the US would say someone should be allowed to do all that shit to anybody other than me and my family

FTFY

Re:This should not be a crime

[NickDB]

Free speech does and should protect sadism, what it doesn't and shouldn't protect are actions arising from sadism or anything else. I personally think this guy went beyond the realm of mere speech when he started making videos etc. Therefore he should be punished and it is not a free speech issue. If he had just posted comments on the wall, then it would be different. But his actions went further than that.

Re:This should not be a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

You're pulling a Godwin and you know it. Having the last word in an argument does not make you right, it just means you've alienated all the people that cared enough about you to respond.

Re:This should not be a crime

[tehcyder]

This is the UK - they don't have free speech over there.

Thanks for that insight. You are quite correct that here in the UK we can't do anything without explicit written permission from the government, whereas in the US you can say (and presumably do, for what is freedom of speech without freedom of action?) anything you want.

Gosh, you're so lucky! No prisons, no police, no laws at all. Pure anarchist heaven. As you've achieved fucking paradise on earth, maybe you could share the secet with the rest of us?

Re:This should not be a crime

[NiteShaed]

I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but everything you just said is actually true. All the stuff you see in the media is really a carefully orchestrated misdirection, designed to keep people from wanting to come here. There's actually only 53 of us over here on the entire continent! The rest? Androids and holograms designed to make it look more crowded. Why am I telling you this? I'm bored, it's really quite lonely being one of only 9 people in the entire northeast.....

Just ignore it if you don't like it

[pentadecagon]

It's similar to the Muhammad cartoons: Somebody makes fun about a dead guy, offending people who care deeply about that guy. So if those cartoons are considered Free Speech the same should apply here. Even more so because here we hurt maybe a few dozen people, with Muhammad it was many millions.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting the Muhammed cartoons in a newspaper or on a general website is free speech. Projecting it on a mosque is harassment.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insane. It is nowhere comparable. The Mohammed cartoons were a direct confrontation with an idealogy. This was spite aimed at hurting the recently bereaved.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[pentadecagon]

This was spite aimed at hurting the recently bereaved.

Not aimed at hurting. He wanted to make fun or maybe just draw attention. There is no reason to assume he intended to hurt those people. He didn't even know them.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like that works when you're getting harassing mail and phone calls from the psychopath.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

except the cartoonist wasn't running up to Muslims and slapping them with it

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. This is the only worthwhile comment on this issue I have read thus far.

Am I supposed to support incarceration for those who merely offend others through words (perhaps even actions such as the posting of a cartoon/picture/parody?). If I am to do that, the slippery slope is steep. What about those whose sexuality offends others? Should they be incarcerated as well? How about those who would what might be considered offensive views regarding religion and/or religious people?

Are his words and actions offensive? Perhaps. Should it be condoned? No. Should he be condemned for it (incarcerated merely for offending the sensibilities of others)? No.

By the way, here is a novel idea:
If you want to grieve privately, DO IT IN PRIVATE.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[TapeCutter]

There's a vast difference between the parody of a long dead religious figure and personal harassment of the living, if you can't see it then I feel sorry for you.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[pentadecagon]

The Muslims didn't ask for it. The people here did by inviting everybody to post his opinion.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[pentadecagon]

Please don't twist the facts, there wasn't any personal harassment of the living, none of them was even mentioned. Maybe they took it personally, but that's up to them and that applies in both cases.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[TapeCutter]

There was no twisting of facts, you don't have to name someone to harass them. The intent was clearly to inflict grief on the living relatives. Again, if you can't see the difference between parody and harassment then maybe you should take an ethics class or something before you find out the hard way.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Reservoir Penguin]

You are not getting out of this easily, because he really chased you into the corner with this one. Mohammed cartoons were exactly the same as the youtube videos about a dead girl. Living relatives has nothing to do with it. Would it not be punished by UK law if the was an orphan? Or would you say that his trolling offended her friends, or if she never head any IRL friends may it offended some online acquaintances she played WoW with, and if so how would it be different from offending followers of Islam?

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[pentadecagon]

Projecting it on a mosque is harassment.

Not if they ask everybody to publish their opinion there.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

The followers of muhammad are living people and they consider muhammad cartoons to be harassment. Both inflict distress on the living, the only difference is how long the dead person has been dead for and that person doesn't care in the least. There is, after all, no such thing as a little bit dead and you don't get any deader after 1300 years than you are after 3 days. The situations are directly comparable.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[tehcyder]

This was spite aimed at hurting the recently bereaved.

Not aimed at hurting. He wanted to make fun or maybe just draw attention. There is no reason to assume he intended to hurt those people. He didn't even know them.

That is not a defence, you prick.

Saying "I didn't realise it would hurt them" stops being an excuse at about the age of eight.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[pentadecagon]

Of course it's not an excuse and not a defense. The same applies to the Muhammad-Cartoons, they hurt people and the author should have known that. But in both cases hurting people wasn't the primary goal, it was more like accepted collateral damage.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[ClioCJS]

Considering that people consider god ABOVE and MORE IMPORTANT than their family, I'd say the difference is that much much much less offense was done here.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[TapeCutter]

You are not getting out of this easily, because he really chased you into the corner with this one.

Oh please, grow up.

Mohammed cartoons were exactly the same as the youtube videos about a dead girl.

Agreed, but I was talking about the crap he posted on the memorial site - that is harassment.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just ignore it if you don't like it"

It's hard to ignore if it's posted on your website that is a tribute to the person that's the target of the malicious communications, just as it's hard to ignore someone who's shouting insults in your face.

That's the difference with the Muhammad cartoons: those were published in western newspapers, not in the 'Islam Daily'.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying "I didn't realise it would hurt them" stops being an excuse at about the age of eight.

Tell me what age is about the time most people grown up and realize that someone saying something offensive is not a reason to fly off the handle and threaten violence.

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

In both occasions a dead person was mocked and the living were emotionally hurt.

Explain the difference you see than can be quantified and codified into law please?

Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it

[gfreeman]

Given that the dead are unlikely to read any of his comments, he must have known that the comments would be read by the living - to whit, those who respected the deceased. It would be trivial therefore to argue that his comments were indeed directed at those individuals and thus be classified as harassment.

Hardly just trolling...

[radio4fan]

...or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?

Considering that he was a serial offender, and had received an official caution from the police in 2009 for a similar offence, it seems unlikely that he didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken.

If he'd done a similar thing by post, he'd still be going to prison.

Re:Hardly just trolling...

[julesh]

Yes, but would he be banned from using the postal system?

Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd...

[F69631]

I can't wait for the people who'll come howling about censorship... which this wasn't.

If the guy would have punched the dead child's father, we would all be happy with throwing him to jail... for a good reason. We, as a society, have decided something along these lines: "If you cause other people harm and pain for no other reason than your personal amusement, you should be punished". We've then coded that principle to a more formal set of laws as well as we can. If you can cause other people just as much harm by impersonating their dead daughter as you could by punching them in the face, why treat it differently? Just because it's "on the internet" doesn't mean that the same principles and laws shouldn't apply.

I know that in USA there is a concept of "Free speech!" and some people are willing to chant about that like a mantra. In most of Europe, we don't think that everything that comes out of your mouth is sacred. For example, the constitution of my country doesn't contain anything about "Free speech" but instead states that people have the "freedom of opinion, expression and assembly". That is because we think that we want to punish pricks like in this story but we still want to prevent government from squashing unwanted political movements, etc... So, our constitution protects civil rights in a way that doesn't much apply to cases like this. Sure, you can use the slippery slope fallacy, but history shows that it hasn't realized here any more than it has in the USA (despite the "free speech" law).

It's even more complex than that. In USA, there is some sort of a mentality of "Government vs. the People". Even your constitution is designed to limit the government's authority. In Europe, government is seen as a tool of the people. For example, our constitution doesn't say that government can't prevent us from expressing our opinions... it says that government must protect our right to express our opinions if other people try to prevent us from doing so. So I can see why many americans might be saying "Ah! This is a private affair! Government isn't required to interfere in stuff like this so it shouldn't" while mindset of the population (though not necessarily the SlashDot population) on this side of the pond is "This is just the kind of stuff that we designed our government for". So it's a different philosophy between different cultures.

Ah... Why do I even try. We all know that roughly 25% of the comments will be nothing more than "But fascists are squashing FREE SPEECH here!"...

really?!

[CobaltBlueDW]

Is this really a criminal offense?! It seems to fly in the face a free speech. I know the UK and the US don't see completely eye-to-eye on free speech issues, and the UK is more likely to have these kind of pandering laws, but still... I could understand a lawsuit for defamation of character or some such thing, but not a criminal charge. If "sending malicious communications" is really a legal matter, than almost everyone posting in this thread is breaking the law. Is our society really in favor of such nonsense, or is this just another one of those 'the police don't like getting video taped, and no one prevented them from making-up laws yet' kind of things.

Don't get me wrong, I think that guy was an incredible jackass and deserves his just reward, but I certainly don't think he committed a criminal offense, and I likewise don't think I committed a criminal offense by calling him a jackass just now!

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

Why? If someone speaks with the intent to harm, why should that be allowed? It wasn't opinion. It wasn't censoring expression. It was stopping a person who knew he was causing harm from continuing to cause harm. What, everyone should be a Vulcan? We should aspire to be uninsultable and inhuman.

Re:really?!

[__aailrp9629]

Yes. According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law ) this is indeed a criminal offense (at least some of the time) in England.

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It wasn't opinion. It wasn't censoring expression.

Of course it was. Just because you disagree with the opinion being expressed doesn't make it any less censorship.

It was stopping a person who knew he was causing harm from continuing to cause harm.

Because the idea that we need to stop anyone and everyone from every inflicting pain on another person is the proverbial path paved with good intentions. A line has to be drawn somewhere, but drawing it to include hurtful speech is so far to the side that it encompasses practically everything anyone might do at all.

What, everyone should be a Vulcan? We should aspire to be uninsultable and inhuman.

Just because something is not illegal does not make it endorsed. We can still aspire to be humane without the heavy burden that comes with institutionalised censorship.

Re:really?!

[Inda]

So many of us British cry "Free speech!" on the internet. They all assume we have free speech in the UK. They all feel we should have the right to say anything we please.

The fact is we don't have free speech here. We never did and we probabaly never will.

I'm just glad I got trolling out of my system 10 years ago :p

Re:really?!

[Totenglocke]

And how exactly was he causing harm? Are they injured and requiring medical treatment? No. Did he steal from them? No. Did he cause damage to their property? No again. They were not harmed in any way shape or form. Just because you're sad or angry doesn't mean you've been harmed. If you could sue over that, then I'd be able to sue every dipshit who causes a traffic jam in the mornings because I'm pissed as hell over their inability to push the damn accelerator.

What, everyone should be a Vulcan?

It amuses me that you think aspiring to make decisions based on facts and logic instead of irrational emotions to be a bad thing.

Re:really?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because words alone do not cause harm (unless spoken at very high volume close enough to do damage to ones eardrums). What does harm is physical violence, and/or denying others of rights and/or property.

If words that offend others alone did harm, or denied others of rights and/or property, nearly all users of xboxlive would be felons.

Re:really?!

[chewy_fruit_loop]

yes its an offence
sending malicious communications is a legal matter and has been for a very long time

he committed a criminal offence, just because you don't think he did.... doesn't mean he didn't
ignorance of the law is not a defence

Re:really?!

[St.Creed]

Protecting people from this kind of harassment is not a new item in law. The fact he did something on internet does not suddenly make it right or completely different. What he did is the equivalent of mailing death threats or insults to someone - those aren't protected by free speech-laws either. Depending on content, they are criminal in ALL the jurisdictions on the planet. It's not censorship, it's stopping a stalker with a history of this type of behavior.

Re:really?!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct that there are limits, but I want to be sure that *my* right to call this guy a class A asshole is protected. If I call him such, or set up a little "Sean Duffy is an asshole" web page, could I get in trouble? Where is the line between protected speech and criminal speech being drawn here?

Re:really?!

[earls]

The problem is, how do you precisely quantify the "harm?"

Re:really?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I the US, we call it free speech. I think the guy is a total ass, but being an ass is not and should not be illegal, you pay your own price for that.

Re:really?!

[Megane]

"Free speech" does not give you the right to harass another individual person, or to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Re:really?!

[tehcyder]

I could understand a lawsuit for defamation of character or some such thing

The UK is not as litigious a society as the UK. The occasional high profile libel cases are the exception, rather than the rule. The "freedom" to sue if you are rich is not seen as much of a freedom at all by most people here.

If "sending malicious communications" is really a legal matter, than almost everyone posting in this thread is breaking the law.

People aren't using their real names and addesses here. There is a big difference between threatening a handle/IUD and an actual named person.

Re:really?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech is allowed because life is more complicated than "he hurt my feelings, he bad man". Because people want to share their bad feelings just as much as their good feelings. And most importantly of all because life is full of absolute horrors, in this instance: a teenage girl committing suicide by jumping in front of a train. As far as i can tell our children's television style society doesn't even allow for that kind of horror to exist let alone provide a sanctioned way of dealing with it. In fact i bet it went even further than that, i bet the memorial website that he defaced with his comments was full of the same saccharine insincere bullshit that all grieving people cling to. In other words another complete denial of the horror that took place.

So this guy, who's legal defence consisted entirely of a list of his own mental illnesses reacted to all of that with a joke, an insulting horrible joke. Good for him.

The old oncologist's anecdote about peoples first reaction to a hearing a diagnosis of a cancer being a joke comes to mind.

Re:really?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's just words. If I call you a prick, how am I to know whether or not you'd be grievously harmed and pained by the statement?

Re:really?!

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to overlook that you SHOULD NOT post about your private problems on Facebook, if you don't want to have ALL POSSIBLE public comments about it. Next time when I say "my dog is dead" and someone else answers "buy a new one", I'll sue the hell out of them, because "you cannot even imagine how it hurt me"(tm).

Re:really?!

[tehcyder]

Because the idea that we need to stop anyone and everyone from every inflicting pain on another person is the proverbial path paved with good intentions. A line has to be drawn somewhere, but drawing it to include hurtful speech is so far to the side that it encompasses practically everything anyone might do at all.

I think that what this sick fuck did (not just once but to several different victims' families) is deserving of a far more serious punishment than a few eeks in prison. You'd get more than that for some trivial crime against property like shoplifting if it was a repeat offence.

But of course, because he's got fucking Asperger's and because it's on the internet, and because he has to face the consequences of his actions, all the slashtards are just whining on about censorship and how teh evil government is restricting his gods-given right to cause suffering to others.

Re:really?!

[ClioCJS]

We should aspire to not be pussies who have to whine to Mommy Government everytime our wittle feewings get hurt.

Re:really?!

[Anonymous Coward]

For your reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

Re:really?!

[Madsy]

What he did is called *harassment*, and is punishable by law. It's not a free speech matter, because the intent here was perfectly clear. He pleaded guilty. Feel free to disagree with prison as the punishment, though.

In a case he *didn't* plead guilty, the prosecutor would have to prove over any reasonable doubt that his intentions were malicious. Which would be pretty easy, as the evidence is there. Nothing this guy posted or did goes under satire either. It was done solely to cause severe distress.

You wouldn't use the free speech card on the right to bully someone in the workplace, or follow someone dead in their tracks for a whole day. It's harassment, stalking and/or antisocial behavior. That this was done via the Internet doesn't make any difference.

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Protecting people from this kind of harassment is not a new item in law.

Really? Maybe so. In the US we recently had a supreme court ruling that those people who show up at funerals and say the dead people deserved to die are completely within their rights.

Posting a video on youtube and posting crap on some website - a website that actively accepts the crap - are far closer in kind to what those people do. "Mailing" death threats gets special treatment, at least in the US because the postal service gets special treatment for all kinds of things - for example it is a felony to put anything other than stamped mail into someone's mailbox.

Re:really?!

[prefec2]

This is law in most Western democracies (when not in all). It is backed by human rights (see human rights declaration for more details).

Re:really?!

[anyGould]

It wasn't opinion. It wasn't censoring expression.

Of course it was. Just because you disagree with the opinion being expressed doesn't make it any less censorship.

OK, I'll bite - what opinion can he possibly be expressing about a person he doesn't know, has never met, and *can* never meet?

To be clear - I have no idea who you are, and this post constitutes more interaction than he had with *any* of the people he felt compelled to comment on.

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

OK, I'll bite - what opinion can he possibly be expressing about a person he doesn't know, has never met, and *can* never meet?

Well, in this case it sounds like he thinks the girl was wrong for committing suicide and the family wrong for not condemning her for it. Such opinions are still pretty common even if they are pretty shitty. But you know what? Your criteria is irrelevant. There is nothing in the definition of "opinion" that says it has to be meaningful, rationale or anything else.

Re:really?!

[toriver]

Because a stable society is based on civility. A fucktard's right to express himself stops with my right to not be subjected the shit dripping from his mouth. Assholes are not entitled to an audience.

Perhaps in your world (Vulcan?) people are not emotional creatures, but we humans are. Emotional distress can have lasting effects. And in this case the asshat purposefully and repeatedly sought to cause distress.

Re:really?!

[toriver]

Yes. Instead people should perhaps boycott him and everything he is associated with. "I see that Sean Duffy works in this store. I will be taking my business elsewhere until that situation has been rectified." Eventually he will see the errors of his ways.

Re:really?!

[toriver]

Sure you have free speech: If you hadn't his postings would have been subject to Government moderation before they ended up on the memorial site.

But after he has used his free speech he gets to face the consequences like an adult. Not hide behind the Mommy skirts of "unrestricted freedom to be a douchebag to others".

Re:really?!

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I invent a neuronic whip that causes excruciating pain without injury I should be able to fire it at anyone I want (as long as they don't require medical treatment as a result)?

Re:really?!

[Totenglocke]

Oh bullshit. Grow the fuck up, be an adult, and realize that not everything is going to go your way and not everyone is going to like you. If you'd ever worked in any job that involves dealing with the public you'd know that this sort of stuff is what they deal with on a daily basis, yet you don't see them demanding people be arrested left and right.

Your "right" to not listen is that simple - DON'T FUCKING LISTEN. Walk away, don't go to that website, block their screen name, ignore them, whatever. It's not that complicated. All you have to do is use just one brain cell and you can figure it out.

Emotions are entirely irrelevant to right and wrong. Just because a guy bought the last copy of a movie and you're pissed doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Emotional distress is a load of shit for "I'm a pansy who can't deal with someone not liking me". Get over it, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

Of course it was. Just because you disagree with the opinion being expressed doesn't make it any less censorship.

You mother is an ugly bitch. Is that an opinion? No. I can't have formed that opinion because I've never met or heard anything about her. So throwing me in jail for saying that will not infringe my right to express myself. It may be argued that my actual opinion was "I don't like you and I'm expressing that through a common insult." However, as an opinion about your mother, I can't actually hold that opinion, as I have no personal knowledge of her, and thus it most certainly is not an opinion about your mother.

Just because something is not illegal does not make it endorsed.

You are wrong (so say millions of people against ending prohibition or "allowing" abortions). You can argue with them about it, but it seems most people think "legal" means "moral and accepted" probably because of all the people using our laws to enforce their morality. Anything legal must then be moral.

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

There's a limit to expression. You can't express "I don't like gays" by beating them to death. And apparently, you can't express "I don't like suicide" by harassing the family of a person who committed suicide.

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

It amuses me that you think aspiring to make decisions based on facts and logic instead of irrational emotions to be a bad thing.

You are assuming there are no rational emotions. As such, I dismiss all your ideas without consideration because you've proven yourself logically inadequate for this conversation. Logically, you should be ok with that. Emotionally, you want to object. Humans are emotional beings. To pretend (or aspire) otherwise is folly, regardless of how "irrational" you perceive emotions to be.

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

Assault is swinging your fist at someone and missing. That's illegal. Where's the "harm?"

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

However, as an opinion about your mother, I can't actually hold that opinion, as I have no personal knowledge of her, and thus it most certainly is not an opinion about your mother.

Since your entire argument hinges on the meaning of the word "opinion" I think it would be helpful to start with a formal definition. Merriam-Webster is generally considered canonical, probably second only to the OED.

opinion
1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
1b : approval, esteem
2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
2b : a generally held view
3a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
3b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

As you can see, the two most common definitions don't require anything like personal knowledge or evidence. Just simply belief. Sometimes a strongly held belief, but still just belief. Which pretty much ends this line of debate.

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And apparently, you can't express "I don't like suicide" by harassing the family of a person who committed suicide.

So... Your argument is that it should be illegal because it is illegal. Do you really find that line of reasoning to be compelling?

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

You incorrectly describe my argument, then argue with yourself about whether you are right. Do you find that compelling?

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

As you can see, the two most common definitions don't require anything like personal knowledge or evidence.

Yes, they do. "1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter" I would argue it's impossible to have a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind with absolutely no information at all, directly or indirectly, related to the mater. As such, the comment "your mother is ugly" isn't a "belief" it's a statement made to harm with no formation in my mind regarding the girth or mass of your mother because I have no basis for such thought or belief.

Re:really?!

[randyleepublic]

You are intending to harm ColbaltBlueDW by denigrating their reasoning ability. You should be stopped! You fucking moron...

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I honestly can't see anything persuasive in what you wrote, I did my best to pull something, anything, out of that. If I got it wrong then correct me.

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I would argue it's impossible to have a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind with absolutely no information at all, directly or indirectly, related to the mater.

No information? At a minimum you know I have a mother. Who knows, maybe you have a theory that someone's looks are related to the kind of things they say and that people in the same family tend to say the same sorts of things.

Whatever the case, trying to decide what another person has going on in their head and then punish them if their thoughts are "wrong" is, if not ridiculous, completely impractical..

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

Both are, in fact, against the law. Thus, whether you agree with it, a lot of people smarter than you thinks so. So you should be coming up with the persuasive argument to prove the law wrong. It's provably as illegal to harm someone via words, as well as physically. You disagree they are equivelent. I assert that your disagreement is with the law and not me. But instead, you obviously can't find fault with that, so you attack me. You are wrong, and I don't need to correct you. But I will let everyone else know you are wrong so that your words don't influence anyone. But for you, you've made it clear that you are beyond help, despite the fact you are asking me to correct you. I can only assume you want me to say more things so you can obtrusively misinterpret my words and attack arguments I never made.

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

Who knows, maybe you have a theory that someone's looks are related to the kind of things they say and that people in the same family tend to say the same sorts of things.

So, a reasonable person could determine the attractiveness of a parent via nothing other than words spoken unrelated to the appearance of anyone? I find that, and all your statements to be absurd.

Whatever the case, trying to decide what another person has going on in their head and then punish them if their thoughts are "wrong" is, if not ridiculous, completely impractical..

You are, in fact, wrong on every count. Have you ever heard of manslaughter vs involuntary manslaughter? The difference is whether the thoughts are "wrong". This distinction is made on a daily basis. Apparently you are incapable of understanding that. Your argument is with the law, not me. I'm just expressing what sane people in society believe. Punishment is related to the wrongness of thoughts. That you disagree with society is a mental issue you need to deal with. That you think society and everyone in it is wrong and you are the only right person is a full on mental illness.

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Both are, in fact, against the law.

Really? That is no different in substance than "it should be illegal because it is illegal" Give me a break.

I assert that your disagreement is with the law and not me. But instead, you obviously can't find fault with that, so you attack me.

I attack your defense of the law. If you can't see the difference then you are way too personally involved. Especially when you say things like "you've made it clear that you are beyond help" - THAT is attacking the person and not the argument.

Re:really?!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, a reasonable person

You keep adding qualifiers. Not only do opinions have to be based on direct experience, now they also must be reasonable. All those people who have opinions about God, I guess they really don't qualify as opinions then huh?

Have you ever heard of manslaughter vs involuntary manslaughter? The difference is whether the thoughts are "wrong".

Absolutely not even in the same league. The difference between intentional actions and accidents is nothing like determining how "reasonable" a belief is. For one thing intent, or lack thereof, is determined by examining actions, not by trying to figure out a person's belief structure and critical thinking skills.

Your argument is with the law, not me

That seems to be the cop out you've settled on here. If that's the best you've got, then why do you even post in the first place? If the law stands on its own it sure doesn't need you to lift a finger to justify it, now does it?

That you think society and everyone in it is wrong and you are the only right person is a full on mental illness.

For someone intent on accusing me of attacking you personally you sure don't practice what you preach. I think your irony meter is broken.

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

If the law stands on its own it sure doesn't need you to lift a finger to justify it, now does it?

You obviously think the law doesn't stand on its own. As such, since the law can't argue with idiots, I endeavored to assist the law to my own detriment.

For someone intent on accusing me of attacking you personally you sure don't practice what you preach.

You opinion on my level of hypocricy is irrelevant to whether my comments are true. Since you decline to address what I say and instead how I say it, then you are conceding the point that you have a mental illness. Otherwise, there's be no reason to launch into an ad hominem non sequitur.

Re:really?!

[AK Marc]

Really? That is no different in substance than "it should be illegal because it is illegal" Give me a break.

Wow, you are an ignorant fucktard. Try reading what's written, not your incorrect simplification of it so that you can attack it better. Two things are equal under the law, so since you are asserting the law is wrong, how would you differentiate between them? I've not stated that they *should* be illegal in the post you responded to, so any assertion of that as my argument is a lie. Quit making up lies about what I say because you are too stupid to grasp the nuances of language and law to form a coherent argument.

Especially when you say things like "you've made it clear that you are beyond help" - THAT is attacking the person and not the argument.

At least you didn't call it an ad hominem, because it isn't. Calling you an ignorant fucktard is not an ad hominem. It's a statement of fact. Whether it is or isn't related to the matter at hand is irrelevant. Based on your responses and deliberate focus on things other than the original topic, you are proving my point while whining about it.

Re:really?!

[toriver]

"a guy bought the last copy of a movie" is not comparable to "a guy pestered the grieving family of a dead girl".

I think you not only lack empathy but also any sense of scale. Your loss, I guess, except you seem to try and spread your madness to others.

He's a recidivist

[lemur666]

Some repeated behaviors are a bell-weather of behaviors to come.

Torturing small animals seems to be a common gateway behavior for serial killers.

Bullying and/or narcissistic behavior is a common thread among criminals.

In this case severe trolling is an indicator of... what?

I'm guessing something in the sales department, politics or mass-media news show.

Sorry. "Opinion" show.

Re:He's a recidivist

[tehcyder]

In this case severe trolling is an indicator of... what?

Becoming a keen slashdot poster?

Re:He's a recidivist

[toriver]

"Trolling" understates what took place. "Stalking" is closer to the mark.

Harrasing the family of a dead teenager

[SmallFurryCreature]

Your idea of fun is pretty weird.

I suppose this debate will always be split amongst those who think this kind of stuff is fun and those who don't.

Maybe we should examine your history and see if we can have some fun with that. If you are not just full of shit you will post your full personal details here or even better on 4chan.

Oh, not fun when it is happening to you? Then it ain't just fun.

Re:Harrasing the family of a dead teenager

[cowboy76Spain]

Ok, then do not see it in as a comic expression but a moral one.

What about making a point against suicide? Certain cultures did have actions against suicides (cancelling the deceased's last will, burial in "shameful" parts of the cementery -or not burial at all-, etc.)

While I respect anyone's meditated, reasoned decision to end theirs life, and I understand the relatives'feelings, I do not find giving suicides (or crimes) too much notoriety of good taste. In the bottom line, it may even encourage "attention seeker" suicide attempts (and successes).

Granted, there are softer ways of expressing them. I just want to make a point that someone may find these

pages dedicated to the suicide memory

something worth to oppose to.

Re:Harrasing the family of a dead teenager

[Americano]

I just want to make a point that someone may find these pages dedicated to the suicide memory something worth to oppose to.

Then the solution is to speak in general terms about the use of web page memorials possibly glamorizing suicide, and back your points up with relevant facts and data. The solution is NOT to pick a handful of teens (not all of whom were suicide deaths, anyway), and stalk them online with a clear intent of inflicting pain and suffering on bereaved family and friends out of a sadistic desire for "lulz".

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

I can't wait for the people who'll come howling about censorship... which this wasn't.

Just because the speech was illegal or "offensive" in some peoples' opinions, that does not mean it isn't censorship to censor and/or punish him for saying it.

We, as a society

Certainly not me. Perhaps most people.

If you can cause other people just as much harm by impersonating their dead daughter as you could by punching them in the face, why treat it differently?

In my opinion, it's because whether it harms them or not is completely up to them. You don't have to be "overly sensitive" or be offended by anything you see.

That said, I'm highly offended by your entire post. It harmed me as much as it would have if you would have punched me! Therefore, you should be thrown in jail.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That said, I'm highly offended by your entire post. It harmed me as much as it would have if you would have punched me! Therefore, you should be thrown in jail.

Indeed. As a member of the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd, his denigration of that ethnic group was both personally injurious and socially destructive. I will not be able to recover for days if not weeks. F69631 needs to pay for the harm he's done.

Q: How many Jerks does it take...

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How many Jerks does it take...to screw in a lightbulb?

A: why not help Professor Hawking test-out this theory that he himself wouldn't voice any objection over (then again neither would Thomas Edison) ?

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[lattyware]

I completely disagree. The only thing I can see here that could be a reason is him using the girl's face without her permission, which could be grounds for something, but not this. Why should people have a right not to be offended? They don't have to pay attention to the stuff this guy posts - that's their choice. This is bad because the government has stepped in and stopped this guy speaking. Sure, for now it's some guy being a jackass, then it'll be some racists, then pirates, then just anyone who doesn't support the government's stance on anything. Yes, I'm talking about a slippery slope, and just because it's possible doesn't mean someone will do it, but my point is not that because they have jailed this asshole they will later go on to jail the rest, I'm saying, because it's possible they can jail this asshole, it's possible they can jail the rest, and that is wrong.

The government shouldn't be able to stop people talking about anything, because potentially the thing they are talking about could be something that the people want made legal. By stopping them talking about it, you make it impossible to vote for that idea, destroying the basis of democracy. Freedom of speech is important because without it you can't have democracy. You just have a government that lets you vote so long as you are voting for stuff they don't really hate. It's not the same thing. True democracy means allowing the Nazi party, allowing the paedophile party, and letting them talk about it all day long. It also includes letting this guy be an asshole, as long as he doesn't infringe on the other people's freedoms (punching them, for example, would be injuring them, and that would be wrong under the law).

Yes. The government is a tool for the people - that's the point of a democracy. That said, we have to constantly watch it to ensure it stays that way, as we are giving people the power to tell people what to do, and that power can be abused. One can not presume the government will do the right thing, which is why freedom of speech is important.

Well they're still a KINGDOM

[Spy Handler]

they never really had a Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or Ben Franklin or that "Give me liberty of give me death" guy, afaik

United States came as far as it did and became as great it is/was largely due to the heritage of the magnificent Founders. Although the recent leadership of Dubya/Cheney/Billary/Obama have been doing their damned hardest to erase all traces of their legacy....

Re:Well they're still a KINGDOM

[Anonymous Coward]

We had the Magna Carta in 1215 you unutterable piece of dreck. We were fighting for freedom when..oh, wait the only people in the Ameicas were natives, who your freedom-loving forebears endeavoured to wipe out.

So don't lecture the UK on freedom, after all we're the ones who let you win your little war of independance because you were just too annoying to worry about.

Posted anonymously for ironic effect.

Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can get a judge to believe it. And pass judgement or laws in your favor.

It's as good as the truth. Better in fact.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Lemmy Caution]

Respect for the dead, especially loved ones, and the sensitivity that comes with that, is essential to human societies. The kind of thick-skinnedness you're calling for is neither desirable nor realistic, and I believe most people - those who aren't so alienated and misanthropic to not recognize it - would much rather prosecute people like the troll than have such an absolutist doctrine of "speech."

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

Respect for the dead, especially loved ones, and the sensitivity that comes with that, is essential to human societies.

I disagree. These people are dead. I needn't respect them at all. Nor do I think you need sensitivity for society to function.

The kind of thick-skinnedness you're calling for is neither desirable nor realistic

It's both desirable and realistic to me.

and I believe most people

What most people want is irrelevant to me. I only care if I think they (or something) has a point.

Not trolling

[Andtalath]

Trolling is when you provoke a large group of people with general offensive behaviour and/or opinions.

This is something entirely different, this is a methodical psychological attack on someone who just lost a relative.

I believe that 18 weeks of jail is not unreasonable in the states for doing the equivalent of kicking someone in the nuts when they have fallen over.
While laughing.
And filming it.
And showing it to their friends.

This is what was done here.

Re:Not trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the kicking in the nuts part, which in the US is the only part that could get you in jail. Hmmmmm....

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Lemmy Caution]

You don't need to respect the dead. But, to a certain point, you need to respect other peoples' respect for the dead.

You don't understand, at all, the role of affect in human society and social cohesion. You may be autistic, in which case, I pity you,

Essentially, you will lose this cultural war in almost any arena you fight it. And I think that's a good thing.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[RightSaidFred99]

That's all very grand. You're very civilized, your system is just so practical I really envy it.

Now when are you going to go out and riot and throw Molotov cocktails at the police? Do you know yet, or should I just wait for the next minor cut to welfare/"the dole"?

"Founders" with a capital "F"?

[fantomas]

I am interested that you represent the men who wrote the first constitution / laws of your country with a capital F, suggesting a degree of worship as great, if not more than the reverence given to the queen / Queen in the UK. In the UK some people really worship the queen, other people don't like her at all and think that the structure of monarchy should be pulled down. Are there people in the USA who think the worship of the "Founders" should be pulled down?

Your capitalising of the term 'founders' suggests you treat them as legendary heroes rather than normal, fallible men? Closer to a Soviet /Chineses model of history with heroic past figures that are greater than people can be today?

Re:"Founders" with a capital "F"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's just a little confused is all. Here in the US we don't typically capitalize "Founders" but do capitalize "Founding Fathers." The latter is capitalized not for mythological purposes but simply because it's the proper (though informal) name of a group. It's like capitalizing "The Most Noble Order of the Garter" for you guys in the UK.

Shit just got real, y'all

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe I speak for all my Anonymous Coward brethren when I say "OH SHIT".

Re:Shit just got real, y'all

[Totenglocke]

The Queen finds your use of the word "shit" to be offensive. You will now be sentenced to 38 years in a "pound me in the ass" prison.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You don't really know much about the US. The first amendment of the US constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, congress itself shall not set any rules abridging speech, but the individual states may. However we have judicial review and case law which has altered this a bit. In summary, it has been generally applied as a rule throughout the states, but with certain limitations. In Schenck v. United States, it was established that certain speech that has no conceivable useful purpose and is inherently dangerous is not protected, such as the famously cited example, shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Now we also recognize that chiseling away at free speech is a very slippery slope, so we make every effort to curb it. There is a very strong concept of the tyranny of the mob. This means that just because the majority want something there way out of a strong moral sentiment, doesn't mean that they are right. We also recognize that every time we give up any rights, we will probably never get them back.

And IMO that system works pretty well. Hell don't take my word for it, it has lasted for a good 223 years now, and we remain the worlds strongest nation in terms of culture, military, economy, and global influence.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

But, to a certain point, you need to respect other peoples' respect for the dead.

Whether I need to do that or not depends on who you ask. In any case, they can respect the dead if they want, but that does not require me to agree with them.

You don't understand, at all, the role of affect in human society and social cohesion.

I don't see where sensitivity is needed. People get together to accomplish things that they probably couldn't do alone. As long as everyone isn't killing each other, I don't see how a lack of sensitivity in some areas would make society crumble.

Essentially, you will lose this cultural war in almost any arena you fight it.

Perhaps now. But that might not be true in the future.

I suppose I should just say it. Your comments are beginning to offend me. Don't think for a minute that I won't take action against you.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

you can use the slippery slope fallacy, but history shows that it hasn't realized here any more than it has in the USA

ORLY? What about all the libel suits used as an intimidation and censorship tool for decades now?

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize the reason we have such strong free speech provisions in the US is that during the founding of our nation, the government that was in power at the time was suppressing political speech in an attempt to squash an unwanted political movement. So, no slippery slope needed, we have an example of what can happen when freedom of speech is not preserved.

Moreover, US history has many examples of where the government has attempted to overstep its bounds in regulating speech (many times coming from religiously motivated groups). It has only been the interpretation of the courts that the 1st amendment gives *almost* absolute protection of expression in all its forms that has prevented them from succeeding in the long run.

Perhaps just a difference of opinion. So, enjoy your Europe, where you don't need to worry about someone insulting you too badly. Personally, I prefer my US where I don't need to worry about government retribution for saying something that the right (or wrong, depending on the perspective) finds too extreme.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about censorship, it's about people being prosecuted for merely "offending" someone else, in a non-physical way. It's sad how people like you can't understand the slippery slope this is. Europe already prosecutes people for the most trivial things.

Anonymity and virtual identities

[tinkerton]

"People feel protected by anonymity and the true nature of people comes to the fore,"

That will be true in some cases but I think it overestimated. I think those who bully on the web also will do it in the real world when they feel they can get away with it. And the other way round, many people want their virtual identities on web communities to be respected the way they are respected in real communities. A virtual identity is a parallel identity, and to some extent you treat it in the same manner. Slashdot may be a bit large for a community so smaller fora would be better examples.

Re:Anonymity and virtual identities

[prefec2]

You say that anonymity brings out the real nature of people is only true in some cases and that it is overestimated. However, then you say that people would act the same IRL when they can get away with it. This implies either immunity or anonymity in real life. So there is no real difference. It is only a difference in communication technology.

However, I agree that a virtual identity can be as important to an individual as the "primary" identity. Therefor he or she protects that virtual identity and does not fool around. While others give a shit...

Re:Anonymity and virtual identities

[tinkerton]

I roughly agree. I didn't put it very well.

Epic butthurt

[Anonymous Coward]

This has taken butthurt to whole new levels, even the judge has felt it. Failing to use 7 proxseas was pretty dumb, though. OTOH lots of tax money is being wasted here for nothing, so that's a nice slap in the face of the British taxpayer as well.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[F69631]

Out of several people who've responded so far with somewhat similar arguments, I'll reply to you as your post was most civil. I think that your post can be broken down to two different points.

Why should people have a right not to be offended? They don't have to pay attention to the stuff this guy posts - that's their choice.

I agree there. However, our whole justice system is based on actions and intentions. It's thus important to see the difference between these two:
1) "You're punished for trying to hurt other people"
2) "You're punished because other people got hurt"

Essentially, you oppose the second statement, as do I. Our whole justice system is based on punishments (you get punished if you break the law) and you can't be punished for what other people do. Thus, we don't say "Driving under influence is illegal because other people might get hurt" as you don't have full control over whether they get hurt or not. Instead, we say "You aren't allowed to drive under influence because you would intentionally cause increased risk of harm to other people" as that's something you can control. It's what you do and what your motives are.

Similarly, I can't control whether someone is offended by this post or not. That's why I can't be punished based on whether anyone is offended or not. I can, however, control whether I intentionally try to hurt relatives of recently dead person because I get my own pleasure out of it so I can be punished based on that intention... whether I actually succeed in hurting them or not. The person in question wasn't punished because the relatives got hurt. He was punished for trying to hurt the relatives.

You may still say that you disagree about the law: That you think behavior like this should be prevented by other means (positive peer pressure comes to mind) than courts and jails. It's a valid opinion! But it's important to see the difference between saying that he was punished because other people got offended and that he was punished because he tried to hurt other people.

The government shouldn't be able to stop people talking about anything, because potentially the thing they are talking about could be something that the people want made legal. By stopping them talking about it, you make it impossible to vote for that idea, destroying the basis of democracy. Freedom of speech is important because without it you can't have democracy. You just have a government that lets you vote so long as you are voting for stuff they don't really hate. It's not the same thing. True democracy means allowing the Nazi party, allowing the paedophile party, and letting them talk about it all day long. It also includes letting this guy be an asshole, as long as he doesn't infringe on the other people's freedoms (punching them, for example, would be injuring them, and that would be wrong under the law).

This is the other argument you've made. However, I would like to quote you a few snippets from the constitution of my country:

No one shall, without an acceptable reason, be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex, age, origin, language, religion, conviction, opinion, health, disability or other reason that concerns his or her person...*snip*

Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone...*snip*

Everyone has the right to arrange meetings and demonstrations without a permit, as well as the right to participate in them. Everyone has the freedom of association. Freedom of association entails the right to form an association without a permit, to be a member or not to be a member of an association and to participate in the activities of an association. The freedom to form trade unions and to organise in order to look after other interests is likewise guaranteed...*snip*

As yo

Valuing fairness over freedom doesn't devalue them

[evilandi]

You're missing the point. In the UK we value fairness over freedom.

That's not to say we don't value freedom. We just value fairness *more*. (C.F. the Agile manifesto for a similar set of value judgements).

Freedom is important to us. Fairness is more important to us.

For example, we value the fairness of the little guy being able to take on the big guy in court, more than we value the freedom of rich people to buy as many fancy lawyers as they like. If you're rich, you can still buy lots of fancy lawyers; but we'll also subsidise the poor guy to make the battle even.

What hypocrites !

[Anonymous Coward]

Invade a country and kill their people, based on BS "evidence" - NO PROBLEM !

Bomb the shit out of a city because you don't like the leader - NO PROBLEM !

Shoot dead a stranger because he runs for a train - NO PROBLEM !

But parody a dead chick and your somehow "evil" ?
The world has become a fucked-up place with no REAL sense of what matters and what doesn't.

As they say - either build a bridge and get over it or eat gravel and harden up !

Re:What hypocrites !

[Ash-Fox]

Invade a country and kill their people, based on BS "evidence" - NO PROBLEM !

Bomb the shit out of a city because you don't like the leader - NO PROBLEM !

Shoot dead a stranger because he runs for a train - NO PROBLEM !

No idea where you got the "NO PROBLEM !" thing from, the aftermath of each of those events went on for quite a while.

Re:What hypocrites !

[prefec2]

Invade a country and kill their people, based on BS "evidence" - NO PROBLEM !

I strongly disagree. However, governments have done this.

Bomb the shit out of a city because you don't like the leader - NO PROBLEM !

I strongly disagree. However, governments have done this.

Shoot dead a stranger because he runs for a train - NO PROBLEM !

I strongly disagree. However, policemen made that mistake.

But parody a dead chick and your somehow "evil" ?
The world has become a fucked-up place with no REAL sense of what matters and what doesn't.

Yes you have acted badly and therefor you get punished. That is how a constitutional state works. And that's where we all agreed to in our lovely democracies.

The first situations describe government behavior, which is an can be violent and not acceptable to you and me. However, we all elected them and we didn't cry out loud (or loud enough) to stop them doing that bull shit. And because there is now world constitution which is protected by some institution they can do what ever the want.

There are some rules which govern international affairs, but they are not that strong as a constitution in a Western democracy.

The third situation was based on an error in judgment of a policeman (if I recall the situation correctly). I hope he gets punished and processed by the laws of his country.

Remember: Just because other fools do foolish things, you are not less foolish when you act alike. And the same applies to vocabulary e.g. murderer, thief etc.

Is anyone still surprised by this?

[The Last Gunslinger]

After more than a decade of codified nanny-state crap of this very sort over there, is anyone still genuinely shocked by these examples of their stupidity in action?

Re:Is anyone still surprised by this?

[MrMickS]

This isn't stupid. Its not the government throwing their weight about. Its the police dealing with a serial offender that had been previously warned about his actions. Of course studying the facts of the case doesn't matter in Internet trolling. Its better to just read the headline, form an opinion based on what must have happened, write on trolldot.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Threni]

> We, as a society, have decided something along these lines

We, as a society decided we didn't want to go to war in Iraq.

You'll always find a few people who'll equate punching someone with typing a message on an internet forum somewhere, but I don't believe the comparison is one which most well-informed people would go along with.

> In Europe, government is seen as a tool of the people. For example, our constitution...

Ah - so you're not from the UK then, or are you one of those people who believes the UK has a constitution?

We need a "Punch Them In The Mouth" Button.

[Rollgunner]

"Polite Society" only exists because of the evolutionary imperative to avoid pain. If you break society's rules, sooner or later, you go one step too far and get punched in the mouth. In our overly PC society we seem to have forgotten that this is a tremendously effective, tried and tested method of behavior modification.

Re:We need a "Punch Them In The Mouth" Button.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Polite Society" only exists because of the evolutionary imperative to avoid pain.

No. I'm stunned someone could believe something that wrong. That's a horrible world view to have.

People are polite because it makes the world a nicer place to be in - very very rarely is it because they're in a circumstance where they're afraid of the consequences of not being polite.

Re:We need a "Punch Them In The Mouth" Button.

[nedlohs]

That most people are polite because "it makes the world a nicer place" is irrelevant.

Whether society it polite or not is not determined by the people who want to be polite - it is determined by the people who don't want to. If you can convince them to be polite or remove them entirely then you have a polite society.

Re:We need a "Punch Them In The Mouth" Button.

[Anonymous Coward]

One need look no farther than the "spanking a child is child abuse" crowd to see the problem manifest in all its glory.

Overreliance on spanking as a form of punishment can be child abuse; it can be harmful to the child; But they are not synonymous terms - a corporal punishment for being a rotten little shit can be tremendously effective, and not harm the long-term health of the child. Never knowing pain, and thinking that they are immune to it and untouchable will certainly not be of long-term benefit to the child, either.

I was spanked as a child: I was only spanked a handful of times, because I knew that: a) that shit fucking hurt; and b) when my parents were pushed to the point of threatening a spanking, they weren't kidding around; In life, somebody is almost always going to be in a position of power or authority over you - and a couple stinging red marks on your ass are effective reminders of the limits of your independence and free will.

And to the people who are no doubt priming their keyboards right now, spare me the bullshit about "accepting slavery" and "living on your knees," the only person who lives according to his own rules is a castaway on a deserted island. Sometimes you need a reminder, in the form of a good punch in the mouth, that you're not an island unto yourself, and that behaving like a selfish twat will make people not like you. Sometimes, a black eye is sufficent reminder, and the black eye will heal in a lot less time than a protracted lawsuit will take.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[renoX]

> I can't wait for the people who'll come howling about censorship... which this wasn't.

Uh? You have a weird definition of censorship..
Making unlawful a certain type of speech is censorship, the question is whether it is moral or immoral here.

What I find totally abnormal here is the length of the prison sentence for such a petty offence..

Troll's Picture in the Article

[retroworks]

Hey, just saw picture from TFA... And Sean Duffy looks just like a troll! HA-HAH! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Muntz

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

In other words, congress itself shall not set any rules abridging speech, but the individual states may.

Well, yes. The first amendment. But then there's the fourteenth amendment.

thick skin

[Anonymous Coward]

time to grow some. Funny how democracy is looking more like fascism.

Re:Valuing fairness over freedom doesn't devalue t

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I see the point, I just think it's silly. Fairness is the least imposition of force on someone that's possible to run a civilized society. So no murder, no fraud, don't let people starve to death, minimal medical coverage, etc...

The "fairness" you describe is actually an attempt to artificially level the playing field by handicapping some and granting boons to others by the government.

And as I describe, it doesn't work. You can't provide everyone a decent standard of living beyond bare sustenance without working because poor people breed faster than rich people. You can't just allow every poor soul from some third world country to cross into your country because they will soak up government services. To them, being on the dole is living like a king compared to how they lived before.

It's simply unsustainable. And this will be proved out as things continue to massively deteriorate in the EU. It's only just the tip of the iceberg.

Your 'fairness' is going to fucking kill you. I'll watch the riots on TV.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly disagree with everything you just said. Luckily, UK government decision is on my side, so go stuff it.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's rather sad that you feel the need defend and justify Duffy and you do it by blaming the victims.

What next? You'll be defending rapists claiming women shouldn't dress provocatively if they don't want to be raped?

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[chewy_fruit_loop]

hang on....if its illegal speech....don't you expect it to be censored?
and offensive speech is illegal in the UK, who decides if its offensive....a jury...

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[lattyware]

Thanks for the well formed counter.

Just as a note, I am English, and have lived here all my life, so this is an issue that affects me.

I think my real issue here is if you say that in this case, what he was saying was illegal because it hurt the parents, what is to stop me from going out and stopping someone talking about issue X because I find issue X offensive. What you did was swap out the word 'offend' with 'hurt' - the reality is he was trying to offend the parents. You do not have a right to not be offended, and people should be able to offend you. Yes, it's not nice and society should look down on this guy - but the law shouldn't be involved.

The issue here is that it could just be his opinion that this girl is a horrible person. He has a right to that opinion. Sure, her parents might find that really offensive, but that doesn't give them the right to stop him expressing that opinion.

My main issue here is your distinction between offend and hurt - here the two are one and the same.

This is why freedom of speech - in it's full form - is important, because anything less than all expression being protected is just not strong enough a protection.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

What next? You'll be defending rapists claiming women shouldn't dress provocatively if they don't want to be raped?

Explain to me how you can prevent physical harm to your body by merely being thick-skinned.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[lattyware]

Seriously? Why?

Dead bodies are dead bodies. Sure, those people may have done stuff that was good of bad during their life, but why should we respect them? I'll respect the person that lived, if they deserve it, but no more. If someone dies, why should they suddenly gain respect?

It's sure as hell isn't the government's place to enforce that anyone respect anything.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

Grieving for a loved one is something one does internally. It is an internal process which is sometimes expressed privately between loved ones of the deceased.

You and other loved ones certainly wouldn't go out to a bar carrying your private grief in public and then call the police when some random bystander says "Man, that guy was a jerk I'm glad he is dead."

And you certainly wouldn't physically assault that random bystander as then you would be the one going to jail for being clearly in the wrong.

The bystander's words do not deny you of rights or property, it is not harmful in any measurable/quantifiable way. Feelings are just that, feelings. If we decide that every time someone has their feelings hurt, the offender should be incarcerated, there would not be a single person who would escape incarceration.

Just today my boss hurt my feelings. I was very hurt by his words. Does that mean he should be incarcerated? Get a fucking grip. You take it with a grain of salt and go about your business.

We all say hurtful things at one point or another. We all know they will hurt the feelings of the subject of our words. That is why we say it. That does not mean incarceration is in any sense a fair, just or reasonable reaction.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

hang on....if its illegal speech....don't you expect it to be censored?

Yes. I suppose I do. But what's your point? If they censor illegal speech, it is still censorship.

and offensive speech is illegal in the UK, who decides if its offensive....a jury...

If true, what a great system!

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that in some EU countries (eg. UK) government isn't the tool of people.
It's the tool of huge corporations who can afford to bribe it enough to turn blind eye to various insane tactics they use, or to pass laws which benefit almost no one in the society except the richest and most powerful 3-5%.
Why else did you think RIPA allows the government to imprison you for 2 years if you refuse to decrypt your data? Or the law doesn't even let you do parodies of copyrighted works? Any civilised democratic country doesn't inhibit their citizens' rights. I'm not saying UK isn't civilized, merely that it's a country ruled by insanely corruptible people.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[dugeen]

Interesting argument - 'if he'd actually committed a crime, he would have been punished, therefore he should be punished even though he wasn't actually committing an offence' ?

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

> What most people want is irrelevant to me. I only care if I think they (or something) has a point.

Exactly. That's your problem.

Ludicrous

[dugeen]

This is the most ludicrous UK internet-related prosecution since the constructed misunderstanding over the Nottingham airport tweeter. And it's another example of the exciting possibilities the securitat have found recently in the concept that (allegedly) hurting people's feelings is illegal.

Re:Ludicrous

[Dark$ide]

This is the most ludicrous UK internet-related prosecution since the constructed misunderstanding over the Nottingham airport tweeter. And it's another example of the exciting possibilities the securitat have found recently in the concept that (allegedly) hurting people's feelings is illegal.

I don't think it's as silly as the Nottingham airport tweet.

This character was simply a nasty piece of work and got what he deserved - aspergers or not is no excuse for behaving in that way to the friends and family of someone who has just died.

The Nottingham airport tweeter was an idiot who said something in frustration at his flight being cancelled that was blown [sic] out of all proportion by the police and magistrates. His case is entirely absurd.

Re:Ludicrous

[tbannist]

I think a serial offender who seeks out funerals and memorials to shout obscenities about the departed at the grieving families deserves to be dealt with.

It's not a case of (allegedly) hurting people's feelings, it's seeking out people who are emotionally vulnerable so you can get your jollies by re-victimizing them. It actually is evil. A petty, miserable sort of evil, but evil none the less.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

I suppose it is. I just don't believe that many people thinking something makes it true, I guess.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Hognoxious]

we remain the worlds strongest nation in terms of culture, military, economy, and global influence.

Do all Chinese write English as excellently as you?

Deserving, but....

[macraig]

Read even just the summary again; think carefully about just how much time and trouble this man invested in what he did. This was not a casual hobby for him. His 18-week sentence is a stern warning intended to dissuade him from escalating and help him spend some time reflecting on his choices.

Speaking of trolling, the media attempt to demonize people on the autistic spectrum by inferring that this man's diagnosis is somehow causal for this specific behavior is bullshit, and the people who made the decision to infer it should be locked up in an adjoining cell for those 18 weeks. Duffy's behavior HAS NOTHING SPECIFIC AT ALL to do with Asperger's Syndrome. I possibly have the traits myself, and I know quite a number of other relatively decent people who also do; the "expression" of those traits is quite different from one person to the next. Am I and these others associated with this label "flawed"? In some ways, yes. Are we living "miserable existences"? That depends, frankly, on when you ask the question... and is that not also true of many perfectly neurotypical people?

It's this bigotry and profound ignorance of people who are atypical in some less-than-enchanting fashion that leads to lynch mobs chasing after people who HAVEN'T done awful things like this Duffy... merely because they share a label or some superficial traits. Duffy deserves to be punished, but NOT for possessing neurological traits associated with Asperger's Syndrome. Those traits had NOTHING to do with why he did what he did, though how others treated him because of those traits may have become his justification. Even if so, those traits were not cause for the effect.

Re:Deserving, but....

[Dunbal]

the autistic spectrum

I mostly agree with you. Psychology can be full of shit. Their "scientific method" consists of trying to rationalize patterns of behavior with "disease". But real science goes further and says you have to actually test your hypotheses with an experiment. Very little testing is done in psychology because a) it's not ethical and b) the testing process itself can change the behavior, making it hard to draw valid conclusions. So a lot of it is rationalization, creativity and conjecture as well as a lot of navel contemplation.

There are far too many behaviors that can be "explained away" by including them into some "spectrum" or other. The "autistic spectrum" being one of the most loosely and poorly defined categories in the DSM-IV, it's so easy to include just about anyone in that group. Even you yourself claim to have traits. An important trait is mental retardation (sorry chronic non progressive encephalopathy), which I assume you don't have. People forget that. There are many publications that cite that "autistic spectrum" - especially Asperger's syndrome - is one of the most overdiagnosed disorders (possibly after bipolar disorder) and is the psychological equivalent to fibromyalgia: ie if you have no idea what is causing it and it doesn't show up on any tests, it's fibromyalgia.

Don't get me wrong I think psychoanalysis, group therapy, and the attempt at classification and organization of mental illness can be very useful. But sometimes psychologists are the first ones to rush to place a label on their patient without really trying to understand what's going on. The fact that a person is an ass does not necessarily mean he is sick. Otherwise we are all sick - because certainly ever one of us has been an idiot at one point or another. That's one of the things that makes us human.

Re:Deserving, but....

[macraig]

An important trait of Asperger's Syndrome is not mental retardation. It's a high functioning condition for precisely the opposite reason. Not that it will matter, since it won't even be a classification in the DSM-V.

Not one word of my commentary was a condemnation of psychology or psychiatry, so I can't figure how you confirmed your own bias from what I actually said. I have considered those professions and drawn conclusions, but I'm not sharing them. My commentary was about behaviors having nothing at all to do with autism: racism and bigotry and tribalism, and how Big Media likes to sometimes visit the zoo when it has nothing better to do and feed the racist tribal animals. That is what The Guardian did today.

Re:Deserving, but....

[Dunbal]

It's a high functioning condition

No. "It can be" is not the same as "it always is". High functioning autism is a disorder that is wholly separate from standard autism and separate from Asperger's - which is described simply as a "mild form of autism". But autism includes mental retardation. High functioning autism does not. Ahh but see how the lines blur in psychology?

I can't figure how you confirmed your own bias from what I actually said.

I am free to draw my own conclusions and post what I like. You may have your opinion of psychology. I have my own - not gleaned from reading newspapers but from having a medical degree and having had to study the subject. Psychology is a useful tool that shows promise, but it in no way approaches the accuracy of a scientific field and it lends itself to misinterpretation (willful or not) by both the press and the public. If you feel better about yourself thinking you have Asperger's then by all means you are entitled to do so if that makes you feel better about yourself. But personally from reading your comment, I doubt you have it at all because you're just not boring enough.

Re:Deserving, but....

[macraig]

Well played.

Re:Deserving, but....

[anyGould]

the autistic spectrum

I mostly agree with you. Psychology can be full of shit. Their "scientific method" consists of trying to rationalize patterns of behavior with "disease". But real science goes further and says you have to actually test your hypotheses with an experiment. Very little testing is done in psychology because a) it's not ethical and b) the testing process itself can change the behavior, making it hard to draw valid conclusions. So a lot of it is rationalization, creativity and conjecture as well as a lot of navel contemplation.

And most psychologists share your frustrations - the key point to remember is not that they're somehow too lazy to do "real science". It's that they have to go to elaborate (and expensive) lengths to avoid observer effect (and even then, you can never be sure), and you're largely handcuffed by ethical rules on what you can do anyway. Chemists and biologists can substitute little white mice, but mice don't make good psychological analogues.

Also, if you want to see an angry psych researcher, ask them their opinion on commercial use of their research.

Progress is being made

[Dunbal]

I see the Rule of Law is making good progress on Airstrip One.

Re:Progress is being made

[gfreeman]

And so it should everywhere. What such law SAYS is another matter.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

The government shouldn't be able to stop people talking about anything, because potentially the thing they are talking about could be something that the people want made legal. By stopping them talking about it, you make it impossible to vote for that idea, destroying the basis of democracy. Freedom of speech is important because without it you can't have democracy.

I guess you missed this part in the OP:

For example, the constitution of my country doesn't contain anything about "Free speech" but instead states that people have the "freedom of opinion, expression and assembly".

IMO 'free speech' covers everything (which is not even true according to the SCOTUS, but that's another discussion), while 'freedom of opinion, expression and assembly' covers anything politically and artistically relevant.

Why would democracy be harmed by restricting the freedom of making politically irrelevant statements? If the goverment does try to restrict your political freedom, you can argue against it with 'freedom of opinion, expression and assembly' just as well as under 'freedom of speech'. You're just so scared of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that you don't pull the plug on the drain to get rid of all the shit floating around.

The answer

[Anonymous Coward]

"A man in the UK has been jailed for 18 weeks for 'trolling,' and has also been given an order banning him from using social networking sites for five years. 25-year-old Sean Duffy mocked a dead teenager who had jumped in front a train by posting offensive remarks on a page dedicated to her memory, and creating a YouTube parody of Thomas the Tank with the deceased girl's face in place of Thomas. Is it about time trolling to this extent saw this kind of punishment

Yes.

Seen the other side of this equation

[clickclickdrone]

A friend on Facebook was distraught to find out that when his young niece died last year, someone set up a page on Facebook which was basically him and about a dozen others posting messages about her about her body, sex life and other really abusive sick stuff. They apparantly used to do this any time they found out about some recently deceased FB user, this was by no means the first or last. They did bother to find out about her, career etc and used that info to personalise the abuse making it far worse. FB took weeks to shut it down and in the end my friend entered a period of depression about the whole sick saga.

Sticks and stones...

[Israfels]

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will get you 5 years in prison.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[lattyware]

Because if the government decides what is 'politically irrelevant' then they can use that to pick and choose what they want to allow to be free. If I think that person X is a dick, I should be allowed to say that, regardless of them being alive or dead, or what the general opinion of that person is. Why? Because people shouldn't have any right to not be offended. People should have a right to do whatever they want. The only time we should restrict what people can do is when it causes other's to loose their freedoms.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot.

"I disagree. These people are dead. I needn't respect them at all. Nor do I think you need sensitivity for society to function."

Well, you are as good as dead anyway. At least in 100 years you'll be dead. And what's the point to respect you now if after 100 years you'll be dead and there's no need to respect your fucking existence at all?

"It's both desirable and realistic to me."
"What most people want is irrelevant to me. I only care if I think they (or something) has a point."

How about this then: "What you want is irrelevant to me. I only care if I think you have a point."
And I don't think you have a fucking point.

Nay to the Facebook posts, Yay to the video

[Eightbitgnosis]

His specific targeting of harassment via Facebook should be criminal harassment. However, the video he made I would allow as his free speech. Though targeted posting of the video on the family/friends Facebooks should be criminal.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

You idiot.

That's highly offensive to me. I hope you know that I plan on taking legal action against you!

Well, you are as good as dead anyway.

But I'm not dead right now. The dead probably don't feel anything. Also, read the last sentence. I think "sensitivity" is rather pointless.

How about this then: "What you want is irrelevant to me. I only care if I think you have a point."

That's fine. But just realize that I was saying that a lot of people believing something likely does not make it true.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[NickDB]

Why? Not saying that repect for the dead is a bad thing, however I have a huge issue with respecting the dead more than the living. Should be at least equal or respect the living more. IMO.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You don't need to respect the dead. But, to a certain point, you need to respect other peoples' respect for the dead.

There are many out there who respect the late Osama Bin Laden, and I'll be damned if I have to respect their respect for his death. In fact I'd take a shit on his grave if he was buried in one.

Good thing I don't live in the UK, otherwise I'd go to jail for that.

The law in question

[Meneth]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Reservoir Penguin]

I think it's one thing US does right. One should be allowed to troll dead soldiers funerals with god hates fags messages. And you should not be ashamed or confused by misplaced patriotism to admit that UK is less free because of their lack of free speech protection.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose that I am sensitive. If you call me names, threaten me etc, it does hurt me. I am feeling disturbed at best or unable to function normally at worst. If you do it accidentally, I'll tell you that you're harming me. If you stop, we're cool, I won't hold your mistake against you. If you continue your behaviour, it's deliberate action. You're either ignoring that you're hurting me or that has been your intention from the start. Meaning that you knew all along that your behaviour would be hurting me.

Now, you're telling that I shouldn't be so sensitive. I can't stop being who I am. Maybe over long time I won't get hurt as much by whatever is thrown at me. Maybe it will destroy me instead. You can stop harassing me however. It is not essential to your existence or is it? If it is, are you sure it is not causing society any harm? I should stop being sensitive? Why should I do that? I like being sensitive in general. Only your actions are harming me and you know it.

What you seem to be trying to convince others in, is that it's fine to give a little push to one-legged person, because normal people have two legs and that he should grow one or something? Normal people don't fall over so easily. I should stop being sensitive. How? Could you describe the process that lead you not being sensitive? Are you sure I could repeat this process and become a normal person?

That was written for the sake of argument as a somewhat oversensitive reply. Actually I really like the how you calmly state clearly unpopular opinions and bring out logical flaws.

Best wishes, AC

Yes it should

[overnight_failure]

That's a bit like saying free speech should protect you from libel and inciting racial hatred.
Free speech does not give you the right to make other people's lives hell.

Slippery slope is not always a fallacy

[wienerschnizzel]

A precedens like this is bound for a ride on a slippery slope.

Generally things don't get out of hand when a regulatory/restrictive law is well defined. Take for example gun control (in Europe). If you grant people the right to carry hand guns, define what exactly a hand gun is and under what circumstances you may use it, it quickly becomes clear that there is no room for people trying to use the law as an excuse for using rocket launchers and machine guns.

On the other hand if there is no clear definition, things go seriously wrong. Best example of all - the infamous english defamation law. The circumstances under which a plaitiff's motion is accepted are vague, and there is no need for him to provide any proof - it's the defendant who must prove his actions were not libel (that his statements were either true or not referring to the plaintiff). This law has largely been used by large corporation to shut up any kind of criticism - starting with journalists but moving onto scientists and lately even individual bloggers. It's very effective - an individual person does not enough resources to go through a trial even if he/she would eventually win.

So where does 'malicious communication stand'? How well is it defined? Is there a clear delimitation of its applicability? A quick glance through the relevant wikipedia article shows that none of these things are there. The law does not state how far things can go! The effects of such a poorly written law have already surfaced. Here's what the British Asociation of Probation Officers said about it:

"there is ample evidence of the issuing of ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Order that was applied to the troll in TFO) by the courts being inconsistent and almost a geographical lottery. There is great concern that people are being jailed following the breach of an ASBO where the original offence was itself non-imprisonable. There is also evidence that ASBOs have been used where people have mental health problems where treatment would be more appropriate. In NAPO's view the time is right for a fundamental review of the use and appropriateness of Anti-social Behaviour Orders by the Home Office."

Yeah, it sucks that there are assholes that will ridicule you and attempt to infuriate you on the internets. However the alternative is worse - no one can define what exactly is malicious and what is not and therefore you might end up in jail because you talked about christian hell to a hindu.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

If you continue your behaviour, it's deliberate action.

I don't care if it's a deliberate action. That is irrelevant to me. Not only is it difficult to prove intent in what I believe is many circumstances, but an individual can likely train themselves (or perhaps they were already like that from the beginning) to not be so easily offended. There are no laws stating that they must be offended.

Now, you're telling that I shouldn't be so sensitive.

People can change. They do it all the time, I think. It may take some self-teaching, but I think it is possible. And in a society that advocates people to be less easily offended, I think the behavior would become more common.

But, even if they can't change, I still don't care about "harm" inflicted upon someone through the use of words.

I agree.. Tony Blair needs to think about what he.

[decora]

Read even just the summary again of the Iraq War; think carefully about just how much time and trouble Tony Blair invested in what he did. This was not a casual hobby for him. This is a stern warning intended to dissuade him from escalating and help him spend some time reflecting on his choices.

gobsmacked

[decora]

the Enlightenment came from europe. the idea that the government 'serves the people', which is what US free speech law is based on, comes from europe. The whole point of the US constitution is that 'slandering the king' and 'libeling the state' are nonsensical in a democracy where the government 'serves the people'.

"Sure, you can use the slippery slope fallacy, but history shows that it hasn't realized here any more than it has in the USA (despite the "free speech" law)."

Reichstag Fire Decree?

Reminders of a failed leadership

[Anonymous Coward]

From here it looks like this end of bench feeling somewhat guilty for the sorry state of the other end. Putting away any lasting semblemces of correction will lead to harder hit to get your attention (it's mechanics.. lol... not social engineering. Too funny to watch someone argue with thier own echo in such a public fashion)

It's symptoms and you know it... other anti-social behaviors can be called languages as well.

That's a shame, really

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience the UK has the highest concentration of jerks. :(

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[tehcyder]

Just because the speech was illegal or "offensive" in some peoples' opinions, that does not mean it isn't censorship to censor and/or punish him for saying it.

Oh, please just fucking fuck the fuck off.

You are circling towards the extreme libertarian viewpoint that even if I explicitly request another person to commit a crime, I have done nothing wrong myself. That is, if I give him a thousand quid and ask Johnny "the hatchet" McKnuckles to cut your head off, the only one commiting a crime is the McKnuckler himself, because all I have done is speak.

Meanwhile, in the real world, I woud be convicted of being an accessory to murder, engaging in conspiracy to murder or whatever. An, yes, this does indeed restrict my free speech, in the sense that I have to face the consequences of what I say or do.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethnic.

It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Restitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Harassment, yes. But he is non-violent and poses no physical threat to anybody. Therefore prison is not the correct (i.e. moral) solution. The moral solution is restitution, not emprisonment.

Instead of further enriching the power elite who run the billion-dollar prison business, and setting a precedent for the next expansion of power and revenue in government, let's do the common sense thing and make him pay out of his wallet. A $25,000 check to the victim sounds about right for this instance of purely mental harassment. If he doesn't have it, he should be granted a low-interest loan and put on a monthly payment plan. Banning him from the internet is pointless, irrelevant, and sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us. Cold hard cash is what really closes this case, provided he ceases the harrassment.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[tehcyder]

Nor do I think you need sensitivity for society to function.

Mr Internet Tough Guy has spoken. Argument over, let's all get back to fighting and fucking.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

You are circling towards the extreme libertarian viewpoint that even if I explicitly request another person to commit a crime, I have done nothing wrong myself.

Circling towards? That's exactly what I think.

Meanwhile, in the real world

Meanwhile, on this website, I'm talking about my opinions. They seem to be rather unpopular, too.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[tehcyder]

we remain the worlds strongest nation in terms of culture

mod parent +1 funny, that got the classic "squirting coffee out of my nose" response.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[balajeerc]

Hm... actually, I can't seem to muster any respect for the following dead people: Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden... I don't know what that makes me... alienated, misanthropic or an non-essential element of human society.

No excuse for such behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

A lesser person would wish the same pain and heartbreak on him at some point in the future.

"Too harsh"?

[Grismar]

[...] is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?

Yes, because if the authorities had not taken his actions seriously, the way he acted would have been just fine? It's not like it's about the whole affair being morally reprehensible to begin with..?

You don't get punished for being caught, you get punished for being wrong/or and breaking the rules. The fact that they need to catch you to be able to deliver punishment shouldn't figure into the decision making process.

anonimity

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever is the outcome of this, I believe it is very wrong to put that man in jail. He is a moron. He will be a moron for the rest of his life. That is punishment already. Putting that guy in jail serves nothing. The Internet is for everyone, not only the nerds that use tor to hide their location. Whatever he posts on the web is his own responsibilty of course but I draw my line on criminals that post stuff about pedofilia and terrorism. He is only as known as the morons that paid any attention to him.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings Eurotrash. I'd just like to note this tick in the pro USA column. The U.S. does not, yet, have a malicious communications law such as this that would cause a blathering idiot to serve real jail time. It's a good thing!

I reserve the right to troll. You can't prove that CmdrTaco didn't impregnate his own great grandmother.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine. But just realize that I was saying that a lot of people believing something likely does not make it true.

No, but if enough of them are registered voters, that usually will.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[rich_hudds]

Well 223 years doesn't seem that long from an English perspective to be perfectly honest. You pretty much inherited your Free Speech laws from the British Bill of Rights of 1689 itself seen as a supplement to Maga Carta from 1215. Admitteldly the language and sentiment is more akin to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man from 1789. Your own laws are from 1791 by the way which I make out to be 220 years.

History suggests that the slippery slope you worry about actually seems to slide towards greater freedom not less by the way. Cases like this are usually the starting point for a new argument or interpretation of the laws and generally we end up strengthening our rights. I'm not entirely sure where I stand in this case, it doesn't seem to me to fall under the auspices of freedom of speech, he was basically being an anti social arsehole and upsetting people. I do worry that it could set a precedent that might be used in situations where freedom of speech really is involved but I doubt it.

Another thing that America inherited from us that they don't have in most of the world is a jury system. We tend to rely on that as a bulwark against the government abusing laws. Perhaps if you didn't have lawyer dictated jury selection, ridiculous plea bargaining that encourages the innocent to plead guilty and atrocious inhumane prisons which work people like slaves, you could rely on it too.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Registered Coward v2]

I know that in USA there is a concept of "Free speech!" and some people are willing to chant about that like a mantra. In most of Europe, we don't think that everything that comes out of your mouth is sacred. For example, the constitution of my country doesn't contain anything about "Free speech" but instead states that people have the "freedom of opinion, expression and assembly". That is because we think that we want to punish pricks like in this story but we still want to prevent government from squashing unwanted political movements, etc... So, our constitution protects civil rights in a way that doesn't much apply to cases like this. Sure, you can use the slippery slope fallacy, but history shows that it hasn't realized here any more than it has in the USA (despite the "free speech" law).

Actually, our Constitutional guarantee of free speech is more complicated - it is designed to prevent the government from prior restraint of speech. It does not absolve anyone of any responsibility for the consequences of their exercising their right to free speech. The courts have distinguished political from commercial speech - in that commercial speech can be regulated without violating people's rights. For example, you can't make medical claims for product without FDA approval. It also means the right *not* to speak - so a Jehovah's Witness can't be required to say the pledge of allegiance (although I also believe that is protected under freedom of religion grounds). Other amendments protect the right to assemble, petition government, etc.

We chose those protections based on our experience with British Kings, and they've worked pretty well for us. There are cultural differences between the US and Europe, despite a common heritage; and each culture has its own unique challenges. The French, perhaps because of their "we're all French and share a common culture" viewpoint, wrestle with the influx of Muslims and cultural mores different from the "French." The right to express an opinion that runs counter to the cultural norm does not always get governmental protection despite the constitutional guarantee of it.

So he was convicted on not being nice?

[BlueCoder]

Good god, can you imagine all the comedians that are going to end up in jail?

Scary. Even if he is a online sociopath I have a hard time separating his actions from what anyone should be able to do. He judged someone and used his freedom of speech to deride them. He doesn't pity or respect people that commit suicide so he makes fun of them. You can argue that if more people did this suicide might actually decline.

But a true troll isn't saying anything to make a point and doesn't necessarily believe what he is saying, he simply wants to get a rise out of people and get attention. Can we actually judge intent and thereby censor people?

Or might I bring up that his actions/speech is more akin to a flasher looking to shock people. Would this not actually be mental illness and thereby the law could curtail his freedom stemming from that?

Re:So he was convicted on not being nice?

[SquirrelDeth]

Umm flashing is illegal and will result in jail time and/or beating when the cops get you. Would mocking the victims of 9/11 be free speech in your opinion? People that are harmful to society need to be removed from society until they decide they want to be a part of society.

Can we actually judge intent and thereby censor people? Yes we can there are laws and "judges" that judge whether a law was broken. Obviously dipshit broke a law which resulted in punishment. Why defend the dipshit?

Re:So he was convicted on not being nice?

[toriver]

Free speech only regulates what the Government can do. So when (post 9/11/2001) the show Politically Incorrect was taken off the air following Bill Maher's statements that the plane hijackers were not cowards (since they sacrificed their lives for their cause), that was just business. And when a mall expelled a youth for having a peace symbol on a T-shirt, that was also just business... so in the USA I guess the Government can't censor you, but it seems almost everyone else can.

Crime and punishment

[tehcyder]

From FTA: "The court heard that Duffy has Asperger's syndrome and lived a "miserable existence" drinking alcohol alone at his home in Reading."

It doesn't seem fair that he will get a free holiday in prison away from Reading at the taxpayers' expense.

PS I wonder what his slashdot IUD is?

Re:Crime and punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

PS I wonder what his slashdot IUD is?

Probably a hormonal device, unless he has a low UID, and received his IUD when Slashdot was still handing out the copper variety. How he might actually use it (either kind) is left as an exercise to the reader, I guess.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, or if you're just an idiot, but in common law countries there's a concept known as "reasonableness". It doesn't matter if you think something is offensive; the test is if a reasonable person would find the comments offensive. Since a reasonable person would find this person's behavior offensive, it's actionable. You thinking that someone calling you is an idiot is offensive is not reasonable, so you have no course of action (although if he stalked you and made the comment repeatedly, it would become offensive). So, now that you know your "waaaaa...I find everything offensive and I'm going to sue" "argument" is bullshit, you can stop it.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

No, it still won't. All that will accomplish is the changing of laws and such. A bunch of people believing the world is flat won't make it so (or, at least, that's what I've observed).

That's what LiveCDs are for

[fuzznutz]

That's why you always boot from a good security minded TOR LiveCD with all javascript disabled. Use one that randomizes your MAC address. And never use it for your REAL activities where you identify yourself. For bonus points, use it from a public WiFi hotspot.

This is where Singapore has a better idea

[alexschmidt]

Why should this guy waste time in jail and take up resources. Too bad we don't use caning as a punishment. I bet 5 good whacks on the ass would move his brains back into his head. And if does something like that again, double it. Jail time for this is a waste.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

We, as a society

Certainly not me. Perhaps most people.

I'm laughing because I understand what those words mean. I'm crying because it's got a +5 insightful.

Agreed

[Murdoch5]

When people are being real trolls they should get there ass handed to them, unlike 1/2 the troll mods on this site, this story is about a real troll.

Actually you can sue over that

[voss]

Its called "Intentional Infliction of emotional distress" its a tort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress

The first amendment does not protect your right to harass, slander, or defame private individuals.

Why would such behavior be criminalized??? Maybe because the harm(cost to individuals and society) from emotional abuse,harassment, stalking of others
outweighs the first amendment interest(no redeeming value).

   

Re:Actually you can sue over that

[Totenglocke]

Your post was intended to inflict "emotional distress" on me. I'm suing you for $5 million and demanding you be locked up for 25 years.

Now do you see what a load of shit that is?

Re:Actually you can sue over that

[AK Marc]

Yes, I see what a load of shit your post is. No reasonable person would perceive his post in the manner you assert. As such, your argument is invalid, and more funny than anything else. You might as well argue that taking your car to a Honda dealer for repairs rather than quietly doing them at home harms all Honda owners by making Hondas appear unreliable.

Re:Actually you can sue over that

[Totenglocke]

Yes, because you claim that someone saying words is "harmful" to you is SO rational. Even damn kids know that words can't hurt you ("sticks and stones..."). Emotional distress is just one of the wonderful bullshit inventions of the legal system to allow people to sue others for no reason and win lawyers more money.

Re:Actually you can sue over that

[voss]

Totenglocke,

In order for an act to rise to IIED. Conduct must be "extreme and outrageous"
and the standard is a "reasonable person". While isolated words by themselves cant
hurt someone, persistent harassment certainly can and sufficient harassment can qualify as stalking.
  Im sure the slashdot community can enlighten you on the issue of bullying.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that you enjoy playing devil's advocate, but this is a pretty clear cut case here. Using free speech in this manner is completely abusive and non-productive. This guy deserves a harsh punishment for what he did. It's no different than if he physically assaulted a member of the victim's family.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, or if you're just an idiot, but in common law countries there's a concept known as "reasonableness".

And there's also such a thing as "subjectivity." In other words, what is "reasonable" is subjective. You'll get varying answers. Not a good way to write laws, in my opinion.

That isn't very good trolling

[damn_registrars]

He stepped over the line and went from trolling to being an idiot. He should hang out here more often, some of our trolls could teach him how to do a better job next time.

Dr Bob

[hamburgler007]

He's running scared.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

And, to you, what do those words mean?

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

I understand that you enjoy playing devil's advocate

How am I playing the devil's advocate? I don't believe I am. You say it is a clear-cut case, but I disagree.

Using free speech in this manner is completely abusive and non-productive.

I disagree.

It's no different than if he physically assaulted a member of the victim's family.

I've outlined why I disagree with this multiple times. Not only was no physical damage done, but they need not be offended by anything this guy does. That is completely up to them.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

... in some peoples' opinions ...

Certainly not me. Perhaps most people.

In my opinion ...

And that is the point. You personally may not agree with this punishment but a large majority of our current society would say that, in this case, it was proportionate. In any society there will always be a minority that disagree and say a punishment is too harsh and an equal minority who feel it is not severe enough. And many more opinions inbetween. But the majority agree.

If you disagree and muster enough like-minded individuals then you will change the majority opinion, but until that happens you are required to live by the rules of the majority. Sure you can disagree, break those rules if you like and place yourself outside of that society, but the majority will eventually hold you accountable.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even more complex than that. In USA, there is some sort of a mentality of "Government vs. the People". Even your constitution is designed to limit the government's authority. In Europe, government is seen as a tool of the people. For example, our constitution doesn't say that government can't prevent us from expressing our opinions... it says that government must protect our right to express our opinions if other people try to prevent us from doing so. So I can see why many americans might be saying "Ah! This is a private affair! Government isn't required to interfere in stuff like this so it shouldn't" while mindset of the population (though not necessarily the SlashDot population) on this side of the pond is "This is just the kind of stuff that we designed our government for". So it's a different philosophy between different cultures.

This.

I have noticed and been amazed by this for a long time now. I live in the US now but grew up in Canada and was born in Switzerland. Here, in USA, it seems as though people always feel the government is something to be contended with.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

You just stated what I already knew.

@aol.com

[tekrat]

Great!
Can we use this law to imprison anyone still using an address @aol.com ?

Being Mean

[wisnoskij]

So he was jailed for being mean....
Sure he is a despicable human being, but at the very least he should of had some warning that being mean can land you in jail, because this is the first I have heard of it.
And it does not at all seem fair given that people have and continue to do far more mean things(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church) and the government has never taken a interest before or appeared to have the ability to prosecute mean people (particularly peoples who's meanness did not cause any harm above and beyond normal physiological stress).

Re:Being Mean

[DrXym]

Ignorance is no defence under the law, and there were laws in place that could be used to prosecute him. As for the Westboro Baptist Church, they operate in a different country under a different set of laws. I expect however that even in the US where free speech is more broadly allowed that laws pertaining to criminal threats, stalking, criminal mischief etc could and would be used in many cases. Failing that, even civil suits could be brought against the person.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, it's because whether it harms them or not is completely up to them.

What a patently absurd thing to say. I'm certain the parents of this girl didn't sit down and decide that it was going to offend them.

An inhumane example of freedom of speech

[sl4shd0rk]

Maybe what the "blogosphere" needs is to implement crowd-based moderation systems (like slashdot's, or stackoverflow) on any site taking user content. Ain't saying it's great, but it's nice not seeing all the static under certain mod levels. It's a shitty thing the guy did but making laws based on one horrific incident is usually bad (eg: Patriot Act, Homeland Security, TSA, etc..)

My concern is that in prosecuting this one individual using legal means it will open the door to an already disturbing trend of removing freedoms or censorship (It's legal to record cops but people are still getting brutalized for it).

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

They might not have, but I believe it is possible to train yourself to control your emotions (as well as desensitize yourself). When you realize that they are mere words that can do you no actual harm unless you let them, I think the effect it has on you will be greatly lessened.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

"That said, I'm highly offended by your entire post. It harmed me as much as it would have if you would have punched me! Therefore, you should be thrown in jail."

There was no intent to cause harm with his post, unlike punching someone in the face, which usually takes a resolve to cause harm.

And even Americans need to understand that the right to free speech has limits. I can't remember the exact points that the courts have judged need to be cleared for it to be considered protected, but its something about it needing to be constructive, creative, and not harmful.

Considering anything publishable as "free speech" would mean that bomb manuals, pornography to minors, and even minors in pornography would be protected.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

They might not have, but I believe it is possible to train yourself to control your emotions (as well as desensitize yourself). When you realize that they are mere words that can do you no actual harm unless you let them, I think the effect it has on you will be greatly lessened.

The same can be said for enduring physical pain. Physical violence is still a bad thing.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

There was no intent to cause harm with his post

I disagree. I have the ability to magically know someone's true intentions. His intent was to harm me.

And even Americans need to understand that the right to free speech has limits.

It only has limits if society sets those limits.

Considering anything publishable as "free speech" would mean that bomb manuals, pornography to minors, and even minors in pornography would be protected.

I completely agree with all of those things being protected speech. Also, forcing a minor to be in a pornographic film isn't speech. Spreading the film around is, though.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

No, it can't. Whether you want it or not, the damage will still have been done. There is no way to "block" physical attacks as if they didn't happen. The person is right next to you, and unless they're extremely weak, damage has likely been done.

And "bad" is subjective.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Cryp2Nite]

I've outlined why I disagree with this multiple times. Not only was no physical damage done, but they need not be offended by anything this guy does. That is completely up to them.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Intent matters, it doesn't even matter if they took offense.

If I take a physical swing at someones chin and manage to miss it is still assault. If I attempt to shoot someone and miss it is assault.

I don't see how this as being much different. The guy takes an action with the intent to cause emotional harm.

I think most people can agree that attempt to cause harm is something that you can reasonably legislate against.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[webheaded]

You know, I read this post and you really sound quite arrogant about the whole thing. Who are you or anyone to decide what is or isn't offensive? That is why places like the US have laws that protect ALL speech. Any abridgement of that simply leads to abuse. I'm sure most people here agree this guy is a piece of shit and we'd all like to give him a swift kick in the ass, but that doesn't mean you should be able to throw him in jail for something he SAID. Saying obnoxious things makes you a dick head, not a criminal and there is simply no good way to draw a line and what is and is offensive. I don't think anyone has the right to not be offended. Your whole post is just so inflammtory and butt hurt as if you just got done arguing with someone. I really don't see what all that bitterness is about. What is wrong with having more freedom? I have no problem with people being assholes to me (in a legal sense) because I understand that the right to free speech is important. Maybe you'd feel different if you suddenly found yourself on the other side of the law. That's what people like you never seem to understand. Things like this are great when they're punishing people you don't like.

Our constitution is structured the way it is because government was not a tool of the people at the time. We lived in a country where the government regularly abused the law to enrich itself. I'm sure you can understand that. Quite frankly, I can't think of a better way to do it anyway. When the government has the power to throw you in jail for things, they need to be limited. It's not that I inherently don't trust "the government" so much as I don't trust PEOPLE. People in power can quite easily turn into corrupted pieces of shit and you can't tell me that's true. For every good leader there is a very bad one it seems.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

Intent matters

To you it matters. But not to me.

If I take a physical swing at someones chin and manage to miss it is still assault. If I attempt to shoot someone and miss it is assault.

Intent doesn't matter to me if the subject is mere words. It's also more difficult to guess accurately in that case.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can cause other people just as much harm by impersonating their dead daughter as you could by punching them in the face, why treat it differently?

In my opinion, it's because whether it harms them or not is completely up to them. You don't have to be "overly sensitive" or be offended by anything you see.

Are you sure you thought this through?

- If I throw shit all over your car, it's just a wash away from being clean. No need to be overly sensitive.
- If your neighbors don't speak to you anymore because "you are a pedophile. hahaha that was a good one", no need to be overly sensitive.
- Bullying should be allowed in school, kids should not be overly sensitive.

Well played, sir. Your post makes so a fine a troll that fellow fools saw insights in that nugget.

Shiny crime station

[Anonymous Coward]

He put her face on Thomas the Tank Engine in a video? That's funny; I don't care who you are.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, this is the most straight up "blame the victim" post I've ever read. let me guess, she didn't have to be raped, she could have just laid back and enjoyed it. It's her fault, right?

You disgust me. You should seriously seek help because you are a sociopath.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

I answers something similar here. Also, "real" property is more important to me than some website.

- If I throw shit all over your car, it's just a wash away from being clean. No need to be overly sensitive.
- If your neighbors don't speak to you anymore because "you are a pedophile. hahaha that was a good one", no need to be overly sensitive.
- Bullying should be allowed in school, kids should not be overly sensitive.

I agree with all three.

What if the girl wasn't real?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean its the internet. my general rule is that everyone here who posted are ducks and other farm animals pecking at the keyboard. Do we know the girl even existed? The TV show house set up a "memorial" page like this when a fictional character commited suicide (he left the show to go work for the obama administration.... you can make the joke about irony). The memorial page in itself was in bad taste, but would defacing it like this be the same crime?

That bastard got off easy.

[GarryFre]

Enough said.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

Wow, this is the most straight up "blame the victim" post I've ever read.

Already answered that in a different post. Show me how you can just strengthen your mind to ward away all physical pain and damage and magically recover everything that was lost.

In this case, yes, I do blame the victims (which I don't believe is always a "bad" thing). They needn't be so easily offended.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Empiric]

On a legal level, the reality is that the local legal system (often not exactly a bastion of ethical consistency) is going to do what it does by the heuristic/political means it does, and that's that.

On more of a philosophical level, such as you're addressing, I think there's still an argument even for strident Free Speech advocates that this isn't simply a speech issue, it's also a quasi-property issue.

As the old analogy goes, you're free to say anything you like about me (as long as it is true or your opinion), but I'm not obliged to let you camp out on my lawn and give you a megaphone to do it with.

With regard to the "memorial site" for the girl, this has to me much more of the tenor of "property" than a site like Slashdot, in that somebody invested resources (time, if nothing else) in creating something concrete dedicated to a particular purpose. The "trolling" seems to have as much the nature of "property destruction" as "free expression". If this guy had created his own site expressing his opinions, on his own dime, so to speak (though, in this case those opinions seem to be pretty inane), I think the negative reaction that would be elicited here would be quite a bit less. The fact that he didn't take this route, in fact, seems to speak pretty clearly to what his real underlying intent was.

Again, this is more of a conceptual argument, in that on a legal level there would be questions as to the "property" nature of the memorial site, etc., but leaving aside such philosophical compromises a legal system entails, I think we can still, without contradiction, object to this particular behavior without rejecting Free Speech principles.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[readin]

This is actually easier than the question of trolling dead soldier's funerals. The protesters in that case could occupy public property - a sidewalk or a government owned cemetery - to hurt people's feelings. However in this case the troller posted to a privately owned website. The owner can simply remove the offending post and beginning moderating future posts before they are made public. (if a publicly owned website was used then... why was a publicly owned website used?)

Re:I agree.. Tony Blair needs to think about what

[macraig]

Not that I disagree, but... that was an interesting segue. Like Tony Blair much?

Laws need to be modernized.

[wcrowe]

Interesting question and I don't have a definite answer. I recently read about a Canadian who was arrested simply for holding up a protest sign (not a particularly offensive one) at a policeman's funeral. And of course, there are the well-known Westboro Baptist Church funeral protests. All of these incidents run along the same lines and are testing the concept of free speech.

Perhaps we need to delineate between what speech is protected at what is essentially a state ceremony (the police funeral) and what speech is protected at a private ceremony (or website).

In the case of the police funeral, the protester wanted to draw attention to the fact that the funeral was "over the top"; "like a funeral for a head of state". In the protester's mind, such extravagant glorification is indicative of a police state. In my mind, this kind of protest should be legitimately protected because the funeral was an affair of state.

In the case of private funerals (and this case as well), families should not have to deal with or respond to protesters who are using the demise of their loved ones to make a point. It is a type of provocation akin to the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater", and becomes a danger to those involved and even the public at large.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

I think we can still, without contradiction, object to this particular behavior without rejecting Free Speech principles.

I disagree. I think it's plainly obvious that the content is what mattered to them. Would this man have suffered the same fate if he had offered "kind" words? I don't think so. They just didn't like his words.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[readin]

For example, the constitution of my country doesn't contain anything about "Free speech" but instead states that people have the "freedom of opinion, expression and assembly".

This is one reason I like the US Constitution better, but unfortunately the Supreme Court has failed to understand the difference and has in effect re-written the US Constitution to be like your country's. The difference is this:

A person can express his feelings and opinions many ways - punching girlfriends, shooting a dog, making films that violate community standards, urinating on public statues, walking around in public without clothes, giving people the finger...

The US Constitution as written protects none of that - it protects speech and the press (which given technological changes can be understood to include other word media).

But our Supreme Court decided to rewrite that to mean "expression" so we have this strange system where strip joints are protected by the first amendment but spending money on political speech may not be.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[readin]

How ironic that you would start with words that are clearly designed to be offensive while defending the government's ability to punish people for being offensive.

What I don't understand about this is...

[idbeholda]

I can see how he might have been prosecuted for trolling if his actions lead up to the teenager jumping in front of the train. But prosecuting after the fact makes no sense, especially since his actions (although tasteless) didn't cause actual bodily harm to anyone else. Sounds to me like some internet users need to grow their skin just a bit thicker.

Dictatorship

[jdavidb]

Is it about time trolling to this extent saw this kind of punishment, or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?

Is it about time to drop the idea of "rule of law" and replace it with "subjective decisions by authorities," then? Hail to the King!

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

"You don't have to be "overly sensitive" or be offended by anything you see."

Wow blaming the victim already. Sure, that dead girl's dad can just man up the next time he reads disparaging comments about her. Your point makes a lot of sense for other sociopaths.

Get rid of the trolls

[ronknights]

It's about time someone did something against these trolls. Trolls have gotten away with too much over the years. Start putting them in jail, and keeping them offline. The Internet will be a better place.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Just Some Guy]

If you can cause other people just as much harm by impersonating their dead daughter as you could by punching them in the face, why treat it differently?

Because physical assault is clear-cut: either you punched someone or you didn't. The findings are limited to determining whether you contacted them and whether it was deliberate or accidental. In contrast, insults are subjective in that they depend on the reaction of the target, and that reaction may change from time to time. The findings involve determining the state of mind of the assailant and in order to calculate whether the verbal assault actually happened.

For instance, suppose I great a coworker each morning with "hey, dumbass!", and he laughs because we're friends and call each other names. One morning, I issue my customary greeting and he flips out: "quit calling me that, jerk! I'm not a dumbass and I'm tired of your insults! I've had enough!" There are two ways to interpret the story: I was being a crude (but harmless) coworker who inadvertently pushed another employee too far and may deserve a letter of reprimand from our boss, or I was being a crude (and malicious) jerk who established a pattern of abusive speech and may deserve prison time.

Please understand that I don't intend to take Duffy's side in any way. His actions were a far cry from my hypothetical example and clearly crossed the line into abusive, despicable behavior. Still, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of the government issuing prison terms based on hurt feelings. Duffy's case is rather clear-cut but the precedent seems ripe for overzealous application.

GP is full of BS, and TRACEABILITY CHALLENGE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, mod GP down (doesn't know what he's talking about).

TOR honeypots are only useful for intercepting unencrypted traffic, or at most, unchecked HTTPS connections. Also I wish the authorities good luck in breaking someone's keyfiled SSH connection.

I challenge anyone who thinks law enforcement is all-powerful on the Internet to a game (even if you work in law enforcement). You set up a server - HTTP, FTP, SSH, whatever, it can be public or you can give me a login, and I will take a file of your choice from it. Then I will put it online and serve it back to you in a way that is impossible to take down or trace. You will be unable to discover shit about who just did any of this. Who's up for it?

To make sure you don't cheat, I'll post this anon and monitor the mailbox M8R-x2csla at mailinator dot com for communication from challengers. I will only guarantee a game to one challenger. If you can prove you work in law enforcement this will give you preference.

To verify winners, I'll post this MD5 hash: b4f35ab23598f8bb95018758660ba1c1

And this SHA1 hash: e8d8782ce10947a80b8936e4469f9b8b9c3762b1

They are hashes of the same string.

Re:GP is full of BS, and TRACEABILITY CHALLENGE!

[Woy]

Inspiring! I'd challenge you for the fun of it, but I know that it is possible for you to win it, and you sound competent enough.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[pwileyii]

In my opinion, this is a solid point. Punching someone in the face could be argued as a act of expression against the person, but it is still against the law. There is a difference between mocking someone for humor and doing it to intentionally harm them. I am a huge proponent of free speech and free expression, but when the purpose of the speech or expression is to harm someone, even in the USA it is not protected. Inciting riots, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and harassment are all forms of speech that are not protected because they are intended to cause harm to someone else. If the intention is of the speech is to harm, then the speech is not protected.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Just Some Guy]

Respect for the dead, especially loved ones, and the sensitivity that comes with that, is essential to human societies.

No, it's not. Fred Phelps, Sr. is somebody's loved one, but I reserve the right to smugly welcome his eventual passing and to publicly state that I hope any afterlife of his involves being tormented by gay and lustful demons. Someone who earned no respect in life doesn't magically garner it in dying, and the fact that someone may care about them and mourn their death doesn't change that.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that in USA there is a concept of "Free speech!" and some people are willing to chant about that like a mantra.

Just remember: "free speech" does not mean "no consequences". A person should have the right to say whatever they want, but they must be willing to deal with the consequences.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

A bully goes to jail - great!

Harassing people is usually not covered by free speech law. Go stomp on religions, ethnic groups, races, political parties, opinions, if you like. But not specific persons.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

Does 'expression' in your country not cover speech?

Insults

[prefec2]

Insulting someone in public is illegal. Defamation, talking bad about dead people with the intent to disgrace such a person is illegal. And all these things have been illegal for a long time. This is backed by human rights. Lately people have started to use this Internet thing which provides us with the capability to do all things in public we normal did at home. And I guess that is what trolls do when they troll. They think they are in a private context. However, in reality they are in the middle of a crowd.

It is like crying out loud in the Bronx of the 1970 "All Niggers are pigs". This is definitely impolite by an extreme and it is wrong. However, there is still a difference in telling this everybody or just saying it to yourself or your close friends. As in that example: Such comment could have harsh consequences in the public. While at home or with your friends they most likely would say that you are an idiot and that you should reconsider that statement.

So in the end it is correct to punish someone who insults people. Even though I would prefer if they would do something good. Let them do community service e.g. cleaning up the parks. Help elderly people etc.

Well, there goes Slashdot

[PPH]

If being a jerk is a crime, that is.

Seriously, lots of people in the USA are going WTF while elsewhere, others might be applauding the decision. Or at least in favor of punishment for this kind of free speech. Welcome to this multicultural world and the Internet that ties it all together.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[CraftyJack]

You wouldn't happen to have a newsletter?

Criminals

[SETIGuy]

When being an asshole is a crime, only criminals will have assholes.

If being an asshole is a crime, everybody but me will go to jail.

Re:really!

[prefec2]

Calling someone and idiot is not opinion it is an insult. It is even then an insult when you say: In my opinion you are and idiot. And the same applies to that person.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[gnasher719]

I think my real issue here is if you say that in this case, what he was saying was illegal because it hurt the parents, what is to stop me from going out and stopping someone talking about issue X because I find issue X offensive.

One would have to decide what's the problem - what the person talking about X is doing, or that you find it offensive. That was quite an easy decision in this case. There are plenty of things where some people find it offensive to talk about them, and society has decided that it's that person's problem and talking about it is fine. There are other things where society has decided the other way, like in this case. Most people have been raised by their parents to know the difference. Some are ****ing jerks who want to argue for arguments sake.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

There are forms of torture that don't even touch the victim. Attempting to turn mental pain into something people can trivially ignore at their whim ("whether it harms them or not is completely up to them") is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst.

You could pass an awful lot of abuse off under a mantra of "Well they chose to let it hurt them" and it would still be more damaging to your victim than if you had been punching them in the face each time.

Re:really!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Calling someone and idiot is not opinion it is an insult.

It is both. There is nothing exclusive about either.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you guys serious? Then lets outlaw adultery, while we're at it, and all other behavior that is "undesirable". You guys are idiots and expect government to take care of all your problems for you. If you don't like what someone says, do something about it, else, shut up and move on.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[lattyware]

Yeah, because blindly following what your parents taught you is always a good course of action. Anyone with any self respect starts to question their viewpoints when they can, and finds their own reasons for them.

Society shouldn't decide what anyone can or can not do besides protecting people's freedoms.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[anyGould]

I always filed that as part of the US obsession with free markets - it only really works if everyone has the time to do it equally.

Westboro (and several other church groups) sorely need protesters to follow them around with suitable signs, interrupting their family picnics, church dinners, and workplaces. Unfortunately, us non-crazy people don't have the kind of free time necessary to do so.

Hence, the free market argument - someone needs to start a business that we can hire to walk around and do that for me.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, I'm highly offended by your entire post. It harmed me as much as it would have if you would have punched me! Therefore, you should be thrown in jail.

I can't believe that you completely fail to see the difference between

• someone making a potentially offensive public statement on a discussion forum which you just happen to be a member of, with the intention of contributing to a debate.
• someone investing intentional, long-term effort (creating a video, impersonating a relative, ...) into fabricating insults that serve no other purpose than offending you, specifically.

In one case, the intention is to express an opinion and you being offended is a side effect. In the other case, offending you is the intention. The former deserves legal protection. The latter is merely an unjustifiable malicious act.

Heil hitler?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the uk is the new nazi Germany now? This is just insane.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, congress itself shall not set any rules abridging speech, but the individual states may. However we have judicial review and case law which has altered this a bit. In summary, it has been generally applied as a rule throughout the states, but with certain limitations.

The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is generally held to have extended the Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments) protections to the State and local level. So no, it wasn't "judicial review and case law" that determined that the states can't arbitrarily restrict your right to free speech, it was a Constitutional amendment--the same one that made former slaves into citizens. Not unconnected; the framers of the 14th amendment intended to prevent states from depriving citizens (.e.g, former slaves) of their Constitutional rights via state laws. Unfortunately, they could not do the same for stripping former slaves of their rights via "custom" and majority tyranny, but that is another issue for another day.

Yes, in the United States, you could probably get a civil suit against this Duffy character by the aggrieved families for libel and emotional distress, but it's not a crime to be an antisocial jerk over here. OTOH, 18 months in prison may be less painful than a few million $$ in "emotional distress" punitive damages...

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Lemmy Caution]

Respect for the dead doesn't mean you respect the people, and, as I clarified above, it's really about respect for the loved ones of the dead. As much as we might have despised a Pol Pot, I would still honor his family's desire to bury and mourn him in peace. What is tragic about this whole story is that Saddam Hussein's family was given more respect to mourn him than the family of the girl who the troller was harassing.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think an example should be made out of him, give him lethal injection.

People say offensive things all the time. It's part of life. Whining and braying about how much it hurt your feelings, no matter how personal it was or how close to home it was doesn't make it any more reasonable to punish them legally for it.

How quickly we forget.

[balrogkernel]

Anyone find it odd that the Phelps family gets away scot-free with desecrating funerals, and yet across the pond this UK man is being jailed for trolling on the internet. Western civilization needs to get on the same page regarding the interpretation of freedom of speech.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Americano]

In my opinion, it's because whether it harms them or not is completely up to them. You don't have to be "overly sensitive" or be offended by anything you see.

So your solution to antisocial behavior is for us all to become numbed sociopaths who aren't fazed in the slightest by emotions?

And this is a *preferable* state of affairs in your opinion?

Something is not quite right

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is despicable, an asswipe if you may. Ummm, yes freedom of speech even to say bad things... not sure. I think this giuy deserves a spanking. In any case, I do not care too much if the guy is locked up for 4 months and banned from social networking sites for a few years.
What really pisses me off is that in hte UK and in most places in Europe, you may go to jail for these kind of actions, for speeding a great deal, for not paying traffic tickets, BUT... if you rob someone on the street, jack a car, break into someone's house, you will not go to jail if it is your first offence, not even second, probably not third and so on... come on...

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

> implying that US pop culture is not one of our primary exports.

ooookay champ. You're right. It's all those french indie films that make millions of dollars at the box office. It's all those German musicians who go on world tours that gross hundreds of millions. It's all those chinese tv shows that everybody watches.

US culture may not be "highbrow culture," but it sure as shit is the predominant "exported" culture.

'Gonna have to go right to ludicrous punishment...

[Shompol]

The http://www.darwinawards.com/ pokes fun at deceased idiots on a daily basis. In fact, "dead funny" is the merit for the award. Hopefully they are not located in UK, because judging by the turn of events they all earned capital punishment by now.

P.S.: I do not support the unfortunate troll, but a slap on the wrist would be more than enough in this case.

10 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

a story like this on slashdot would have gotten "CENSORSHIP NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!"
Personally I take just such a hard line. As we investigate what makes people feel what, in brain science, there are indications (causality of stimulus in evoking emotional reactions) that no, people don't necessarily have the option to not take offense and not feel pain at the words and symbolic actions of others. But in a world of responsibilities, credit, and blame, who makes the rules about who is responsible, and who is to blame? It is dissonant to claim that the offender had any more control over his actions than the offendee had over being offended. If we begin to allocate responsibility, then a slippery grey area begins to appear where perhaps it would be easier for the offender to keep his words to himself than it would be for the offendee to recognize that ones own feelings are ones own responsibility. However, then you have opened the door for telling people what they can and cannot speak about, and when, and who is to regulate that? A democracy, perhaps? A voting majority? Open and free speech, whether it incites 'hate' or 'progress' or 'love' or 'good' or 'bad' is, more robust than censorship, which it is to tell someone that their words are not okay to say, or their ideas are not okay to express.

Re: You may be autistic, in which case, I pity you

[Anonymous Coward]

The assumptions present in this statement are deeply offensive. One of the most deeply empathetic people I've known was autistic.

OT

[Belial6]

Kind of off topic, but I find it interesting that this line of reasoning is not used when it comes to disciplining children. Specifically, the slightest spanking is considered "abuse", but pretty much any action that only effects them mentally, abusive or not, is considered OK.

Re:OT

[rohan972]

Kind of off topic, but I find it interesting that this line of reasoning is not used when it comes to disciplining children. Specifically, the slightest spanking is considered "abuse", but pretty much any action that only effects them mentally, abusive or not, is considered OK.

Having a wife who was significantly affected by a father with a toxic tongue and having myself been subjected to routine humiliation as a child I assure you that we do not consider mental and emotional abuse to be OK. Also, while I do not consider all spanking to be abuse I do not personally spank my children (although my wife sometimes does) because my own history makes it difficult for me to do it appropriately.

Re:OT

[Belial6]

I meant that in the "as a society" sort of way. Not necessarily you personally.

Re:OT

[rohan972]

Yeah I know, but society is so far resisting my attempts at total dictatorial control of public opinion. Fools! As a result, I can only speak for myself.

Other laws cover funerals

[Anonymous Coward]

Trespassing for one. It's a bullshit example.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you are a geek, but you are fucking stupid. There is something called common sense. Ever heard of it? If you are offended and everyone can relate to it, then it is truly offensive. Basically using common sense. There is a universal agreement that the dead child's parents, and anyone else in their place would be deeply offended. Hell, it is offensive to even people who are not related to the dead girl. Every normal person can empathize. Ever had a dead child? In the American land of lawyers however, everything must be literally interpreted it seems. And regarding the perception of government, coming from outside America/Europe (no I am not from China), I completely agree with the grand parent post regarding Americans and their paranoia about government.

Welp

[Vaylent]

I must admit that I'm a little scared by the recent precedent of prosecutors in the US and UK. Why should being insulting in a mostly-anonymous medium carry more of a fine or sentence than the more minor violent crimes?

Re:Valuing fairness over freedom doesn't devalue t

[toriver]

poor people breed faster than rich people

What, their pregnancies take less than nine months? Your archaic political views are perfectly matched by your lack of knowledge of biology. In-breeding much in your family?

I'm not acting.

[GoDj1rrA]

What's the point of being a jerk if you can't act like one?

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[toriver]

No, censorship is preventing the speech, this is just a fucking asshole receiving the consequences of his free speech. HE HATH SPOKEN! THE LAW HAS ANSWERED!

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[toriver]

ALL speech? I guess I imagined those child porn laws then. Or what happens (until recently) if you expressed threats to the President's life.

What's offensive?

[GoDj1rrA]

The problem with punishing offensive speech is that most of it is subjective. Is the n word offensive and punishable? Is it offensive if I'm white and I say it? What if I'm black? Is it the context in which I say it that matters?

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

The fascists are squashing free speech here. The right to not be offended is something completely new and pretty frightening.

Either theres more going on in this case than simple trolling, or this is chipping away at your freedom to call Creationists idiots.

sticks and stones may break my bones but names..

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone calls me very nasty things, I can *choose* to either be offended or I can *choose* to be hurt.

Why on earth should the name caller be punished for someone elses *choices*?

For the love of freewill, please please please stop calling for unfreedoms (putting people in jail for name calling? Fuck me!) to be imposed by governments that use our money to do it.

And please... STOP PLAYING THE VICTIM!!! choose to not be hurt, it really is that simple.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

We are just trading freedom for a little more security, what can possibly go wrong?
You probably should read this:

authoritarian regimes technology has played a prominent role in the world’s recent moments of social unrest. We all know that the governments of Iran and Egypt and Libya eavesdrop when their citizens talk, but to listen in on Yahoo chat or Skype they needed help. Where that help came from might surprise you. Companies in the UK, Germany, France, the US and other countries in the West have sold software to regimes that enable them to spy on their citizens – ironically the same regimes those countries are now trying to topple.

From http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/12/internet-spy-room-found-in-tripoli-%E2%80%93-packed-with-western-technology/

Re:Valuing fairness over freedom doesn't devalue t

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, does the truth make you angry? Look up the statistics dipshit. Like I said, you can play the enlightened soul all you want, I'll eat popcorn and laugh as the EU collapses.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

Already responded to that here.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

Ever heard of it?

Yeah. But it makes no difference. The fact that a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.

truly offensive

Subjective.

There is a universal agreement that the dead child's parents

It's only a universal agreement if absolutely every human in existence agrees.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

I didn't say they couldn't have emotions. I believe that they should just stop being so easily offended.

And this is a *preferable* state of affairs in your opinion?

Compared to people getting angry and losing control of themselves? Yes. I believe that is a failing of human beings.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

I can't believe that you completely fail to see the difference between

I didn't fail to see the difference. Intent has been brought up to me multiple times. I just don't care about intent when the subject is about mere words.

I don't care for trying to guess peoples' intentions when it comes to words. That said, I think that they should train themselves to be less easily offended.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

There are forms of torture that don't even touch the victim.

And unless they are holding them somewhere, I don't see the problem. I believe it is ultimately their own fault that they didn't train themselves to be less easily offended.

and it would still be more damaging to your victim than if you had been punching them in the face each time.

Typically, that results in both physical and mental damage.

Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd..

[cheekyjohnson]

Harassing people is usually not covered by free speech law.

I disagree with those laws, then.

But not specific persons.

Yeah. Can't criticize those people. They're too easily offended.

Re:really!

[AK Marc]

Saying "your mother is ugly" is an insult and not an opinion. It is not an opinion because with no knowledge of your mother at all, I can't form any opinion of her at all. If I knew her and said that, then it would be an opinion, as well as a possible insult. So does it matter if the insult is an opinion or not?

Re:Valuing fairness over freedom doesn't devalue t

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that he was talking more about the total amount of children that poor families have vs. rich families, not about individual gestational periods.

Morality:

[cnxsoft]

That's OK to be disrespectful of people in real life, but don't do it on the internet or you'll be jailed...

Realestate Business

[harddisk01]

This website as I said will cater to investors looking to buy residential or commercial properties in California and Vegas for the

vegasrealestateinvestor

website. Many people don't know where to start with buying a property in this economy. There are many difficulties they run into such as lending, foreclosures, short sales, pre-qualification, escrow and title.

Realestate investment

groups..

Re:Valuing fairness over freedom doesn't devalue t

[toriver]

Well, you certainly fits the "coward" part well. The EU does not collapse from "poor people", if anything the USA-trained cold-hearted MBAs will be what do us in, as they siphon money into the pure gambling setup called "the financial industries". Your right-wing world of lies has no connection with truth.