Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
I can see how this is morally wrong. But how is it criminal?
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.
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".
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.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
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.
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?
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.