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.
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?
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
That's just despicable...
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?
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!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
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
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
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!"...
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.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Learn to love Alaska