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.
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.
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!"...
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!
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.
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/