Internet troll gets jail time

[imnothng]

Forum Sponsor

FS think of this scenario, your wife dies in a tragic accident where a driver loses control of his vehicle and ends up crushing and dismembering her on the sidewalk. you put a wreath at the site, some one else comes along and starts leaving letters at the wreath saying how she deserved to die and perhaps puts her pic up on a pole with a target on it, maybe some pics of her crushed and dismembered body... by your reasoning this is ok, you chose to put a wreath there in a public place, he's not defacing the wreath, just putting pics and letters at the same public spot. personally i don't see a difference between leaving harassing messages at a memorial site whether it's online or physical.

For me I would see no problem with it. It's called ignoring it. There's a difference between passive and non passive harassment, this was passive and did not deserve jail time.

 

[imnothng]

Harassment, via any means of communication, is still harassment. That means it requires the intervention of the legal system.

Who's debating that? I thought the issue people had with this case was the punishment.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Who's debating that? I thought the issue people had with this case was the punishment.

Who? The person I was responding to, obviously.

There are two distinct sets of objections, to this event. The first is that the internet should be some place of absolute freedom, of speech. This fails on several levels. The first point is that when you are using the 'house' of someone else, in which to 'freely state' your beliefs, you have no such freedom. You make your statements at the whim, of the person who pays the bills or holds the 'lease.' The second point is that not all speech is protected, as in the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" exception. Speech, that causes harm, is not 'protected speech.' Libel and slander are not 'protected speech.' Harassment is not 'protected speech.' Such things are actionable either civilly, or criminally. The internet isn't some alternate world of hugs and bunnies, in which you can spout whatever crap you feel like, without consequences to your actions.

Corollary to this is the thought that The Law need not get involved, in cases in which the internet was used for harassment. For those who believe such, please reread my last sentence, in the preceding paragraph, until you understand. Far from being outside the law the penetration of the internet, into our daily lives, makes harassment far more easy for such people to perform.

The second is that the penalties, which were levied, are far out of scale with the offence. This is patently not the case. Just the issues, that we have been made privy to, constitute harassment under UK law. We have also been told that much more material was withheld from the media, as it was deemed to be beyond the pale where publication is concerned. The accused, now convicted, showed a pattern of behaviour by targeting at least 4 families, that we know of. Such behaviour was deemed to be illegal harassment, at trial. This shows that the penalties were within reason, for the offences with which he was convicted.

 

[Bandit Bill]

Harrassment == psychological bullying combined with stalking behavior. It is nothing less than that. Bullying is a form of aggression, which can have far reaching psychological implications upon it's victims. This is what the perp engaged himself with, with multiple victims involved for which he has been legally dealt with for, and potentially more victims waiting in the wings for their redress.

This isn't about free speech at all. When it remains illegal to answer such abhorrent behavior with a reciprocal punch in the mouth, the legal system is the only recourse that remains open to the victims. The legal system (rightfully so) makes no differentiation on whether that criminal harassment is done in 'RL', or online. The net effect to a victim is potentially the same.

If you've ever been psychologically harassed, or physically bullied for any extent of time, free speech is absolutely not a valid defence for any perpetrator to be pulling, in the mind of the victim who has been subject to harassment. As Rob has already pointed out, pulling of a free-speech card is an indication of a narcissistic sociopath with no care for his fellow man, and who needs to be dealt with sternly by whichever legal means available. 'Free speech' is a phrase that bullying cowards tend to pull, when confronted with their behavior - whether that be the individual in this case, or the hate-speech mongers at Westboro.

Forum Sponsor