Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

Joshy said:
Firstly I feel that you cannot really control and moderate what people are going to say at a funeralor post through your letterbox nearly as easily as you can moderate a face book page or your emails.
Click to expand...

You can just throw leaflets in the bin, you can just ignore phone calls, you can ignore the person shouting at the funeral. At the end of the day what he was doing was harrasment, just because it is via the internet why should you have to put up with harrasment?

Joshy said:
Secondly I am questioning at what point does being insensitive actually come a crime? Why are tasteless jokes after even such as the Japanese tsunami perfectly socially acceptable but something like this is so horrible? Thousands of innocent people die, that's okay to lul about, but a blonde white girl tops herself and making lulz are completely out of the question. How does that work?
Click to expand...

Context would be a start. i.e. making jokes on a forum where it is unlikely the family involved would see it is completely different from deliberately targeting the family. Much like making tasteless jokes about the tsunami is fine in some places, whilst doing it at a memorial for them would be out of line.

Al Vallario said:
No, I don't think it should be a crime to call a person an abuse them about their dead daughter. It's a rather distasteful thing to do, but the law should not extend to such trivial things. If I were on the receiving end, I would put the phone down, and if it became a course of action, block the phone number in question.

I would also have no problem with a person printing leaflets and dropping them round friends' and relatives' houses.
Click to expand...

A slightly more consistent approach than the poster quoted above and I can sort of see what you are saying, but I am not exactly sure that harrasment is such a trivial thing as you make out. The fact that you are able to easily deal with it does not automatically equate that everyone can easily deal with it. At the end of the day this guy was deliberately setting out to annoy, upset and harras people. Just because his chosen medium was the internet does not mean he should not face censure because of it.
 
Joshy said:
I don't consider what he did to be harassment.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, I'd love to see your reaction if you were one of the victims in this case. How about you post some personal details of someone close to you that you've lost on 4chan and see what happens. After all, it's all just 'lulz'!

Strawmen or naive hippies. Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Al Vallario said:
Harassment, certainly, but phoning people up and making obscene statements? Under which statute is that illegal in the US? :confused:
Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/223.html

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
Click to expand...


http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/obscene-phone-calls.html


NRS 201.255 prohibits three types of speech communicated over the phone–obscene speech, threatening speech, and annoying speech:

Obscene speech. It's a crime in Nevada willfully to make a telephone call and address obscene language, representation or suggestion to or about any person receiving the call.




Annoying speech. Finally, Nevada makes it unlawful to make a telephone call with the intent to annoy another person whether or not a conversation ever ensues from making the call.
Click to expand...
 
and Columbia and many of the others if you can be bothered searching.


I just thought i'd put the Nevada part in to see if you'd even bother clicking the link :)

but pretty sure Nevada is in the united states.
 
If he had posted this in some random corner of the web I doubt he would have been punished, posting a joke on sickipedia or on this forum for example. however he did not, he posted in in a place intended to cause as much distress and pain to the families of the victims as possible, he intentionally set out to upset the family and friends of the victims.

This is not just having some 'lulz' as people put it but deliberate targetting of people in a vulnerable position. Got what he deserved tbh
 
Al Vallario said:
No, I don't think it should be a crime to call a person an abuse them about their dead daughter. It's a rather distasteful thing to do, but the law should not extend to such trivial things. If I were on the receiving end, I would put the phone down, and if it became a course of action, block the phone number in question.

I would also have no problem with a person printing leaflets and dropping them round friends' and relatives' houses.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that you would be so restrained, so unaffected, that you would have "no problem".

Say you were a father, and that light of your life was taken from you, for whatever reason. If someone were to start sending you doctored photographs, and distributing leaflets with, let's say, this lad's level of hate-spew on them, about your dead daughter, are you saying you'd have "no problem" with that?


The phrase "trolling" is becoming so over-used. I think this guy's in the right place, but if it is Aspergers that's making him such a collossal social ****-up, then maybe a spell in a secure mental unit might get him some help, as well as impressing on him the seriousness of his actions.
 
gambitt said:
The guy was an idiot, but terrible things are said by thousands of internet users daily - so why pick this guy out of the bunch? Because they felt like it? Slow day at the police station?

I'd wager that a judge would not be aware of places like 4chan, and that makes him ignorant of what really goes on online.
Click to expand...

You don't see the difference between what he did and other people posting something on OcUk, or 4-chan, or whatever?

He specifically set out to make sure that his posts would be seen by people that he know would take offence to them. He targeted the grieving families specifically. He didn't just post his opinions on some random forum somewhere.
 
Joshy said:
I don't consider what he did to be harassment. Seemingly neither did the cps seeing how he wasn't prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking what the CPS did, I know what they did. I was asking about your opinion. Although it is slightly amusing that you're relying on an appeal to authority when it suits you, when you told someone off for doing the same earlier.
 
gambitt said:
It's a strange system but yes he can still go ahead. When you start the appeal process, it goes to one judge at the CoA. He can grant leave to appeal but even if he doesn't, the prisoner can still decide to continue with the appeal process where 3 new judges decide his fate a few weeks/months later (depending on length of sentence). Of course it is far less likely to succeed if the first judge hasn't granted leave but by this point the taxpayers money is already spent.
Click to expand...

Got a link? I can't find anything about that.
 
People that make a facebook remembrance page, then cry when someone spams them should be jailed, idiots.

If I lost a loved one, people close to that person would have already made their feelings known without facebook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom