Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

[Vonhelmet]

I'm not quite sure why you are cheering on the state in using the threat and exercise of violence against a man, and depriving him of his liberty for 18 weeks, for simply making insensitive and disrespectful posts on the Internet?

What kind of a society are we if we meet insensitive and disrespectful Internet postings with violence and the deprivation of liberty?

It's not just insensitive and disrespectful Internet postings, though, is it? It was a sustained campaign. If it had been a one off, I doubt anything would have happened. It wasn't, though, and from the sounds of it, he would have continued well beyond the offences in question.

And why are you referring to violence being used? I'm not aware that violence was either threatended or exercised.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Vonhelmet]

You cannot possibly equate a posting on Facebook with the criminal damage of a gravestone.

Yes, I can, for the reasons given. You are vandalising a memorial. The only difference is that one is physical and one is virtual.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I'm also curious to know where you'd stand on libel and slander laws. Given that you seem to have no regard for defamatory speech regarding the dead, I wonder whether you would reason similarly with regard to the living.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[div0]

I'm well aware. It's an absurd law.

You were attempting to make an appeal to emotion by analogising the criminal damage of a gravestone with posting of malicious messages online, when the two could not be more different. Both actions may result from the same intent, but the actions themselves are wholly different.

No I wasn't - I was attempting to show the difference between a comment made in general (eg joke in the playground, or in a random forum post) compared to a targeted message of hate (eg hijacking a facebook memorial page, or painting a message on a gravestone).

While I agree that the gravestone analogy would fall under a vandalism charge, I don't think it's too hard to comprehend why targeting the family with abuse, is different to posting a comment somewhere like OcUK, which was the point being made.

 

[jas72]

I think the idea of facebook gravestones weird for some reason, and that they should be protected more than any other facebook page very strange.

Sadly though as is usually the case the care for people with mental illness is shocking, I think the guy needs proper treatment and should really be sectioned for his and others safety. He is clearly needing professional help and the judge is failing him again, will his internet access be restricted on release because after 8 weeks in prison he's going to be having lots of issues.

I don't condone his actions but if a custodial sentence is required then is prison the answer?

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[div0]

I never disputed that point of yours.

But you did try to deflect from it by pretending that the gravestone comparison was just 'an appeal to emotion'.

I think the idea of facebook gravestones weird for some reason, and that they should be protected more than any other facebook page very strange.

I don't think anyone is saying that. But if I post a message on my brother's facebook page saying something about someone that died, it's totally different to seeking out a specific memorial page, or the page of a family member and then bombarding them with messages of hate.

Sadly though as is usually the case the care for people with mental illness is shocking, I think the guy needs proper treatment and should really be sectioned for his and others safety. He is clearly needing professional help and the judge is failing him again, will his internet access be restricted on release because after 8 weeks in prison he's going to be having lots of issues.

I don't condone his actions but if a custodial sentence is required then is prison the answer?

While I tend to agree with you, there isn't really enough detail in the article to discuss his exact mental state.

 

[Bwaaa]

Sticks and stones

 

[Mr Jack]

I'm not quite sure why you are cheering on the state in using the threat and exercise of violence against a man, and depriving him of his liberty for 18 weeks, for simply making insensitive and disrespectful posts on the Internet?

No violence was used against the man. Get it straight.

What kind of a society are we if we meet insensitive and disrespectful Internet postings with violence and the deprivation of liberty?

The kind of society that doesn't tolerate harassment, which is the kind of society where people think twice before harassing people, which is a better society.

Why do you think people should be able to harass others with impunity? Is it just online you think people should be able to do this, or in general? If the former why do you think online harassment should be treated as different?

 

[TheDean]

In that picture, he looks like Private Pile a bit I thought?

 

[Morgoth]

If the former why do you think online harassment should be treated as different?

Compared to "real life" receiving harassment via public channels like facebook/youtube/whatever is fairly superficial.

 

[Malakite]

for simply making insensitive and disrespectful posts on the Internet?

But it was not just 'simply' making insensitive and disrespectful posts was it, it was a deliberate, targetted and planned campaign of harrassment and victimisation.

 

[VeNT]

this is why these forums need a +1 button.

 

[jas72]

But you did try to deflect from it by pretending that the gravestone comparison was just 'an appeal to emotion'.



I don't think anyone is saying that. But if I post a message on my brother's facebook page saying something about someone that died, it's totally different to seeking out a specific memorial page, or the page of a family member and then bombarding them with messages of hate.



While I tend to agree with you, there isn't really enough detail in the article to discuss his exact mental state.

Agree totally. However I've had personal dealings with the result of inept mental health provision.

Since the guy did already have a mental illness I'm sure the judge would have had all the medical records to hand to make such a judgement.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Vonhelmet]

It's a bit spurious to say that being arrested carries a threat of violence, unless you are prepared to apply that same thinking to being arrested for any and all crimes, which I doubt that you are.

 

[Vonhelmet]

If it was a course of conduct, and it was not practically avoidable, then I have no problem with him being charged for some harassment offence.

The CPS charge people with what they think they can get a conviction for and which is in the public interest. Maybe a charge for harassment wasn't felt to be viable or in the public interest.

As it happens he was convicted of sending — using the legal terminology — an electronic communication of an "indecent or grossly offensive nature" for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety.

Yep, which is what he had done. If you don't like that this is an offence under the law, then I suggest you write to your MP.

 

[Al Vallario]

..