Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

[Robbo]

There clearly must have been a reason, taking down suicide bombers is a difficult business.

 

[Edrof]

Honestly, it's not like that in most cases. It's "procedural", in my experience.
I was a naughty boy, knew I'd been a naughty boy, police came for me, I went with them. Very un-dramatic. But I understood that I was going with them - the manner of said journey was up to me

I'd bet the majority of people go willingly, and therefore un-dramatically. It's the slow and steady wheels of state, not cops 'n' robbers.

Nicks, please don't sully this discussion with actual facts.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Edrof]

You seem to be following a different discussion to the one I am

You seem to be living on a different planet to the one I am

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Joshy]

It seems to me that Al Vallario is probably a bit of a dodgy character, which is why he hates the police. Shocker.

What's more of a 'shocker' is that people who have had to deal with the Police as potential suspects of crime might have a slightly sour taste in their mouth.

You will never, ever see their "true colours" until they think that you are on the other side of the law, and that's when the fun and games happen. If all of your dealings with the police force are when you are the victim/witness then you won't know because you won't need to know.

 

[Edrof]

I've reached the same conclusion, actually. I'm on planet Earth, what planet are you on?

No, you think you're on planet Earth. Just like you think all policemen beat the Hell out of everyone they meet and you think you don't need any evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Joshy]

No, you think you're on planet Earth. Just like you think all policemen beat the Hell out of everyone they meet and you think you don't need any evidence to back up your claims.

I don't think that was ever the argument?

I always thought that the police generally operate a policy of intimidation and the very possible threat of violence to arrest suspects, which makes them a arresting and the CPS prosecuting someone for nothing more than causing anxiety and distress and bit 'lol'.

In the end I just see this as a massive over reaction. While I don't want to go the whole hog and say that the family 'brought it on themselves' I'm going to say that it was damn naive for them to put up something as crass as a facebook 'memorial' page to someone who had committed suicide and expected nothing but positive responses. It is an incredibility emotive suspect at the best of times, and I say this as someone who has had to deal with the subject probably a little more than the average person.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Vonhelmet]

Non sequitur. The fact that legislation has existed largely unchallenged for an extended period of time does not serve as a justification for the existence of that legislation.

No, but 23 years without challenge suggests that it is not unjustified. I agree, though, that A => B does not mean that !A => !B.

How do we define "undue harm to others", exactly?

With difficulty, but most people know it when they see it. It quite clearly applies in this case. Now, I realise that's quite a woolly definition in law, but that's why we have judges and juries to interpret things like this. The law is written as tightly as it can be, and then judges have to work from there. The government clearly believes people should not be sending hatemail or similar things, which doesn't seem all that unreasonable, and then judges and juries are left to decide whether in sending a message his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should ... cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

If we could go back in time I could form a most eloquent argument along the same lines for restricting the freedom of speech of civil rights campaigners like Martin Luther King, Jr. Maintaining the status quo is for the good of society! Dr King's speeches are causing undue harm to supporters of racial segregation! Restrict that man's right to freedom of speech!

That's a little bit of a stretch. Making political points is rather different to trolling the dead. Did Martin Luther King intend for any good to come of his speech? Yes. Did Duffy? I highly doubt it.

Again you seem to be approaching this from the wrong direction. A person need not defend their right to freedom of speech. I do not need to defend every statement I make, every communication I send to another person. That's freedom of speech. I can say what I like. Like it or lump it.

In which case, you are saying that libel and slander and defamation should not be offences, yes? We accept limits on free speech for the good of all concerned.

The purpose of those examples was to demonstrate how this statute turns an enormous number of Britons into criminals.

So write to your MP if you find it so objectionable... Exercise your right to free speech for a useful purpose instead of defending a jackass.

Have you ever given someone false information to cause them distress or anxiety? I'm sure you have at some point in your life. If you have, you are a criminal.

If I have, then I don't readily recall doing so. Besides, the statute doesn't require that the information be false. Have you read it?

I agree it's not a nice thing to do, but why should we be legislating against it? Why is it appropriate for the law to enforce decent behaviour? Who decides what is and what isn't decent behaviour? If people never engaged in indecent behaviour, would we know the harm it caused?

If we never engaged in indecent behaviour, I daresay we would all be a lot happier. Your point?

At the risk of being characterised as some objectionable, heartless nihilist, yes, I would describe it as a minor grievance.

Then I put it to you that you have never had the death of your child mocked. Lucky you. But the government believes that people shouldn't have to endure such things. I don't think that's unreasonable. If you do, then I suggest you exercise your democratic rights and lobby your MP for the law to be repealed. I bet you won't.

If your daughter has recently passed away, the least of your worries is someone mocking their death on a publicly-accessible online tribute page.

Why use a superlative? It's always unwise to do so. I'm quite certain that there are plenty of things that the bereaved are less worried about. I would imagine that, given that they approached the police and pressed charges, it was a significant worry of theirs. Are you in a position to tell them that they are wrong to feel that way?

Quite frankly, my message to the families would be to get over it. There are some nasty people out there. Welcome to the real world. More appropriately, welcome to the Internet, where people feel more at ease making nasty comments. That's how the world works.

Well, yes, I will concede that the Internet is a brutal place. Neither of us would engage in such a visceral argument as strangers in the real world, for example. However, as RDM has pointed out, the Internet is still part of the real world, and just as people shouldn't endure abuse in the physical world, they shouldn't have to endure it in cyberspace either.

You're not going to like everything everyone ever has to say, and sometimes — shock, horror! — people are going to say things to you they know you won't like, for the purpose of causing you some distress or anxiety! Get over it.

Then people need to be educated that they can't act like dicks.

He should be "re-educated"? About what exactly? His right to express himself freely and say what he wants?

He should be educated that there is a time and place for constructive discussion of suicide, all three of which points he failed on. He clearly needs social education, because he is retarded in that capacity. You can't deny that he isn't, because most reasonable people would agree that his actions were inappropriate and offensive.

Pretty much, and that is how the law stands in the UK. As the saying goes, you can't libel the dead.

Very well. So why do you accept libel as being illegal when it is a violation of a person's free speech that it is illegal?

 

[[TW]Fox]

What's more of a 'shocker' is that people who have had to deal with the Police as potential suspects of crime might have a slightly sour taste in their mouth.

Being a potential suspect of crime is not something the average citizen finds themselves having to deal with particularly often.

 

[Joshy]

Being a potential suspect of crime is not something the average citizen finds themselves having to deal with particularly often.

Then they'll have to take my/our word for it .

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Vonhelmet]

I'd advise against use of the emotive term 'hatemail', because that is far from the extent of communications covered by this statute.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the statute covers more or less than that? If you are saying that it is wider than just hatemail, then yes - you're right. It is worded to cover any intent to cause anxiety and distress and so forth.

Again, you seem to be hung up on this idea that a person should only be free to speak if their speech has merit. Do you expect something good to come of every letter or electronic communication you ever send? If asked, would you be able to defend and justify every such communication you have ever sent? Of course not, but you don't have to.

No, but my point is the reverse. Why is freedom of speech only ever invoked to defend idiots like this? People only ever seem to care about freedom of speech when their speech carries no merit.

Not quite. My position, in basic terms, is that restricting freedom of speech is an incredibly serious matter that ought to be done only where it is absolutely necessary to prevent significant harm to persons. I would consider the results of defamation — irreparable damage to character or reputation, damage to livelihood, etc. — to be harms worthy of restricting freedom of speech to prevent.

Well, now then, what is significant harm? You earlier asked me the same thing. Can you define it any better than me?

I don't feel preventing someone from suffering distress or anxiety as a result of receiving a letter, electronic communication, etc. is a valid justification, especially when it is so easily avoidable, and especially when the prescribed course of action is for society to act hypocritically and cause the sender of that communication anxiety and distress themselves.

So where is the line? The legislature and the judges seem to think Duffy was on the wrong side of it. I don't disagree. Besides, he wasn't just posting on their Facebook walls - he was actively setting up his own pages and producing Youtube videos to mock the dead. That sort of thing is not so easy to avoid as you are suggesting - they can't just delete those things in the same manner as they can messages on their own memorial wall.

Unfortunately, having written to my MP on a few occasions in the past, I'm not particularly taken by his ability to pursue controversial issues such as these.

So keep writing or vote against him. You have freedom of speech and of the vote. Use it for something constructive.

Can I play on that slippery slope of yours?

Can you deign to agree that I'm unequivocally right, regardless of how unrealistic the scenario?

Their actions strike me as being driven by an unwavering desire for retributive justice. The families were not simply anxious and distressed, they were angry that Duffy had mocked their daughters' deaths. They wanted payback, and going through the arduous, costly — and, perhaps ironically, distress and anxiety inducing — process of securing his criminal conviction was their way of getting that. I suppose it was also a means of taking their minds off their daughters' deaths.

How do you know what they were feeling? Speculation.

There is a meaningful difference, however, in that it is easier to avoid communications that cause you anxiety or distress on the Internet. On the Internet you can delete a communication with one click of a button, and block further communications from a person with another. If worst comes to worst, you can shut your computer down and go off for a cup of tea.

None of which stops him posting his own Youtube videos and setting up his own Facebook pages, which he was doing.

If you compartmentalise your life appropriately, the comments of some stranger on the Internet should have no meaningful effect on your everyday life. So some stranger with no attachment to you whatsoever has mocked your daughter's death online? Is that going to stop you getting up and going to work in the morning, relaxing in the evening, going about your daily routine? Is it going to destroy your livelihood, cause damage or destruction to your property? No. It's someone being a dick on the Internet.

You could say much the same thing about libel and slander. Why should what someone says have any effect on your life? It's just words.

Invoking Godwin's law here. That sounds like the slogan of a Nazi concentration camp.

No it doesn't We accept that there are optimal ways for society to function, and part of that is that people are civil and polite to each other. People expend a great deal of time and effort in trying to raise their children to be polite and to behave appropriately, and much as you have tried to dismiss the point earlier, the world would be a better place if that were always the case and were more successfully achieved.

I don't think anyone would deny his actions were inappropriate and offensive. But criminal? Worthy of threatening him with violence and locking him up for 18 weeks? Come on now, let's be realistic...

Like I said... There is a line somewhere, and he is deemed to have crossed it. I do not disagree. I think his actions are disgraceful, and I hope that the sanctions placed on him will dissuade him from acting in such a way in the future. In particular, I hope he can learn in some way what is and isn't appropriate, though I fear that that is unlikely, given that rehabilitation does not seem to be a high priority in the justice system.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Vonhelmet]

More, as you quite rightly identify. Hence it does not follow from the premise that hatemail is wrong and ought to be prohibited by law that this particular statute is justified. There are many things that would fall far short of the definition of 'hatemail' but are prohibited under this law.

But how many are charged and successfully convicted under this law? It's clearly not being applied wildly and without care. Also, as I suggested earlier, if it were an unjust and unworkable law, it would probably have been struck down in the last 23 years.

Presumably because these are the cases in which people are testing the limits of freedom of speech. It's no surprise that arguments about fundamental moral precepts arise from only the most controversial cases.

But nevertheless, people only whine about free speech when they feel that their right to offend or be a dick is being infringed. I'm criticising people here, more than I'm criticising free speech. Lenny Bruce rightly said 'Take away the right to say "****" and you take away the right to say "**** the government."' but people's intentions in defending their free speech are never so noble as political criticism, however crude that particular example may be.

My statements should have given you an idea of what I personally consider to be significant harm, and I don't think my classifications are particularly controversial. Defaming someone, causing irreparable damage damage to their character, causing them to lose their livelihood or suffer significant financial losses? That's significant harm. Someone suffering fleeting anxiety or distress? I wouldn't call that significant harm.

Some would. You are apparently in something of a minority.

I expect almost every member of society suffers some form of anxiety or distress every single day. Often that is intentionally inflicted on them by others, for one reason or another.

I'm not sure I agree with you, if only because there are plenty of cases where causing that anxiety or stress is defensible, not least because causing the anxiety or stress is rarely the sole motivator.

Still, the harm in this case derives from the families themselves viewing the messages and images. Whether it is a Facebook page or a YouTube video, all it takes is for them to close the browser window, accept there are some weirdos out there, and get on with their lives as normal.

It's not just about what they personally see. It can be about what others see. A person who is the victim of libel is almost certainly far less concerned about hearing lies said about them, than they are about others hearing those lies.

Most certainly not if that involves accepting utilitarian justifications for restrictions on human rights!

That's not my point and I think you know it. You know the world would be a better place if we were all civil and decent to each other.

Again, speculation with a very high degree of confidence. These are the undeniable premises:

1) It was an arduous and costly process for these families to help the police in their investigations, collect and document evidence of Duffy's actions, face questions from the police, possibly give testimony in trial, etc.

2) Said process of pursuing a prosecution would have resulted in the families suffering even greater anxiety and distress than would have been the case if they had simply ignored Duffy's actions; having to read over the comments and view the images multiple times, constantly think about the matter for a prolonged period of time, etc.

3) As numerous other posters in this thread have confirmed, there is an instinctive and quite understandable desire for retributive justice a person derives from having the death of their daughter mocked by someone. If someone did so to your face, I think most people would require a great deal of self-restraint not to resort to violence.

The families would need some motive to undergo the costs associated in (1) and (2), and the benefits of retributive justice provided by (3) provide the most obvious motive. If the families were concerned solely with minimising their own anxiety and distress, as the relevant legislation seeks to do, then (2) means they have no motive whatsoever to pursue a prosecution.

Obviously I can't go back in time and step into the mind of all those concerned to analyse those thought processes, but I think this argument is fairly sound. Do you have any objections to it?

That's all speculative. You simply can't and don't know their motives or feelings. I shan't entertain this line of discussion further.

The difference here is that defamation can have a very real effect on your everyday life. Defamation can result in a person losing their job, their livelihood, being subject to abuse or criminal damage from other people. It can irreparably damage their reputation, cause them untold financial losses, damage their existing relationships with other people, etc.

But it's free speech!

I struggle to see how some stranger mocking your daughter's death online can have any of those effects.

It probably can't, but it can cause a great deal of emotional discomfort, which is what the law intends to prevent.

I feel much the same, but I don't feel subjecting him to the threat of violence, and depriving him of his liberty for 18 weeks is the right way to go about achieving it.

Ugh... the violence thing again. That's irrelevant.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[hurfdurf]

Being a potential suspect of crime is not something the average citizen finds themselves having to deal with particularly often.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

 

[hurfdurf]

Unfortunately though, what can they do?

"Hey, FREEZE!"

*boom*

The officers themselves that shot him under order I have no bones with for the initial shooting, the lies upon lies, attempted cover up and media white wash on the other hand....

 

[Vonhelmet]

I think, Al Vallario, that ultimately all we can conclude here is that we have different views on when it is appropriate that free speech be curtailed.