Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

Malicious Communications Act 1988

(1) Any person who sends to another person—.

(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—.

(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;.

(ii) a threat; or.

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or.

(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,.

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, 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.

(2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows—.

(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds; and.

(b) that he believed , and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand..

(2A) In this section “electronic communication” includes—.

(a) any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)); and.

(b) any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.

(3) In this section references to sending include references to delivering or transmitting and to causing to be sent , delivered or transmitted and “sender” shall be construed accordingly..

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

Seems to me that he did most of the above and quite rightly got a conviction as a result.

There is a massive difference between free speech and targetting bereaved families with hate mail.
 
Last edited:
Forde said:
Okay, but the you get the point.
Click to expand...

So do you think someone should be arrested if they throw a couple of offence words to the bloke down the pub?
A threat is completely different from being offensive, the situation here is a little different but I would love you to tell me where you drawn the line between what is a crime and what is just being annoying. If damage is being done then he/she should be sued for damages.
 
Morgoth said:
Not a funeral, but similar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-protesters-handed-conditional-discharge.html
Click to expand...
Not similar, this is the difference:-
Forde said:
It's not about that, it's about a person intentionally causing psychological harm and misery to already vulnerable and innocent human beings, unprovoked
Click to expand...
As Forde says, there is "free" speech and then there is this, someone who waged a campaign of horrendous abuse on the greiving family.
 
Al Vallario said:
There is a massive difference between free speech and exercising free speech? :confused:
Click to expand...

He wasn't exercising free speech, he was clearly committing a crime as Andy90 points out. Are you straw-manning?

Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient.
Click to expand...
 
Al Vallario said:
The devil's advocate would point out the absurdity of depriving a person of their liberty simply for saying things others find offensive.
Click to expand...

This might be the case sometimes.
This chap didn't know the voctims, actively hunted the families, then actively took steps to be utterly inappropriate.

He photoshopped a young girls face onto Thomas the tank engine picture, and posted it on her memorial page a few days after she had been killed by a train on railway tracks.

Thats a very deliberate action, designed to cause hurt and pain, it is very different from being offensive.
 
chaosdestro0 said:
So do you think someone should be arrested if they throw a couple of offence words to the bloke down the pub?
Click to expand...


Your example is a million miles away from the one we are discussing and therefore totally irrelevant and, frankly, laughable.

As I have already said, this individual intentionally caused psychological harm and misery to already vulnerable and innocent human beings, on an entirely unprovoked basis and I'm glad the law is there to help protect them from further grief, in this case.

Have even the read the article? How can anyone defend this guy?
 
Jokester said:
If you read the article, it wasn't at the procession but on an Islamic site, again I'm not excusing them, but it is different.
Click to expand...

Where do you read that? From what I can see they were waving banners at the homecoming and shouting abuse during which time a bloke got arrested for shouting abuse back at them.
 
Morgoth said:
Where do you read that? From what I can see they were waving banners at the homecoming and shouting abuse during which time a bloke got arrested for shouting abuse back at them.
Click to expand...
They protested at the regiments homecoming, not at a funeral procession and the comments about the dead soldiers were posted on an Extremist Islam site, rather than specifically sent to the families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom