Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.
- Thread starter Morgoth
- Start date
Nobody was asking, however anything dealing with mental health is difficult in scenarios like these.
Could very well have influenced him to do so, there's simply not enough absolute information on the brain to explain these things.
I agree with that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Because as far as I can tell, aspergers is just a medial euphemism.
This. The judge can only preside over the cases put in front of him and in this situation he came to the right decision.
Last edited:
Without wanting to sound like one of the tin foil brigade, this is just one step towards moderation of the internet in this country. Broadly speaking
A custodial for someone who's intend was almost certainly nothing more malicious than achieving 'lulz' is a little bit mind blowing when in the next breath we are told of their being a shortage of prison spaces and perpetrators of far more serious crime being released early.
People can generally be insensitive pricks, especially with the veil of anonymity that the internet provides. I don't see why in any care this should be punished by jail time.
A custodial for someone who's intend was almost certainly nothing more malicious than achieving 'lulz' is a little bit mind blowing when in the next breath we are told of their being a shortage of prison spaces and perpetrators of far more serious crime being released early.
People can generally be insensitive pricks, especially with the veil of anonymity that the internet provides. I don't see why in any care this should be punished by jail time.
Last edited:
Well anyway thanks to this thread I briefly watched the Chilean documentary on the 3 hammer killers (though only 2 done it? im confused on that part, he done armed robbery but nothing to do with the killings so why was he in court with them?)
Anyway thats some freaky stuff and in my state off unemployment and pessimism for the future it does make you think.
young, no motivation, no goals...devil makes work for idle mind...or some crap as the saying goes.
Anyway thats some freaky stuff and in my state off unemployment and pessimism for the future it does make you think.
young, no motivation, no goals...devil makes work for idle mind...or some crap as the saying goes.
When I first heard he had been put in prison I was quite surprised. The whole purpose of a troll is to mock/offend/annoy. However when I realised the extent of his behaviour it was clear this fool isn't your average troll.
There is a difference between making distasteful jokes and actually contacting the person's family members & harassing them. I suspect you haven't read the article? His aim was entirely malicious & was about much more than lulz. The guy sent one dead girl's mum a picture of her coffin with "happy mother's day" written on. That's plain wrong!
If he had made his "jokes" on a general forum I would still think he was a total jackass but prison would be extreme. The creep sought to hurt people in the days after loved ones had died. He is a pathetic bully & deserves to be punished.
I always feel a bit uncomfortable when I hear about things like this where there is no physical damage or loss, or even threat of such, but the 'perpetrator' is given punishment. Where should the line be drawn for emotional damage of this nature? Maddie jokes? cheating on partners? unrelenting bullying for years? Surely many other deliberate activities cause far more emotional harm and distress than some stranger posting comments on some facebook page (which coud easily have been removed by the page admin presumably?). But I don't see the police arresting school bullies or cheaters. Feels like an inconsistency to me. If this way of causing emotional distress is criminal, then why are all forms of causing emotional distress not criminal?
But in any case, I am still trying to work out in my own mind whether any form of emotional distress should really be a crime... If it was, I don't know whose standards you would use, and it seems like a part of life that the state should not really interfere in. I'm still thinking on that one.
But anyway, once the court has decided that this behaviour is indeed criminal, I suppose unless there is some kind of principled stand behind this mans activities as there is with the 'naked rambler', (and it doesn't sound like there is) re offence will presumably be prevented, and it will put off other potential offenders. The sentence does seem quite high for the activity though tbh. If you had asked me last week what I thought the potential punishment for such activities would be, I would have expected facebook to restrict your account or ban your IP or something, not a jail term!
Anyway, on a side note, he does look a bit trollish!
But in any case, I am still trying to work out in my own mind whether any form of emotional distress should really be a crime... If it was, I don't know whose standards you would use, and it seems like a part of life that the state should not really interfere in. I'm still thinking on that one.
But anyway, once the court has decided that this behaviour is indeed criminal, I suppose unless there is some kind of principled stand behind this mans activities as there is with the 'naked rambler', (and it doesn't sound like there is) re offence will presumably be prevented, and it will put off other potential offenders. The sentence does seem quite high for the activity though tbh. If you had asked me last week what I thought the potential punishment for such activities would be, I would have expected facebook to restrict your account or ban your IP or something, not a jail term!
Anyway, on a side note, he does look a bit trollish!
You'd have to have a special blend of attention seeking, social retardation and self confidence to walk up to a kids funeral in person and hurl abuse.
On the other hand, doing the same thing over the internets = lulz because you can get a rise out of their emotional response and you're safe from being physically mauled so you can giggle behind your keyboard manically every time you get a response telling you to go **** yourself you sick troll.
So if you don't agree with a custodial sentence for what is essentially name calling/being insensitive you've got a mental defect?
I'd probably use the radical tool called the 'Delete' button tbh. No one put a gun to the family's head and forced them to read the content.
In the eyes of this country's law and, might I say, a judge with FAR more experience and qualification than any of us here, he committed a crime, how are people not understanding this?
Commit a crime and get punished. It's a simple equation, boys. And if the nature of that punishment is considered harsh by other people? Well that's the chance you take when YOU MAKE THE DECISION to harm an innocent person.
He made that decision, time and time and time again, yet you seem to be defending his rights far more than the many innocent families he brought misery to at their most vulnerable moment. Nice.
Should use your amazing degree in research skills to find yourself a job using the big WWW
I think the problem is that far too many people still seem to think that the internet is seperate from real life. It isn't, it is just another part of real life. Is there any reason why this communication medium should be considered seperate and different from print or telephone or verbal communication?
