Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

Vonhelmet · 14 Sep 2011 at 17:31

Al Vallario said:
The threat can be either explicit or implicit, but yes, every time a person is arrested, they are being threatened with violence.

And is this a problem in general, or just when you don't like the offence they're being arrested on suspicion of committing?

dowie · 14 Sep 2011 at 17:39

Al Vallario said:
The goal may be the same, as I said. The actions themselves are wholly different.

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

Supposing someone crank called your mum - would you also not be phased by it because it was, in a sense, virtual - they weren't actually giving abuse face to face - its just over the phone... Why should the govt intervene where crank calls are concerned...

Just like crank phone calls someone abusing the family of a dead teenager is deliberately causing real world harm and distress to that family. Its not some abusive comments between one online forum personality and another here but directly attacking real people and having a real effect on them isn't on regardless of the attacks being virtual.

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 17:43

Vonhelmet said:
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.[/quote ]

And just out of interest why do you think that the cps decided that a harassment charge wasn't viable? Any chance they did it because they did not think that they could convict him of it, perhaps because he hasn't actually committed harassment?

Where is the line of causing distress on internet exactly? Is someone simply posted about how much against suicide they are and how they had no sympathy for the girl and the grief that she has put them through, would that be deserving of jail too? Should being insensitive be punishable in general?

Al Vallario · 14 Sep 2011 at 17:43

Rroff · 14 Sep 2011 at 17:47

Al Vallario said:
Not in general. I just think it absurd that we as a society are wasting our time threatening and/or exercising violence against people for such petty offences. Duffy did not commit a violent crime. He did not cause physical harm to anyone. He did not cause damage to anyone's property, livelihood, reputation, etc.

I have no doubt in my mind that Duffy has been subject to more distress and anxiety having been arrested, spent time in police custody, been tried and convicted of a criminal offence, and now facing an 18 week jail term than all the families combined suffered from his actions.

I also have no doubt that the process of pursuing a prosecution against Duffy caused the families even greater distress and anxiety than Duffy's actions in the first instance. Having to look over the comments and images over and over again, be interviewed by police, give interviews to the press, etc.

To think all this nonsense could have been avoided by the families having a few Facebook posts deleted...

Really? I hope for your sake your trolling... otherwise you are one messed up person (even trolling on this subject in that manner is pretty messed up to).

Al Vallario · 14 Sep 2011 at 17:51

Al Vallario · 14 Sep 2011 at 17:57

Rroff · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:00

The last thing you need when someone close to you has died is someone taunting you about it... any normal person would have kicked his teeth in and thats the least he would have deserved.

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:11

Rroff said:
The last thing you need when someone close to you has died is someone taunting you about it... any normal person would have kicked his teeth in and thats the least he would have deserved.

No one is sat here arguing that it was a socially acceptable thing to do. We're questioning if being insensitive is justifiably punished with a custodial sentence.

Andy90 · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:19

Al Vallario said:
Not in general. I just think it absurd that we as a society are wasting our time threatening and/or exercising violence against people for such petty offences. Duffy did not commit a violent crime. He did not cause physical harm to anyone. He did not cause damage to anyone's property, livelihood, reputation, etc.

I have no doubt in my mind that Duffy has been subject to more distress and anxiety having been arrested, spent time in police custody, been tried and convicted of a criminal offence, and now facing an 18 week jail term than all the families combined suffered from his actions.

I also have no doubt that the process of pursuing a prosecution against Duffy caused the families even greater distress and anxiety than Duffy's actions in the first instance. Having to look over the comments and images over and over again, be interviewed by police, give interviews to the press, etc.

To think all this nonsense could have been avoided by the families having a few Facebook posts deleted...

I think you should stop now.

In a civilised society to ensure order there have to be rules otherwise total chaos or anarchy prevails.

In the UK the Police uphold the law because Parliament tells them to.

The population of the UK vote the Politicians in to govern the Country and as such give them consent to pass laws to protect them. Therefore the Police are the public and the public are the Police.

Prosection of Offenders is not a waste of Police time - the primary roles of the Police in the UK is to protect people, protect their property, prevention and detection of crime, prosecution of offenders and maintaining the peace. If Police Officers are not engaged doing any of those things then they are not doing their job.

As for your assertion that he caused no physical harm - quite clearly you have no knowledge of Law, since physical harm can include anxiety or distress. In fact you can even Assault someone without even making contact with them.

I think your point that Duffy suffered anxiety and distress for his actions is laughable. He had a choice to do what he did. Did the families have a choice when they were subjected to his hate filled ramblings? I don't think so.

Edrof · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:21

Al Vallario said:
I'm honestly not 'trolling'

Some people are far too sensitive. If your daughter has just been killed or committed suicide, the least of your worries is some weirdo mocking her death on a publicly-accessible memorial page. Any ordinary person would delete the messages, block the person, report them to Facebook — such actions are a breach of their terms of service — and be done with it.

No; don't make assumptions of what 'ordinary' people would do based on what you would do. ALL of the victims in this case certainly didn't just hit the delete button. Ah, the good ol' delete button, it sure does make everything better. Well no it doesn't. Just like tidying up and replacing your stuff after a burglar has ransacked your home doesn't make the burglar's crime any less criminal.

And the police certainly do not aim to arrest people with the threat of violence, for crying out loud, if people resist arrest to the point of potentially harming members of the public, police officers or themselves they are restrained. There is a massive difference. Maybe someone like Von Smallhausen can give his opinion on that. But then lets not get facts in the way of a good tin-foil hat argument.

But anyway, there's no reasoning with you because you are so anti-state and anti-police that you are actively defending a disgusting individual and besides you side-step and ignore the knock-out questions and points put to you and keep on insisting that Sean Duffy should not only be released from his custodial sentence, but also allowed to continue what he was doing. Hell, let's go the whole hog and pay the guy a wage for doing it!

Al Vallario · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:32

Mr Jack · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:33

Al Vallario said:
Can you say that for certain? I don't have any reason to suppose violence was used, but I wouldn't rule it out. The threat of violence was most certainly used, as being arrested and taken into police custody is being threatened with violence. If he did not comply, or resisted arrest, he would have been subject to violence.

No, he would have been subject to force. That's not the same thing.

Duffy wasn't charged or convicted of harassment, though. He was convicted, ultimately, of causing other people distress and anxiety.

Cause distress and anxiety is a form of harassment. The exact thing he was charged with is pretty much irrelevant.

Much as the police that arrested him, and the prosecution that acted against him, caused him distress and anxiety.

Silly comparison is silly.

Why do you think causing people distress and anxiety should be one-upped by threatening and/or exercising violence against those that do so, and depriving them of their liberty?

What a stupid argument. Actions and sanctions by the state to enforce decent behaviour are not equivalent to actions carried out by individuals.

Should we also be doling out capital punishment to litterers?

No, because it's not proportionate.

Vonhelmet · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:46

Joshy said:
Vonhelmet said:

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.

Click to expand...

And just out of interest why do you think that the cps decided that a harassment charge wasn't viable? Any chance they did it because they did not think that they could convict him of it, perhaps because he hasn't actually committed harassment?

Where is the line of causing distress on internet exactly? Is someone simply posted about how much against suicide they are and how they had no sympathy for the girl and the grief that she has put them through, would that be deserving of jail too? Should being insensitive be punishable in general?

I've no idea why the cps didn't move for harassment, and I'm not sure of your point inthe latter half of your post.

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:48

Vonhelmet said:
I've no idea why the cps didn't move for harassment, and I'm not sure of your point inthe latter half of your post.

Someone saying that they don't agree with suicide and have no sympathy on the wall would have likely also caused distress and anxiety.

Vonhelmet · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:48

Al Vallario said:
Not in general. I just think it absurd that we as a society are wasting our time threatening and/or exercising violence against people for such petty offences. Duffy did not commit a violent crime. He did not cause physical harm to anyone. He did not cause damage to anyone's property, livelihood, reputation, etc.

I have no doubt in my mind that Duffy has been subject to more distress and anxiety having been arrested, spent time in police custody, been tried and convicted of a criminal offence, and now facing an 18 week jail term than all the families combined suffered from his actions.

I also have no doubt that the process of pursuing a prosecution against Duffy caused the families even greater distress and anxiety than Duffy's actions in the first instance. Having to look over the comments and images over and over again, be interviewed by police, give interviews to the press, etc.

To think all this nonsense could have been avoided by the families having a few Facebook posts deleted...

Ok, so any issue of "violence" and "force" is irrelevant, because what you object to is the offence, not the mechanics of arresting a person.

As for the rest of your post - it's speculation. You don't know who has been subject to how much distress.

Vonhelmet · 14 Sep 2011 at 18:51

Joshy said:
Someone saying that they don't agree with suicide and have no sympathy on the wall would have likely also caused distress and anxiety.

Such comments would have been equally irrelevant and inappropriate, but less offensive. However, if they were sustained, then no doubt they might have equally been subject to similar charges.

Besides, it's not like all he was doing was posting on walls. He was setting up his own groups independent of the walls.

Al Vallario · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:01

Al Vallario · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:06

Vonhelmet · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:08

You're arguing about arrests and distress to him, but not really arguing why it shouldn't be an offence in the first place. If it is an offence, all the rest follows naturally, as it could for any crime, which you haven't said you object to, so you shouldn't object to it now, per se. You're using it as leverage to argue why the crime shouldn't be a crime, but it's not really relevant.

Does your argument boil down to believing in free speech regardless of harm caused? I note you didn't answer when I asked about your views on libel and slander many pages ago.