Man jailed for dead girl 'trolling' insults on FB,Youtube

[klr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14894576

Reading man jailed for dead girl 'trolling' insults

A Berkshire man has been jailed for posting abusive messages online about a schoolgirl after she committed suicide.

Sean Duffy, 25, of Reading, was handed an 18-week sentence for posts on social networking sites about Worcester teenager Natasha MacBryde.

He previously pleaded guilty at Reading Magistrates' Court to sending indecent or offensive communications.

Police said Duffy also posted abuse about dead teenagers in Northumberland, Gloucestershire and Staffordshire.

Duffy admitted two counts of sending a communication of an indecent or offensive nature. The charges related to Facebook and YouTube posts about Miss MacBryde, 15, who Duffy had never met.

She had thrown herself under a train in February after being bullied.

Duffy subsequently posted messages on a remembrance page set up by Miss MacBryde's friends.

In one of the posts he called the teenager a slut. He also posted a video on YouTube, entitled Tasha the Tank Engine, showing the children's character Thomas the Tank Engine with Miss MacBryde's face.

The magistrates were also asked to consider three other cases when sentencing Duffy.

He had also posted offensive messages, known as "trolling", about Lauren Drew, 14, of Gloucestershire, who was found dead after suffering a suspected epileptic seizure, Hayley Bates, 16, of Staffordshire, who died in a car crash, and Jordan Cooper, 14, who was stabbed to death in Northumberland.

Magistrates also gave Duffy an Asbo, banning him from using social networking sites for five years.

See? Be careful what you say on-line ...

[FBM]

<deleted>

[Robert_S]

Oh FFS by the time you're 25 you need to start looking for dead adults for pages to troll.

What a sad little turd.

That said, it seems a little worrying to criminalize that sort of thing. It'll come to the point where you can only say nice things on the internet and he's helping it happen by providing justification for repressive laws. For that reason, I hope they hang him.

[FBM]

Oh FFS by the time you're 25 you need to start looking for dead adults for pages to troll.

What a sad little turd.

That said, it seems a little worrying to criminalize that sort of thing. It'll come to the point where you can only say nice things on the internet and he's helping it happen by providing justification for repressive laws. For that reason, I hope they hang him.

Reported.

[Seth]

Boy, am I glad I live in the United States, where the Propriety Police don't exist.

[Ian]

Boy, am I glad I live in the United States, where the Propriety Police don't exist.

I hope you weren't being sarcastic there, because you're right. One need look no further than Snyder v. Phelps to see how well unpopular speech is protected here.

[Pappa]

I think the law was created (and worded) to prosecute people who insult/harrass others over the phone, but has begun to be used to prosecute people for putting things online because the wording says something like "via a telecommunications network".

[mistermack]

I think the law was created (and worded) to prosecute people who insult/harrass others over the phone, but has begun to be used to prosecute people for putting things online because the wording says something like "via a telecommunications network".

I think it's fair enough, if you consider the effect on the relatives. The method of abusing people isn't all that relevant.
I have to wonder about this guy though. It sounds like there's more to it than just a bit of nastiness.
I've never been one to push psychology or psychiatry, but this guy has definitely got something wrong, and maybe prison is the best option. If I was the judge, I would have made an order for a mental assessment of him, because he might be en-route to much worse things.

It could be a compulsion like Tourettes, a compulsion to do something that's forbidden, beyond the pale.
If it's that bad at 25, he certainly needs some kind of help.

[Seth]

Boy, am I glad I live in the United States, where the Propriety Police don't exist.

I hope you weren't being sarcastic there, because you're right. One need look no further than Snyder v. Phelps to see how well unpopular speech is protected here.

Not even a tiny bit sarcastic. I'm REALLY FUCKING GLAD to be living in the United States, where "freedom of speech and expression" really means what it says.

The idea, for example, that you can be fined a thousand Loonies for making a disparaging comment about Indians in Canada, which happened to a pub owner, turns my stomach.

[mistermack]

Not even a tiny bit sarcastic. I'm REALLY FUCKING GLAD to be living in the United States, where "freedom of speech and expression" really means what it says.

The idea, for example, that you can be fined a thousand Loonies for making a disparaging comment about Indians in Canada, which happened to a pub owner, turns my stomach.

If it turns your stomach, it's a good sign.

I'm not surprised that you support the freedom to be loudly obnoxious and offensive.
It's very much in your interests.

[HomerJay]

Boy, am I glad I live in the United States,

Agreed.

I'm glad you live in the United states too.

[Tero]

If you look at naked girl pics, make sure they are well over 40. Or go the old route, buy a magazine.

[HomerJay]

It's prosecuted as a form of harassment, same as sending abusive letters to someone.

[Robert_S]

Boy, am I glad I live in the United States, where the Propriety Police don't exist.

I hope you weren't being sarcastic there, because you're right. One need look no further than Snyder v. Phelps to see how well unpopular speech is protected here.

I'd personally like to see the sort of harassment in the OP and Fred Phelps' shit be met with a quick and painful response, but it's the unintended consequences of politicians making laws about expression that hurts people's feelings that worries me.

[mistermack]

I'd personally like to see the sort of harassment in the OP and Fred Phelps' shit be met with a quick and painful response, but it's the unintended consequences of politicians making laws about expression that hurts people's feelings that worries me.

The thing is, it's not beyond the wit of man to differentiate between offensive harassment and posting an opinion. That's what courts are for, to make decisions. And the accused ALWAYS gets the benefit of the doubt.
British judges and juries are PERFECTLY capable of making the distinction, and the prosecution service have to bear that in mind before they even decide to prosecute.
It relies on the intelligence and common sense of all concerned so that the law does NOT become a weapon for silencing comment.
But I can see why that might be a problem in the US.