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

[Bella Fortuna]

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.

So how come no one's come after Gawd, then?

[Robert_S]

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.

We default towards free speech, but everywhere in the world there are people prone to fits of righteousness leading to poorly conceived laws.

[mistermack]

We default towards free speech, but everywhere in the world there are people prone to fits of righteousness leading to poorly conceived laws.

Yeh but that's a crap default.
You're favouring one freedom against another.
One persons free speech can limit another persons freedom to go about their lives without harassment.
It's impossible to maximise freedom for both.
As far as I'm concerned, you have to limit free speech, when it starts to become unreasonable abuse and harassment. And in the US you DO. You just draw the line in a slightly different place, that's all.

You draw it in the wrong place, in loyalty to a document that isn't relevant to today's USA. Things have changed since the war of independence.

[MrJonno]

Unlimited anything is absurd especially 'freedoms', everything is a balance of one persons freedom against anothers. Only Sith/Libertarians deal in absolutes

[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.

So how come no one's come after Gawd, then?

Because he's anonymous, of course. I strongly suspect that if his real name and location were known, it wouldn't be long before the Propriety Police would show up at his door.

[Seth]

We default towards free speech, but everywhere in the world there are people prone to fits of righteousness leading to poorly conceived laws.

Yeh but that's a crap default.
You're favouring one freedom against another.
One persons free speech can limit another persons freedom to go about their lives without harassment.

That depends on what you consider "harassment." We actually have two systems here; the criminal and the civil. What you can say and not be criminally charged is pretty much unlimited. The standard "you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater" constraint applies, as does inciting someone, or some group to immediate violence, but merely posting insulting comments on a social media site doesn't meet the standard for speech which provokes and "imminent breach of the peace."

But then there's the civil tort system, under which this guy can be sued for things like defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the parents of the person so defamed.

It's impossible to maximise freedom for both.

Of course it is, but it's not appropriate to suppress speech generally, through a criminal rule, when the proper way to deal with such things is individually, as they occur, in the civil court system where damages are awarded to the true victims.

This is where Canada's law fails. It criminalizes speech that "disparages" an ethnic group without requiring that some actual individual show that they were substantially damaged by the speech. While it sounds at first blush like a good thing to make a criminal law prohibiting people from disparaging ethnic groups because of the potential for civil unrest, it's actually a very bad thing because it allows groups to suppress what might be legitimate criticism of their activities or beliefs, which may shelter bad behavior from public discussion.

It's better to require that a victim show particularized actual damage to reputation or some unreasonable personal attack by another as cause for seeking judicial redress. To generalize it gives every member of a group the ability to suppress the free speech and expression of others even if they are merely annoyed by the expression. That's too much interference by government, and it has substantial negative consequences for society.

As far as I'm concerned, you have to limit free speech, when it starts to become unreasonable abuse and harassment. And in the US you DO. You just draw the line in a slightly different place, that's all.

You draw it in the wrong place, in loyalty to a document that isn't relevant to today's USA. Things have changed since the war of independence.[/quote]

[Seth]

Unlimited anything is absurd especially 'freedoms', everything is a balance of one persons freedom against anothers. Only Sith/Libertarians deal in absolutes

Liar.

[MrJonno]

Unlimited anything is absurd especially 'freedoms', everything is a balance of one persons freedom against anothers. Only Sith/Libertarians deal in absolutes

Liar.

Along with Americans being the most generous charity givers in the world

[Cunt]

This is where Canada's law fails. It criminalizes speech that "disparages" an ethnic group without requiring that some actual individual show that they were substantially damaged by the speech. While it sounds at first blush like a good thing to make a criminal law prohibiting people from disparaging ethnic groups because of the potential for civil unrest, it's actually a very bad thing because it allows groups to suppress what might be legitimate criticism of their activities or beliefs, which may shelter bad behavior from public discussion.

I agree that Canadian law has failed here. Listen to what this rabid free-speaker says about the origins, and implementation of that law.

[Posse Comitatus]

Seems to be a question more of harassment than online freedoms. Wasn't really trolling so much as a concerted campaign of abuse.

[Feck]

Task Failed at step five ... it's like libertarian logic .

[Seth]

Unlimited anything is absurd especially 'freedoms', everything is a balance of one persons freedom against anothers. Only Sith/Libertarians deal in absolutes

Liar.

Along with Americans being the most generous charity givers in the world

They are, your own sources proved it. You lie.

[mistermack]

Seth, what's wrong with your reply to my post is that you seem to be saying that the option of going to civil courts if you are harassed and maligned is good enough.

Well, as far as I'm concerned it's not.
That means that only the wealthy are protected. Anybody else is fair game, and can be harassed for fun by people like the one that this thread is about.

I prefer it that the state takes a hand, and protects people in the worst cases such as this.
I can't see these people who were targeted getting much protection from the civil courts. They were just ordinary families, not particularly wealthy.

[Seth]

Seth, what's wrong with your reply to my post is that you seem to be saying that the option of going to civil courts if you are harassed and maligned is good enough.

Depends on what you mean by "harassed." "Harassment" has a specific criminal meaning that goes beyond mere offensive speech. In Colorado, for example, criminal harassment is defined as:

18-9-111. Harassment.

(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him to physical contact; or

(b) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person; or

(c) Follows a person in or about a public place; or

(d) Repealed.

(e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telephone network, data network, text message, instant message, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system that is obscene; or

(f) Makes a telephone call or causes a telephone to ring repeatedly, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate conversation; or

(g) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another's home or private residence or other private property; or

(h) Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges, or makes communications in offensively coarse language to, another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.

(1.5) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "obscene" means a patently offensive description of ultimate sexual acts or solicitation to commit ultimate sexual acts, whether or not said ultimate sexual acts are normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, or excretory functions.

(2) Harassment pursuant to subsection (1) of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor; except that harassment is a class 1 misdemeanor if the offender commits harassment pursuant to subsection (1) of this section with the intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin.

(3) Any act prohibited by paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section may be deemed to have occurred or to have been committed at the place at which the telephone call, electronic mail, or other electronic communication was either made or received.

(4) to (6) Repealed.

Annotation: Gravamen of this offense is the thrusting of an offensive and unwanted communication on one who is unable to ignore it. People v. Weeks, 197 Colo. 175, 591 P.2d 91 (1979).

The highlighted section would be what applies here. The question before a court would be was the communication "intended to harass."

The article says:

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.

Was this "intended to harass?"

First, we have to look at the common definition of "harass," which is variously:

"To irritate or torment persistently; to annoy persistently; to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct; to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute."

The legal definition is variously:

"The act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands."
or;
"Harassment is ... generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety."

Most of the definitions define repeated offensive conduct and generally not a single episode. Does two instances meet that standard?

Was calling her a "slut" intended to harass, or merely slanderous/libelous, which is a civil tort wrong? Could she have been a slut? If so, truth would be an absolute defense against libel/slander. Was a depiction of her face on a train "intended to harass" or was it an editorial comment on the manner of her death?

It would be a tough call for an American jury to call what he did criminal harassment, but it would likely be an easy tort claim for the parents for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

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.

This is particularly alarming. In American courts, no act not charged as a crime for which he was duly convicted may be so much as PRESENTED to the court, because it's prejudicial. "Trolling" is not a crime, even in the UK, although this ruling seems to suggest it is now.

Well, as far as I'm concerned it's not.

Your opinion is noted.

That means that only the wealthy are protected. Anybody else is fair game, and can be harassed for fun by people like the one that this thread is about.

The issue is whether it's "harassment" or not. Just because you're not rich does not mean that the law can criminalize behavior to protect you. The danger of criminalizing offensive speech is that it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish between what's criminal and what's merely disapproved of by the government or courts, and it provides too much latitude for the government to use the courts to suppress unpopular speech by using the criminal laws.

If a citizen of the UK posts a comment highly critical of some member of the Parliament or some candidate, now that candidate can claim it's criminal harassment because if it's intended to annoy someone (the politician/candidate), it's a crime, even if the claim happens to be true. Surely that's not what you support, is it?

I prefer it that the state takes a hand, and protects people in the worst cases such as this.

Problem is, give the courts/government the power to protect people using the criminal laws in this manner and it very soon results in the widespread suppression of free political and social expression, to the detriment of the rights of the people to speak out against their government. That's precisely why we tolerate offensive speech to such a great degree.

I can't see these people who were targeted getting much protection from the civil courts. They were just ordinary families, not particularly wealthy.

Plenty of hungry lawyers out there willing to take cases on contingency.

[mistermack]

In the English system, if you get convicted of a crime such as this, you can ASK for other similar cases to be taken into consideration, prior to sentencing. That's obviously what happened here. They can't be taken into account against your wishes. That would be ridiculous.
If you don't, there's every chance that you can be arrested leaving prison, and charged with the second offence. And again with the third.
It's a chance to wipe the slate, and many take it.
I'm surprised you don't have it.

Problem is, give the courts/government the power to protect people using the criminal laws in this manner and it very soon results in the widespread suppression of free political and social expression, to the detriment of the rights of the people to speak out against their government. That's precisely why we tolerate offensive speech to such a great degree.

That's the theory. It doesn't happen here in Britain, in practice.
Because of the reasons I laid out.
The courts and the prosecution service are there to make sure it doesn't happen.
And if it did, the law can be amended at any time.
The courts and the legislature take free speech seriously, and won't see the law abused.
It's just a case of where the line is drawn.