Internet Troll Jailed For Mocking Dead Teenagers!

[Benjamin]

Sean Duffy, 25, wrote abusive messages on Facebook tribute pages and even uploaded videos to YouTube taunting the youths and their families, as part of the practice known as “trolling”.

Among his victims was Natasha MacBryde, 15, who died when hit by a passenger train near her home in Bromsgrove, Worcs, on Feb 14. The next day Duffy posted comments including “I fell asleep on the track lolz” on the Facebook tribute page created by her brother James, 17. Five days after her death he created a YouTube video called “Tasha the Tank Engine” featuring Natasha’s face on a picture of Thomas the Tank Engine.

Duffy also created a Facebook page entitled “RIP Lauren Drew” after the
14 year-old died from an epilepsy attack at her home in Gloucester in January.
Duffy then posted images captioned “Lauren’s epifit” and “Lauren’s rotting body” and created a YouTube video with a picture of a coffin saying “Happy Mothers Day”. He signed off the video by writing: “I don’t know why you’re all crying down there, it’s soaking here in hell.” One of Lauren’s friends was unfairly blamed for the hate campaign and took a drug overdose.

Duffy also posted abusive messages online about Hayley Bates, 16, from Staffordshire, who was killed in a car crash last September, and Jordan Cooper, 14, from Washington, Tyne and Wear, who was stabbed to death by his uncle in February.

Duffy, from Reading, who did not know any of his victims, pleaded guilty to two counts of sending malicious communications relating to Natasha at an earlier hearing. Yesterday he asked for three other cases of Facebook trolling to be taken into consideration at Reading magistrates’ court. Paul Warren, the chairman of the bench, sentenced him to 18 weeks for each of the offences to run concurrently, the maximum sentence.

He said: “You have caused untold distress to already grieving friends and family. The offences are so serious only a custodial sentence could be justified.”

The court heard that Duffy, who is unemployed, suffered from Asperger’s syndrome and lived a “miserable existence” drinking alcohol alone at home.
Duffy was also given a five year Anti-Social Behaviour Order and was prohibited from accessing websites including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Bebo and Myspace.

Natasha killed herself after receiving a message from an anonymous bully on the social networking website Formspring. Her father, Andrew MacBryde, said: “He has now been exposed for what he is: a very twisted individual. I hope his sentencing shows other trollers that they are not anonymous and they will be caught if they continue their vile games.”
Mark Drew, Lauren’s father, said: “He caused devastation to us and other families, for so many people. It hurts but he sits behind a computer with no feeling.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8760504/Internet-troll-jailed-for-mocking-dead-teenagers-on-Facebook.html




What a vile, horrible man. I hope this scum bag has karma come hit him in the face.

[Visage]

That's just sick!

[Shaun]

I agree that he's completely sick and pathetic, but I don't think you should be jailed for saying things. Unless he made threats, there was nothing obligating the families and grieving friends of these teenagers to read his pathetic waffle - and it's just not a punishable offence IMO. You could feasibly jail Frankie Boyle for crap like this.

[lostalex]

As vile as he is, I don't think anyone should ever be jailed for words or expression. The man has every right to dishonor any person he likes. And every other person has the right to condemn him.

The words we least want to hear are evidence of the most free speech.

[Benjamin]

I agree that he's completely sick and pathetic, but I don't think you should be jailed for saying things. Unless he made threats, there was nothing obligating the families and grieving friends of these teenagers to read his pathetic waffle - and it's just not a punishable offence IMO. You could feasibly jail Frankie Boyle for crap like this.

Hmmm, his actions did cause the wrong person to be accused for one of them, a friend of one of the deceased, who then took an overdose because of it.

[lostalex]

Hmmm, his actions did cause the wrong person to be accused for one of them, a friend of one of the deceased, who then took an overdose because of it.

He didn't ACT though, He took no actions. He only spoke. It says more about the vulerable idiots that were so easily influenced. He made no actions, he just wrote words.

This is an example of people not taking accounatability for their own stupidity, so instead find a nearest scapegoat. This man harmed no one by his actions because he did not act, he only spoke. He held no office, or any special position of power. The man wrote words, and anyone who listened to him did so of their own free will.

[Benjamin]

He didn't ACT though, He took no actions. He only spoke. It says more about the vulerable idiots that were so easily influenced. He made no actions, he just wrote words.

This is an example of people not taking accounatability for their own stupidity, so instead find a nearest scapegoat. This man harmed no one by his actions because he did not act, he only spoke. He held no office, or any special position of power. The man wrote words, and anyone who listened to him did so of their own free will.

His words caused the wrong person to be accused for it and take an overdose.

[Shaun]

Where does it say that? :/

[Benjamin]

Where does it say that? :/

...Duffy also created a Facebook page entitled “RIP Lauren Drew” after the
14 year-old died from an epilepsy attack at her home in Gloucester in January.
Duffy then posted images captioned “Lauren’s epifit” and “Lauren’s rotting body” and created a YouTube video with a picture of a coffin saying “Happy Mothers Day”. He signed off the video by writing: “I don’t know why you’re all crying down there, it’s soaking here in hell.” One of Lauren’s friends was unfairly blamed for the hate campaign and took a drug overdose...

The bit in bold.

[Niamh.]

That's really disgusting. I agree with you Ben, I believe the punishment is justified. I don't believe it's free speech, I believe it's harassment. Similar to if someone was sending a person hate mail or making disgusting phone calls.

[Livia]

The Internet has been like the Wild West... lawless and unmoderated. I'm glad that he's been jailed, and let that be a warning to everyone who thinks "free speech" means allowing every half-baked thought that enters your head tumble out into a public forum without employing the clutch of tact.

[Conor]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech no matter how much I disagree with what's been written. Although I think this is a disgusting act, he should have only been banned from social networking (for life) as opposed to wasting yet another space in jail when the govt is already complaining of having way overpopulated prisons.

[Niamh.]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech no matter how much I disagree with what's been written. Although I think this is a disgusting act, he should have only been banned from social networking (for life) as opposed to wasting yet another space in jail when the govt is already complaining of having way overpopulated prisons.

It'd be the same as someone standing outside your place of work or house and saying disgusting and taunting things about your dead child. It's harassment plain and simple, dressing it up as Free Speech is making a mockery of our right to speak imo.

[Tom4784]

I'm with Shaun and Lostalex, the man's clearly a twisted ***** but we shouldn't waste money jailing him since no matter how you cut it at the end of the day it's free speech. I agree with the order to ban him from social networks but a prison sentence is too much. Giving out custodial sentences for things like this is a very slippery slope.

[Niamh.]

I'm with Shaun and Lostalex, the man's clearly a twisted ***** but we shouldn't waste money jailing him since no matter how you cut it at the end of the day it's free speech. I agree with the order to ban him from social networks but a prison sentence is too much. Giving out custodial sentences for things like this is a very slippery slope.

I don't think you can say it was free speech in one breath but say he should be banned from social networks in the other. If you think he should be punished in anyway, then surely he's done something other speak freely?

[Marc]

:o my god.

[Marc]

That is awful, and the fact that this man's actions led to somebodies suicide completely warrants jail. He's caused pain and heartache, and unless somebody can think of a better way of punishing him properly and ridding him from society then I say we stick to our current system. I mean I doubt he's been jailed just because he said those words, he's been to court and it's gone through the proper procedure and it's come out with the best result, good riddance.

[Marc]

... if it happened to any of us TiBB members then you'd want him jailed or, even more extreme, dead. Pain is pain.

[Pyramid*]

I'm with Shaun and Lostalex, the man's clearly a twisted ***** but we shouldn't waste money jailing him since no matter how you cut it at the end of the day it's free speech. I agree with the order to ban him from social networks but a prison sentence is too much. Giving out custodial sentences for things like this is a very slippery slope.

On the same premise: it's fine (for example), to go give verbals to your gay neighbour that he's a sick, perverted bent shot, who likes the brown and Aids was God's way of getting rid of types like him?

It's fine to go upto a disabled wheelchair bound person, give them **** and mock them by saying, "hey dude, if you don't like it....WALK away ya crippled spastic".

That's seems to be what you are saying.... free speech and all that?

At what point do you think 'far' is 'too far'.... or don't you?


*Serious note: the above are only examples of what people DO put up with in real life, and should not be taken as my personal opinion, by anyone reading*

[Livia]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech no matter how much I disagree with what's been written. Although I think this is a disgusting act, he should have only been banned from social networking (for life) as opposed to wasting yet another space in jail when the govt is already complaining of having way overpopulated prisons.

Incitement to riot... is that free speech? Calling a black person the 'N' word... is that freedom of speech?

It seems some people have latched on the the "Freedom of Speech" thing and imagine that it means you can say anything you want, at any time and to anyone. It doesn't.

[Shasown]

18 weeks, he will serve less than half that, whats the point on jailing him?

A Community payback order with some form of counselling and making amends in some way to his victims would probably do this saddo more good.

Its a case of Justice being seen to be done. He will come out from prison not having learnt from his mistakes, probably be back on social networking sites within hours of his release.

[Pyramid*]

18 weeks, he will serve less than half that, whats the point on jailing him?

A Community payback order with some form of counselling and making amends in some way to his victims would probably do this saddo more good.

Its a case of Justice being seen to be done. He will come out from prison not having learnt from his mistakes, probably be back on social netweorking sites within hours of his release.

If there is any justice in life: his pals in the slammer hopefully will give him a little taste of what it feels like; in every sense of the word. Might give him a different perspective.

Doubt it though.

[Niamh.]

18 weeks, he will serve less than half that, whats the point on jailing him?

A Community payback order with some form of counselling and making amends in some way to his victims would probably do this saddo more good.

Its a case of Justice being seen to be done. He will come out from prison not having learnt from his mistakes, probably be back on social netweorking sites within hours of his release.

Yeah, maybe so. You'd wonder what kind of a mind would do something like that though :/

[Tom4784]

I don't think you can say it was free speech in one breath but say he should be banned from social networks in the other. If you think he should be punished in anyway, then surely he's done something other speak freely?

I never said he shouldn't be punished, just that we shouldn't waste the resources on jailing him. Jailing people for what essentially is free speech is a bit different and a lot more dangerous then banning them from Facebook.

[Livia]

I never said he shouldn't be punished, just that we shouldn't waste the resources on jailing him. Jailing people for what essentially is free speech is a bit different and a lot more dangerous then banning them from Facebook.

It is NOT free speech.

I can't imagine where people are getting the idea that mocking someone who is dead, causing people untold grief and anxiety is that same thing as free speech? Is it not!

[Niamh.]

I never said he shouldn't be punished, just that we shouldn't waste the resources on jailing him. Jailing people for what essentially is free speech is a bit different and a lot more dangerous then banning them from Facebook.

I disagree, it was harassment, it caused someone to attempt suicide. I think labelling it free speech and not harassment is what would be dangerous.

[Pyramid*]

I never said he shouldn't be punished, just that we shouldn't waste the resources on jailing him. Jailing people for what essentially is free speech is a bit different and a lot more dangerous then banning them from Facebook.

Are you saying he should be punished then? If so. What for? You think what he has done is essentially free speech - and in your books, that is not wrong.

[Shasown]

Yeah, maybe so. You'd wonder what kind of a mind would do something like that though :/

One that needs counselling, advising and being made aware of the pain and suffering he has caused. A kicking or two wouldnt go amiss.

But banging him up for a few weeks where he will receive at most 6 hours a week of classes or sessions for 9 weeks is just a total joke.

[Livia]

One that needs counselling, advising and being made aware of the pain and suffering he has caused. A kicking or two wouldnt go amiss.

But banging him up for a few weeks where he will receive at most 6 hours a week of classes or sessions for 9 weeks is just a total joke.

It is a joke. He should have got much, much longer.

[GypsyGoth]

Does Asperger’s mean he has an inability to understand how others are feeling?

[Shasown]

It is a joke. He should have got much, much longer.

He got the maximum sentence available for the crime, just a shame the human rights people dont consider victims rights when they start their hand wringing and brow beating.

Should have been marched out the court to the nearest shopping centre and flogged before beginning his sentence.

God I miss those days.

[Shaun]

I disagree, it was harassment, it caused someone to attempt suicide. I think labelling it free speech and not harassment is what would be dangerous.

With all due respect I think that girl's an emotional idiot and I don't think should be factored into a legal case. Technically I could attempt to kill myself because we're having a debate :tongue: but would that mean you're responsible? I know that's a completely different scenario but I still struggle to see what "crime" he's committed.

As for the freedom of speech argument and where that ties in with a ban from social networking - Facebook and other sites have much too lenient and blinkered policies towards trolls and flaming at the moment. I've seen first-hand instances of racism and harrassment and tried to report the user for it and there's simply no option to do it. That is worrying. I imagine this is merely for a peace-of-mind thing on Facebook's perspective so they don't get a lot of emails about false claims of abuse, but at the same time you're shutting your eyes to everything that IS harmful.

So yeah, I'd argue that more legislation is needed for the conduct of online users. Perhaps a warning system where only repeat offenders are banned and/or jailed. But to jail someone with a very vague and nondescript legal system is the very reason we're having this confusion :tongue: I just think in cases like these there's too much emotional influence over people. Yes he's a dickhead. But a criminal? I'm unconvinced, merely because he didn't issue any direct threats.

[Tom4784]

'Freedom of speech is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'

People are going on at me like I'm defending his actions, I'm not but true free speech isn't all pretty and the idea within this topic that free speech is only okay as long as it doesn't offend anyone is ridiculous, that's not free speech and it always shocks me in these topics how quickly people are willing to throw away their rights so easily.

Freedom of speech isn't all sugar and rainbows but the societies that practice it benefit from it hugely. If we're so willing to throw it away to punish some moron with the brainpower of an amoeba then I'm not looking forward to what comes next. As I said before cases like this are a very slippery slope.

[Niamh.]

It's harassment, I can't believe you're calling it Free Speech. If someone was sending you hate mail, and standing outside the gate of your house eachday and verbally abusing you like this guy did online would you call that someone exercising their right to Free Speech? No. You'd call the police and say some weirdo is harassing you. @Shaun & Dezzy

[Shaun]

The difference being that you can block people on Facebook whereas you can't in real life.

[Pyramid*]

On the same premise: it's fine (for example), to go give verbals to your gay neighbour that he's a sick, perverted bent shot, who likes the brown and Aids was God's way of getting rid of types like him?

It's fine to go upto a disabled wheelchair bound person, give them **** and mock them by saying, "hey dude, if you don't like it....WALK away ya crippled spastic".

That's seems to be what you are saying.... free speech and all that?

At what point do you think 'far' is 'too far'.... or don't you?


*Serious note: the above are only examples of what people DO put up with in real life, and should not be taken as my personal opinion, by anyone reading*

'Freedom of speech is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'

People are going on at me like I'm defending his actions, I'm not but true free speech isn't all pretty and the idea within this topic that free speech is only okay as long as it doesn't offend anyone is ridiculous, that's not free speech and it always shocks me in these topics how quickly people are willing to throw away their rights so easily.

Freedom of speech isn't all sugar and rainbows but the societies that practice it benefit from it hugely. If we're so willing to throw it away to punish some moron with the brainpower of an amoeba then I'm not looking forward to what comes next. As I said before cases like this are a very slippery slope.


Care to address the post above and the points I made in that Dezzy?

[Pyramid*]

The difference being that you can block people on Facebook whereas you can't in real life.

You can't stop them from posting all sorts of crap wherever takes their fancy on the internet though....

and as for the real life comment: I'd say that these some of these same online bullies - my transfer that into real life.

Are you still of the same opinion then?.... free speech regardless of where it takes place?

[Niamh.]

The difference being that you can block people on Facebook whereas you can't in real life.

So it's ok for him to make a youtube video about that dead girl and post it for millions to watch? Some girl he never even knew? That's harassment.

[Tom4784]

Care to address the post above and the points I made in that Dezzy?

Online and Real life are two different things and completely incomparable. You can easily ignore stuff like that online while it's a completely different matter in real life. You can't hit an ignore button when you're walking down the street and if someone's up in your face like the examples you've given then they are obviously looking for it to escalate into something that is a punishable crime.

[InOne]

Does Asperger’s mean he has an inability to understand how others are feeling?

I thought about this too. I've seen a programme where they're sometimes unable to detect suffering and feel empathy

[Shasown]

Online and Real life are two different things and completely incomparable. You can easily ignore stuff like that online while it's a completely different matter in real life. You can't hit an ignore button when you're walking down the street and if someone's up in your face like the examples you've given then they are obviously looking for it to escalate into something that is a punishable crime.

You cant really ignore anything online when you are aware of it, you know its there. Others know its there and could refer to it. So saying you can ignore stuff online is simply ignoring the truth.

You can avoid things online just as you can in real life, however this is then placing restrictions on yourself, restrictions that shouldnt have to be applied.

[Niamh.]

You cant really ignore anything online when you are aware of it, you know its there. Others know its there and could refer to it. So saying you can ignore stuff online is simply ignoring the truth.

You can avoid things online just as you can in real life, however this is then placing restrictions on yourself, restrictions that shouldnt have to be applied.

Exactly.

[Shasown]

Does Asperger’s mean he has an inability to understand how others are feeling?

I thought about this too. I've seen a programme where they're sometimes unable to detect suffering and feel empathy
It depends on the extent to which he suffers, it was said in mitigation, to reduce any sentence, it doesnt actually need to be proven in court.

[Niamh.]

I thought about this too. I've seen a programme where they're sometimes unable to detect suffering and feel empathy

I always wondered why though, even if you don't feel empathy would you feel the need to cause hurt to people? He may not feel bad but does it make him feel good? What other motivation would he have?

[Pyramid*]

Online and Real life are two different things and completely incomparable. You can easily ignore stuff like that online while it's a completely different matter in real life. You can't hit an ignore button when you're walking down the street and if someone's up in your face like the examples you've given then they are obviously looking for it to escalate into something that is a punishable crime.

Really.

So it's acceptable then for one person to refer to a gay person online in the manner I described?

It's acceptable then for a person to refer to a wheelchair bound person online in the manner I described.

More pertinently, given that you are a moderator of this forum: therefore your own personal thoughts on free speech will impact upon your moderation of posts..... or 'lack of' perhaps? Given that your opinion here is very much that "You can easily ignore stuff like that online while it's a completely different matter in real life".

You have achieved the almost impossible..... I am not only shocked, but disgusted and almsot speechless.

[InOne]

I always wondered why though, even if you don't feel empathy would you feel the need to cause hurt to people? He may not feel bad but does it make him feel good? What other motivation would he have?

I'm not saying it was just because of that. Like he was clearly a bad seed as well.

[Tom4784]

You cant really ignore anything online when you are aware of it, you know its there. Others know its there and could refer to it. So saying you can ignore stuff online is simply ignoring the truth.

You can avoid things online just as you can in real life, however this is then placing restrictions on yourself, restrictions that shouldnt have to be applied.

But you don't have to engage in everything you see online just like you don't in real life. If someone is saying nasty things about you then WHY would you want to be emotionally affected by it when you don't have to be? It's not restricting yourself, it's not letting them win. People only troll for a response and your reply pretty much says to me to give them what they want. The way to deal with abuse is not to give them a response and that's a lot easier to do online then it is in real life, thus the two aren't comparable.

[Benjamin]

But you don't have to engage in everything you see online just like you don't in real life. If someone is saying nasty things about you then WHY would you want to be emotionally affected by it when you don't have to be? It's not restricting yourself, it's not letting them win. People only troll for a response and your reply pretty much says to me to give them what they want. The way to deal with abuse is not to give them a response and that's a lot easier to do online then it is in real life, thus the two aren't comparable.

Even if that abuse is about your dead son/daughter and mocking it on their memorial pages?

[Niamh.]

I'm not saying it was just because of that. Like he was clearly a bad seed as well.

Oh yeah i know I was curious is all, he may not feel empathy but he must feel the opposite of it. Do you know what I mean?

[Shasown]

But you don't have to engage in everything you see online just like you don't in real life. If someone is saying nasty things about you then WHY would you want to be emotionally affected by it when you don't have to be? It's not restricting yourself, it's not letting them win. People only troll for a response and your reply pretty much says to me to give them what they want. The way to deal with abuse is not to give them a response and that's a lot easier to do online then it is in real life, thus the two aren't comparable.

The same could be said by ignoring them especially online, you are letting them win. They have posted something offensive and by you simply ignoring it and leaving it online they have won.

However by reporting the offensive item/posting/thread then steps can be taken to ensure its moderated, and no that doesnt mean removed, but fairly moderated and dealt with in a proper manner.

Am quite surprised at your stance really given you are a moderator.

[InOne]

Oh yeah i know I was curious is all, he may not feel empathy but he must feel the opposite of it. Do you know what I mean?

So like sort of a sadist?

[Pyramid*]

But you don't have to engage in everything you see online just like you don't in real life. If someone is saying nasty things about you then WHY would you want to be emotionally affected by it when you don't have to be? It's not restricting yourself, it's not letting them win. People only troll for a response and your reply pretty much says to me to give them what they want. The way to deal with abuse is not to give them a response and that's a lot easier to do online then it is in real life, thus the two aren't comparable.


Therefore again: you are saying it's perfectly fine for people to be insulted, abused and harassed online - your answer is to just ignore it.

My answer would be: boot such a person off a forum. Your answer is let them say what they want, regardless.

I'm stunned. (and I have to be honest and consider the meaning of the word 'troll').

[GypsyGoth]

Facebook doesn't allow free speech, I just looked at their rules

You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

[Shasown]

But you don't have to engage in everything you see online just like you don't in real life. If someone is saying nasty things about you then WHY would you want to be emotionally affected by it when you don't have to be? It's not restricting yourself, it's not letting them win. People only troll for a response and your reply pretty much says to me to give them what they want. The way to deal with abuse is not to give them a response and that's a lot easier to do online then it is in real life, thus the two aren't comparable.

So it would be a waste of time reporting any post on this forum that offended me if you were the only Mod online at that time?

Have you since being made mod ever infracted, warned or even banned anyone for something offensive?

You obviously dont have to answer that question above. I can just browse the ban list ;)

[Niamh.]

So like sort of a sadist?

Yeah, I suppose so, I mean not feeling anything isn't motivation to something like this, feeling good at others misery is

[Tom4784]

Really.

So it's acceptable then for one person to refer to a gay person online in the manner I described?

It's acceptable then for a person to refer to a wheelchair bound person online in the manner I described.

More pertinently, given that you are a moderator of this forum: therefore your own personal thoughts on free speech will impact upon your moderation of posts..... or 'lack of' perhaps? Given that your opinion here is very much that "You can easily ignore stuff like that online while it's a completely different matter in real life".

You have achieved the almost impossible..... I am not only shocked, but disgusted and almsot speechless.

You're so determined to make a personal response that you completely missed the point. I never said that it's okay to abuse someone online just that it's easier to deal with then in it is real life as a user can be ignored, blocked and banned ETC. That's a fact, a lot of sites put measures in place to deal with abuse. Such measures don't exist in real life where abuse can and often will escalate into something more.

[Marc]

C'mon guys stick to the point. Try not to make personal digs

[Tom4784]

So it would be a waste of time reporting any post on this forum that offended me if you were the only Mod online at that time?

Have you since being made mod ever infracted, warned or even banned anyone for something offensive?

You obviously dont have to answer that question above.

Reporting a post would come under the same umbrella as my ignoring argument, it's a passive response instead of an active one so that the troll isn't getting the reaction they want.

[Pyramid*]

So it would be a waste of time reporting any post on this forum that offended me if you were the only Mod online at that time?

Have you since being made mod ever infracted, warned or even banned anyone for something offensive?

You obviously dont have to answer that question above.

It does beg the question: what point is there in reporting posts - ie; if the report is being attended to be a moderator who thinks there is nothing wrong with insulting and being abusive.


As for the question you asked above: I can categorically confirm that has happened to me on a personal level and to no small amount either.

[Shasown]

Reporting a post would come under the same umbrella as my ignoring argument, it's a passive response instead of an active one so that the troll isn't getting the reaction they want.

Yes but in you dealing with the report, you are then effectively taking over the job of the CPS in this case.

You have to decide about the post, whether it follows site rules, whether the person reporting has a genuine greivance or point. But most of all whether the poster of the offending post should in some way be dealt with.

If this is the case and you genuinely believe what you have already stated about free speech, then by following your beliefs, you would simply leave the post and tell the reporter to ignore the post/thread/poster

[Pyramid*]

C'mon guys stick to the point. Try not to make personal digs

TBF: it's a pretty shocking admission for a moderator to state - and continually. It has only become 'personal' because Dezzy has been so very open about his feeling on the matter - that online insults and abuse are acceptable.

it would have no bearing at all if those comments were from a general member, but I'm sure you can see why there is the reaction there is: and in raising 'alarm bells'.

:conf:

[Pyramid*]

You're so determined to make a personal response that you completely missed the point. I never said that it's okay to abuse someone online just that it's easier to deal with then in it is real life as a user can be ignored, blocked and banned ETC. That's a fact, a lot of sites put measures in place to deal with abuse. Such measures don't exist in real life where abuse can and often will escalate into something more.


You brought your personal stance on the matter onto the forum. Not I.

I'm so determined?? I see you have refused blank to address the two examples that I gave you - it is clear that you probably don't agree that even online, those example are acceptable otherwise you would have said so, but you avoided doing that: I'm sure if someone had to say that to you personally, they'd get infracted. In fact. I know they would.

[Pyramid*]

Facebook doesn't allow free speech, I just looked at their rules



Which takes us right back to the points many others have stated: the terminology 'Free speech', means within the realms of accepability, reasonability and respecting another individual.

it doesnt mean carte blanche to go around saying whatever about anyone you feel you want to annoy, harrass, be rude to, insult or defame.

[Tom4784]

Yes but in you dealing with the report, you are then effectively taking over the job of the CPS in this case.

You have to decide about the post, whether it follows site rules, whether the person reporting has a genuine greivance or point. But most of all whether the poster of the offending post should in some way be dealt with.

If this is the case and you genuinely believe what you have already stated about free speech, then by following your beliefs, you would simply leave the post and tell the reporter to ignore the post/thread/poster

I believe that free speech shouldn't be punishable by law, the law and the rules of an informal website such as this are two different things and it's ridiculous to compare them. Banning someone is in no way comparable to sending them to prison thus I don't see the point in this continued attack on my mod status.

[Shasown]

I believe that free speech shouldn't be punishable by law, the law and the rules of an informal website such as this are two different things and it's ridiculous to compare them. Banning someone is in no way comparable to sending them to prison thus I don't see the point in this continued attack on my mod status.

Thats the problem, unfortunately for Mr Duffy thats the law of the land. Just as he has a right to free speech

People have a right not to be insulted.
People have a right not to be harrassed.
People have a right not to be bullied.

And that is what the courts are for to decide where one person rights and freedoms infringe on anothers.

In this particular case he didnt just do that to one person, if he had he would have probably just received a caution or an ASBO. Nor in any of the cases in court did he only do it once, it was systematic harrassment or offensive behaviour over a period of time.

He done it to several people, 5 cases of it were brought to the attention of the court, how many others were detected or investigated? How many others did he manage to keep concealed?

[Livia]

I find it interesting that there are so many people weeping and wailing for this man - and I use the term in the loosest possible sense. Everyone's quacking on about freedom of speech without the slightest notion what it means. He was found guilty, in a court of law. I guess the people who tried him and the person who sentenced him know a little bit more about the law than most people on here.

Also, interesting to see a moderator banging on about freedom of speech on a moderated board.

[Tom4784]

Thats the problem, unfortunately for Mr Duffy thats the law of the land.

People have a right not to be insulted
People have a right not to be harrassed
People have a right not to be bullied.

In this particular case he didnt just do that to one person, if he had he would have probably just received a caution or an ASBO. Nor in any of the cases in court did he only do it once, it was systematic harrassment or offensive behaviour over a period of time.

He done it to several people, 5 cases of it were brought to the attention of the court, how many others were detected or investigated? How many others did he manage to kepp concealed?

A custodial sentence is ridiculous no matter how you cut it, it's a drain on resources when Facebook should have just banned him and ended the matter there.

[Pyramid*]

I believe that free speech shouldn't be punishable by law, the law and the rules of an informal website such as this are two different things and it's ridiculous to compare them. Banning someone is in no way comparable to sending them to prison thus I don't see the point in this continued attack on my mod status.

I don't see anyone attacking Dezzy. What I do say is some very serious, personal opinion made by you yourself on the subject matter, which is what is being addressed - your opinon, not you personally. By coincedence you happen to be a moderator of an online form. By default it is natural for people therefore to question: would reports of such a nature would not necessarily be dealt with by you (in accordance with that forums online rules) because you feel that what one person regards as an insult, you wouldn't.


Now you appear to be saying: Freedom of Speech should not be punishable by law (yet you mentioned earlier I never said he shouldn't be punished,. If you think by law it should not be punishable: what do you think he did that was wrong enough for you to say 'he shouldnt be punished'

[Shasown]

A custodial sentence is ridiculous no matter how you cut it, it's a drain on resources when Facebook should have just banned him and ended the matter there.

He gets a new email address and resets his IP, changes ISP, whatever, he is back online and can do the same again any time he likes.

Not all the ins and outs of evidence presented to the court has been published. Therefore he may have slready sidestepped bans imposed.

Eventually someone using the anonymity of the internet to repeatedly harass and offend others has to be held accountable and if need be punished.

[Pyramid*]

A custodial sentence is ridiculous no matter how you cut it, it's a drain on resources when Facebook should have just banned him and ended the matter there.


You have stated over and over again: that such people should be ignored, that it has no impact in real life.

Why should FB just ban him then, given your repeated stance on the position as far as online is concerned.

The point was raised with regards to that same person not stopping at FB - but uploading youtube clips and mocking, insulting, being abusive there. It's only another example of a million that can be given.

[Pyramid*]

Reporting a post would come under the same umbrella as my ignoring argument, it's a passive response instead of an active one so that the troll isn't getting the reaction they want.

in the very same way that you have clearly ignored several very pertinent examples of online abuse, that have been put to you?

Actully, now I read your reply again: I'd say you were calling others who are replying to you here on this thread, trolls.

I'd consider that pretty much bordering on insulting behaviour.

[Tom4784]

I find it interesting that there are so many people weeping and wailing for this man - and I use the term in the loosest possible sense. Everyone's quacking on about freedom of speech without the slightest notion what it means. He was found guilty, in a court of law. I guess the people who tried him and the person who sentenced him know a little bit more about the law than most people on here.

Also, interesting to see a moderator banging on about freedom of speech on a moderated board.

I'm not weeping for him but good job in trying to make out them I'm some sort of sympathiser instead of trying to tackle my points head on.

The internet as a whole is unmoderated and that's how it should stay as it's the one place, whether for good or bad, allows people to truly say what they think. Of course some places have rules but it's your choice to follow them or not, if you get banned from Tibb it won't affect your real life, you could just join another forum with rules you agree with or even create your own et cetera. I adhere to the rules of this forum and enforce them because I like it here and like I mentioned before my views on free speech don't really come into play here since it's just a light hearted website that holds no impact on any of our lives.

I don't believe someone should be jailed for what this man did, as despicable as he is, what he said was just words and I don't think someone should be sent to prison unless they turn their words into criminal actions.

[Shasown]

I'm not weeping for him but good job in trying to make out them I'm some sort of sympathiser instead of trying to tackle my points head on.

The internet as a whole is unmoderated and that's how it should stay as it's the one place, whether for good or bad, allows people to truly say what they think. Of course some places have rules but it's your choice to follow them or not, if you get banned from Tibb it won't affect your real life, you could just join another forum with rules you agree with or even create your own et cetera. I adhere to the rules of this forum and enforce them because I like it here and like I mentioned before my views on free speech don't really come into play here since it's just a light hearted website that holds no impact on any of our lives.

I don't believe someone should be jailed for what this man did, as despicable as he is, what he said was just words and I don't think someone should be sent to prison unless they turn their words into criminal actions.

Thats the problem Dezzy it is a crime thats why he was prosecuted, the court didnt just decide he had upset he few people.

They decided what he had done had broken a law set into stature by Parliament.

He set out on a course to harrass, annoy and offend others. Using the internet as his means of harrassment.

Its against the law of the land.

It could have been dealt with in the past under breach of the peace, however older laws didnt have a capacity to deal with online harrassment.

He caused fear or alarm (offense and harrassment).

Not only in one case but in numerous cases, to numerous people, not once though on a regular basis.


As for being sent to prison for just words.

Go get really drunk, then late one saturday night at chucking out time find a young black copper who is at the end of a long shift. Annoy him and then when he tells you to go home give him a bit of lip, you know as close as you like to being but not quite being racist. After all its just words.

Dont just do it the once though, when you get released do it again, and then again and again.

[Pyramid*]

I'm not weeping for him but good job in trying to make out them I'm some sort of sympathiser instead of trying to tackle my points head on.

The internet as a whole is unmoderated and that's how it should stay as it's the one place, whether for good or bad, allows people to truly say what they think. Of course some places have rules but it's your choice to follow them or not, if you get banned from Tibb it won't affect your real life, you could just join another forum with rules you agree with or even create your own et cetera. I adhere to the rules of this forum and enforce them because I like it here and like I mentioned before my views on free speech don't really come into play here since it's just a light hearted website that holds no impact on any of our lives.

I don't believe someone should be jailed for what this man did, as despicable as he is, what he said was just words and I don't think someone should be sent to prison unless they turn their words into criminal actions.


Aggressive passive stance by chance?

Does insulting and being abusive to other members count as adhering to the rules Dezzy.....?

[Conor]

It'd be the same as someone standing outside your place of work or house and saying disgusting and taunting things about your dead child. It's harassment plain and simple, dressing it up as Free Speech is making a mockery of our right to speak imo.

As I said, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It doesn't matter how horrible or insulting it is that was said.

Incitement to riot... is that free speech? Calling a black person the 'N' word... is that freedom of speech?

Yes, both those examples are freedom of speech- however you've purposely picked extreme examples.

It seems some people have latched on the the "Freedom of Speech" thing and imagine that it means you can say anything you want, at any time and to anyone.

But that is exactly what freedom of speech means in it's purest form. There will always be controversy over the matter. There is no black and white.

[Tom4784]

Aggressive passive stance by chance?

Does insulting and being abusive to other members count as adhering to the rules Dezzy.....?

I'm not lowering myself to your level Pyramid, instead of trying to rile me up into a confrontation you should report anything you have a problem with and the other mods will look at it.

[Tom4784]

Thats the problem, unfortunately for Mr Duffy thats the law of the land. Just as he has a right to free speech

People have a right not to be insulted.
People have a right not to be harrassed.
People have a right not to be bullied.

And that is what the courts are for to decide where one person rights and freedoms infringe on anothers.

In this particular case he didnt just do that to one person, if he had he would have probably just received a caution or an ASBO. Nor in any of the cases in court did he only do it once, it was systematic harrassment or offensive behaviour over a period of time.

He done it to several people, 5 cases of it were brought to the attention of the court, how many others were detected or investigated? How many others did he manage to keep concealed?

Fair points but I don't think we'll ever agree on it, I just think it's a waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

[Niamh.]

Aggressive passive stance by chance?

Does insulting and being abusive to other members count as adhering to the rules Dezzy.....?

Stick to the topic and stop getting personal with Dezzy please Pyramid. Your last few posts seem to be an attack on him rather than debating the topic of the thread.

[Niamh.]

As I said, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It doesn't matter how horrible or insulting it is that was said.



Yes, both those examples are freedom of speech- however you've purposely picked extreme examples.



But that is exactly what freedom of speech means in it's purest form. There will always be controversy over the matter. There is no black and white.

When freedom of Speech turns into harassment it then becomes illegal though as was the case here.

[Livia]

As I said, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It doesn't matter how horrible or insulting it is that was said.



Yes, both those examples are freedom of speech- however you've purposely picked extreme examples.



But that is exactly what freedom of speech means in it's purest form. There will always be controversy over the matter. There is no black and white.

Oh God, if only I had had access to your insightful knowledge when I was taking my law degree I would have been able to tell the lecturers how wrong they were.

[Shasown]

Fair points but I don't think we'll ever agree on it, I just think it's a waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

What is the waste of money though?

The prosecution? No I think the prosecution is right, it helps to show people what the actual relevant law is, it educates them to behaviour that wont be tolerated, it gives back a sense of protection to those suffering harrassment etc, new hope if you like.

The punishment? Yes will agree with your point there, I think 360hours+ on a community payback order in addition to some sort of properly supervised counsilling sessions etc would have been more beneficial to him. But the punishment is down to the bench to decide. Dont forget though before a custodial sentence is imposed there will have been input from social workers, psychiatrists and other relevant professionals.

[Pyramid*]

Stick to the topic and stop getting personal with Dezzy please Pyramid. Your last few posts seem to be an attack on him rather than debating the topic of the thread.

It is very difficult not to correlate the very clear thoughts as put over by Dezzy himself (ie: his opinion) on the subject, and to ignore such passion on his part, given Dezzy's position - it's the conflict in what is being said vs what happens in actual fact - it's the disparity I've been raising / questioning : rather than an attack on Dezzy as a person.

Although I have to say: I'm not the only one who has addressed this same conflict, perhaps the manner in which I've done has been harsher than intended.

I'm happy to accept that if that is the way I personally coming over, it is the disparity I have been questioning and bemused by: not the person as an individual.

[Niamh.]

It is very difficult not to correlate the very clear thoughts as put over by Dezzy himself (ie: his opinion) on the subject, and to ignore such passion on his part, given Dezzy's position - it's the conflict in what is being said vs what happens in actual fact - it's the disparity I've been raising / questioning : rather than an attack on Dezzy as a person.

Although I have to say: I'm not the only one who has addressed this same conflict, perhaps the manner in which I've done has been harsher than intended.

I'm happy to accept that if that is the way I personally coming over, it is the disparity I have been questioning and bemused by: not the person as an individual.

Ok well, Dezzy as a moderator is following the rules of this site, that has nothing to do with his own views on this subject, so we'll leave it at that.

[Tom4784]

What is the waste of money though?

The prosecution? No I think the prosecution is right, it helps to show people what the actual relevant law is, it educates them to behaviour that wont be tolerated, it gives back a sense of protection to those suffering harrassment etc, new hope if you like.

The punishment? Yes will agree with your point there, I think 360hours+ on a community payback order in addition to some sort of properly supervised counsilling sessions etc would have been more beneficial to him. But the punishment is down to the bench to decide. Dont forget though before a custodial sentence is imposed there will have been input from social workers, psychiatrists and other relevant professionals.

The prison sentence really, it costs a lot to keep someone in custody and I generally think that custodial sentences shouldn't be handed out if they're only gonna be for a few weeks since it's kind of pointless.

[Shasown]

The prison sentence really, it costs a lot to keep someone in custody and I generally think that custodial sentences shouldn't be handed out if they're only gonna be for a few weeks since it's kind of pointless.

Magistrates dont hand out bird unless there is no alternative, generally speaking, they are kind of pressured to avoid it.

Previous convictions etc will have been taken into account as will have social work and psychiatric reports, medical reports and a wide range of other things.

It may have been decided because of his lack of remorse having been found guilty that a prison sentence was the only effective way of dealing with him.

There is a few weeks at least between the end of the trial and the sentencing hearing. This allows the court to have reports prepeared to advise suitability of sentencing and for the defence to prepare statements of mitigation and also reports for reducing sentences.

[Pyramid*]

The prison sentence really, it costs a lot to keep someone in custody and I generally think that custodial sentences shouldn't be handed out if they're only gonna be for a few weeks since it's kind of pointless.

It could be appealed against.... by the CPS. His sentence could increase.

A short sharp spell in amongst some real proper hard men, might knock some sense into him. (in every sense of the word)

Now that it has been publicised - people in 'real life' will know what he is capable of - that would not happen necessarily if he was some anonymous FB persona. Therefore the impact on him, short sentence or not: will be far greater than simply 'banning' him from Facebook.

[Shasown]

It could be appealed against.... by the CPS. His sentence could increase.

A short sharp spell in amongst some real proper hard men, might knock some sense into him. (in every sense of the word)

Now that it has been publicised - people in 'real life' will know what he is capable of - that would not happen necessarily if he was some anonymous FB persona. Therefore the impact on him, short sentence or not: will be far greater than simply 'banning' him from Facebook.

Nah he got the maximum sentences for the crime he was on trial for, they wouldnt ask for an increase. They cant really.

Only grounds he could have sentenced increased was if they decided to go for a different charge but again in the scheme of things that would only be done if they found some point of law to give them the opportunity. As much chance of that as I have of having the christmas number one this year.

[James]

The trouble with the Internet / social media / online communities etc. is there's too many people thinking they can post things without ever having to be held responsible for them. (Incidentally, I think that was a major contributing factor to the recent riots as well).

Banning from Facebook and using ignore facilities isn't very effective because users just get around it by creating new identities. It needs stronger action to show that actions like this have consequences.

[Iceman]

The trouble with the Internet / social media / online communities etc. is there's too many people thinking they can post things without ever having to be held responsible for them. (Incidentally, I think that was a major contributing factor to the recent riots as well).

Banning from Facebook and using ignore facilities isn't very effective because users just get around it by creating new identities. It needs stronger action to show that actions like this have consequences.

You got the list of trolls I PM'd you? :tongue:

[Niamh.]

The trouble with the Internet / social media / online communities etc. is there's too many people thinking they can post things without ever having to be held responsible for them. (Incidentally, I think that was a major contributing factor to the recent riots as well).

Banning from Facebook and using ignore facilities isn't very effective because users just get around it by creating new identities. It needs stronger action to show that actions like this have consequences.

Exactly James.

[Pyramid*]

Nah he got the maximum sentences for the crime he was on trial for, they wouldnt ask for an increase. They cant really.

Only grounds he could have sentenced increased was if they decided to go for a different charge but again in the scheme of things that would only be done if they found some point of law to give them the opportunity. As much chance of that as I have of having the christmas number one this year.


Ah right. :(

Here's hoping there may be some pros to the lenient sentence then, when he meets the cons.

The trouble with the Internet / social media / online communities etc. is there's too many people thinking they can post things without ever having to be held responsible for them. (Incidentally, I think that was a major contributing factor to the recent riots as well).

Banning from Facebook and using ignore facilities isn't very effective because users just get around it by creating new identities. It needs stronger action to show that actions like this have consequences.

Agree, and esp regarding the recent riots. (that seems so 'long ago' now. Weird).

You got the list of trolls I PM'd you? :tongue:

:nono: Bloody trouble maker. ;) *jokes!!!!*

[Pyramid*]

I'm not lowering myself to your level Pyramid, instead of trying to rile me up into a confrontation you should report anything you have a problem with and the other mods will look at it.

I didn't see this comment earlier.

[Shasown]

You got the list of trolls I PM'd you? :tongue:

Well I hope you didnt ignore me.

[▲¯\_(ツ)_/¯▲]

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Believe me, I despise this guy.

[Shasown]

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Believe me, I despise this guy.

PMSL, post of the thread.

[Grimnir]

i thought asperger's syndrome was a mental illness

so should he not be sent hospital rather than jail? :shrug:

[Shasown]

i thought asperger's syndrome was a mental illness

so should he not be sent hospital rather than jail? :shrug:

Its not a mental Illness, its a condition and covers a wide spectrum from very mild through to quite serious states.

Some psychologists would argue that everyone has Aspergers or Autism to some extent inbuilt within their psyche. So therefore no one should go to prison following your logic.

[lostalex]

It is NOT free speech.

I can't imagine where people are getting the idea that mocking someone who is dead, causing people untold grief and anxiety is that same thing as free speech? Is it not!

It is free speech though. He did nothing but write words. To claim that someone's speech is responsible for other people's actions, is to take the responsibility from the people who ACTUALLY acted and did wrong.

People should be judged by what they DO, not by what they say or write.

the US first amendment get's it right. You may say or write whatever you like. Everyone will be held to account for their own ACTIONS, you cannot blame someone's actions on another person for saying or writing something.

Words are just words. Words are NOT violent. Actions are violent. and anyone who acts violently should be punished.

No one should be punished for WORDS.

[Livia]

It is free speech though. He did nothing but write words. To claim that someone's speech is responsible for other people's actions, is to take the responsibility from the people who ACTUALLY acted and did wrong.

People should be judged by what they DO, not by what they say or write.

the US first amendment get's it right. You may say or write whatever you like. Everyone will be held to account for their own ACTIONS, you cannot blame someone's actions on another person for saying or writing something.

Words are just words. Words are NOT violent. Actions are violent. and anyone who acts violently should be punished.

No one should be punished for WORDS.

Do me a favour... walk into your local airport and say you support Al Qaida's right to bomb the west. Claim it's free speech. See how far it gets you.

[lostalex]

Do me a favour... walk into your local airport and say you support Al Qaida's right to bomb the west. Claim it's free speech. See how far it gets you.

Why would i do that? and if I did do it, do you think I should go to jail for it?