[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/ukne...-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.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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.

[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.

[Shaun]

Where does it say that? :/

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Conor]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Conor

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]

Originally Posted by Conor

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.

[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.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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!

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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 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 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.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.