• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

4 months for "Trolling"

Only 4 months?

This guy was a (hint: Moby --) and needs something harsher to get to his senses. A year sounds better.
 
I'm torn, this sentence seems excessive yet I have to consider the upset this must have caused for the relatives of the girl and wonder if this factored in to the judges decision.

What a sick thing to do and for what reason?

This case is not isolated and perhaps this sentence will send a message to these "jokers".
 
It must be nice for the UK when they have enough space in jails to imprison people for being jerks.

At least it seems like a better reason to jail someone than drug use.
 
JJM 777 said:
Only 4 months?

This guy was a (hint: Moby --) and needs something harsher to get to his senses. A year sounds better.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure 4 months in prison will stop this bloke being a complete tool. Will probably just introduce him to a few more of them.
 
roger said:
Hmm, interesting analogy, and I would agree with you. I'm trying to parse why I think so, and the main reason is it is a private mechanism, but I'm not sure how rational that is. I certainly don't feel I should be protected from somebody saying "you are an idiot" to me on the street or on this forum (I'm talking legally, not about the forum rules). Interesting.
Click to expand...

I've used the analogy with nuisance calls in a few conversations with people and it seems to generate the same conflict with most folk, it's a strange one.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Do you mean by 'speech', speech?

Why does anyone have to make a case for what they say? :confused:

~is my two cents.
Click to expand...
I think one can make the distinction between getting your kicks by harassing people and the intent of the Constitution in regards to the right to free speech.
 
I think one can make the distinction between getting your kicks by harassing people and the intent of the Constitution in regards to the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

Or as the case may, the right to free speech is protected by the ECHR.
 
Sabretooth said:
Didn't some record store owner get jailed for selling gangsta-rap records in the early 90's?


ETA: Yep, in 1990...http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/02/us/trial-opens-on-sale-of-2-live-crew-album.html
Click to expand...

I read up on that back-story and was amazed at the number of people back then were recently in the news. Jack Thompson, the now disbarred anti-video game crusader, was the man who started it all. Dr. Gates, Jr, the black man who was arrested by a white police officer for breaking into his own house and later sat down for a beer with said police officer and the President, testified in defense of the band when they were charged with obscenity.

In the end, the appeals courts shut down the obscenity charges, however.
 
The perpetrator is being described on the news as having Asperger's syndrome.

Rolfe.
 
I expect it would have been different if he had confined himself to ranting on his own blog/Facebook/Twitter.
 
Greedo said:
What the man did was obviously a disgusting thing to do, but four months of jail? If this had happened in the US I'd have said "only in America.", but it seems that is not so. :boxedin:
Click to expand...
Only in Britain! :)

Seriously, it is not. Several countries already have laws against anonymous online bullying.

Which I happen to agree with. Part of free speech is taking responsibility for what you say. I do not believe in a right of anonymous free speech.
 
Last edited:
Oh, that's unnecessarily cruel. I am all for smooth and slippery soap.
 
Darat said:
I've used the analogy with nuisance calls in a few conversations with people and it seems to generate the same conflict with most folk, it's a strange one.
Click to expand...

The more I think about this guy, I think his actions are more comparable to those of Fred Phelps. He goes to public spaces set aside to mourn the loss of a loved one, and figuratively defecates on their grave in front of all of the mourners. 100% despicable, but not criminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom