• 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"

Is this type of sentence, and the additional ban on the use of social networking sites, the norm in England? I suspect this would be protected speech over here.
 
Yet in the USA people have been jailed for sending obscene materials by post. Read, selling porn DVDs online. It seems to me like protected speech has its limits over there too.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Indecent...

offensive nature...

Surely would be protected speech here in the US.
Click to expand...

For Utah: http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/854.html

...snip...

However, the government can regulate the following four things:
  1. Sending obscene material through the mail (18 U.S.C. 1461);
  2. Distribution of pornography (76-10-1204 U.C.A.);
  3. Mailing material with indecent pictures or words on the wrapper
  4. or envelope (18 U.S.C. 1463); and
  5. Continuing to send material after you file a prohibitory order (39 U.S.C. 3008 and 3010).



...snip...
Click to expand...
 
This is another one of those areas (privacy is another one) that seems to cause some shock in folk when they find that the "teh interweb" is being treated like we've always treated stuff.
 
he's clearly a horrible person, but being a horrible person isn't enough for a jail sentence in my opinion.
 
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:
 
Darat said:
For Utah: http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/854.html
Click to expand...

For context though, these are regulated that way because they use the mail, a public utility. In the US mail is more controlled and less protected by free speech rights than other media of communication.

Of course you can find examples of individuals charged for stupid things like swearing in front of a minor, but for the most part, freedom of speech here is protected even into the realm of the offensive.

That's why the WBC can stand a certain distance from an ongoing funeral holding signs and chanting that the deceased is burning in hell.
 
There you go. That's what happens So now Yrreg, Epix, DOC, Bill Thompson and the like... watch it from now on! ;)
 
Darat said:
This is another one of those areas (privacy is another one) that seems to cause some shock in folk when they find that the "teh interweb" is being treated like we've always treated stuff.
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer. On the surface, it seems different to have legislation about sending material privately from one party to another, and protected speech .

For example, 18 U.S.C 1461 is specially about mailing this material. It would be not illegal based on this law to hand out flyers on the street, to say this stuff to another person, etc. Certainly it goes on all the times on the streets of Vegas.

I think most people view forums and such as public speech (not sure that is a legal term, hopefully my meaning is clear) rather than something akin to mailing.

For example, read the law(source) - you are not allowed to mail information about abortions! It's a really outdated law, I would think, in most people's mind, and we certainly wouldn't think that people should not be allowed to talk about abortion, or post about it on a forum. Yet, for some reason, you can't mail information about abortion.
Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information...or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed,
Click to expand...

Again, I am no lawyer, but I read that as saying you can't mail information about planned parenthoood, or information about drugs that induce abortion, etc. I would certainly be very surprised if I wasn't allowed to provide somebody information about abortions via speech or an internet forum.
 
Last edited:
I think an appropriate punishment for this guy would be to set up a web site about him with a message board where posters can make fun of him and humiliate him.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Indecent...

offensive nature...

Surely would be protected speech here in the US.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is the problem rather than the fact the guy got a few weeks in jail for cruel behavior.

I don't think the first amendment would suffer for stopping this kind of 'speech'. I doubt the guy could make a case that he had anything to say with that behavior. Seems more like he needs a psychiatrist. I don't think a schizophrenic harassing someone by ranting at them on the street would be seen as protected by free speech rights, for a comparable example.
 
Do you mean by 'speech', speech?

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

~is my two cents.
 
roger said:

I'm no lawyer. On the surface, it seems different to have legislation about sending material privately from one party to another, and protected speech .

For example, 18 U.S.C 1461 is specially about mailing this material. It would be not illegal based on this law to hand out flyers on the street, to say this stuff to another person, etc. Certainly it goes on all the times on the streets of Vegas.

I think most people view forums and such as public speech (not sure that is a legal term, hopefully my meaning is clear) rather than something akin to mailing.

For example, read the law(source) - you are not allowed to mail information about abortions! It's a really outdated law, I would think, in most people's mind, and we certainly wouldn't think that people should not be allowed to talk about abortion, or post about it on a forum. Yet, for some reason, you can't mail information about abortion.


Again, I am no lawyer, but I read that as saying you can't mail information about planned parenthoood, or information about drugs that induce abortion, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement with you, our legal systems are definitely lagging behind how society views these things and I think your "...forums and such as public speech.." is why people are shocked to find it's being dealt with like say making a nuisance phone call.

Yet saying that I suspect that if you ask someone over here in the UK should someone be prosecuted for say making nuisance phone calls (includes heavy breathing, obscene comments and the like) they would say yes. As ever society's mores are contradictory and ever so slightly incoherent!
 
Darat said:
Yet saying that I suspect that if you ask someone over here in the UK should someone be prosecuted for say making nuisance phone calls (includes heavy breathing, obscene comments and the like) they would say yes. As ever society's mores are contradictory and ever so slightly incoherent!
Click to expand...
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.
 
When I first read the article, I misunderstood and thought that his posts were part of the bullying that led to the suicide, and found the sentence appropriate, if a bit light. Then as I read further, I realized that he made his posts to sites set up to memorialize young people who died prematurely and I realized he was just being a major league asshat.

But as others have mentioned, in most western democracies, it is not against the law to be an asshat, so the jail does seem a bit extreme. Even so, I still find it difficult to muster up much sympathy for the guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom