Troll goes to jail,happy days!

sillyoulfool

A Twitter troll who delighted in the fatal stabbing of teacher Ann Maguire has been jailed for eight weeks.
In the wake of Mrs Maguire's death, Robert Riley bragged to his followers he would not just have killed Mrs Maguire but "all the bastard teachers" at Corpus Christi School in Leeds.
The jobless 42-year-old from Cwmavon, Port Talbot, also posted a series of racist tweets claiming Nazi death camp Auschwitz was a "health spa" and suggesting that Muslim babies should be drowned.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0508/616040-robert-riley-ann-maguire/

We have a lot to learn in this country about how to deal with internet trolls and bullies.
I look forward to day when scum like this are jailed here too!

Lucifer MorningStar

Shame he wasn't jailed for 8 months

stimpson

Fcuking amateur. A good troll is subtle.

stimpson

stimpson wrote: »

Fcuking amateur. A good troll is subtle.

Interesting

GLaDOS

That's not trolling, that's just being a cnut. A stupid one at that.

Shakespeare's Sister

Prison's ridiculous in my opinion - why not just ban him from Twitter?

I can't stand internet trolls/cyber-bullies, but people get harassed and bullied face to face every day and it takes an awful lot more to get their tormentors sent to prison, so sending people to prison just for words on the internet from their lonely little box-room... doesn't make sense at all.

BattleCorp

He mouthed off on the internet. He didn't kill anybody. Yes, his tirade was in bad taste but I believe this is a bit harsh.

YbFocus

There's something to be learned here by the mods for his type that show up here!

MadYaker

Thats not trolling at all.

No Pants

It would be a better article if it said which of his tweets he was actually convicted for.

AnonoBoy

MadYaker wrote: »

Thats not trolling at all.

Damn right. That's just being a c*nt.

dd972

This case sounds like the Devil making work for idle hands and minds.

Banjo String

Our prisons are overcrowded as it is.

TV license 'evaders'........
garlic smugglers......... Etc etc.

A troll is waaaaay down on the list for needing a cell.

sillyoulfool

Magaggie wrote: »

Prison's ridiculous in my opinion - why not just ban him from Twitter?

I can't stand internet trolls/cyber-bullies, but people get harassed and bullied face to face every day and it takes an awful lot more to get their tormentors sent to prison, so sending people to prison just for words on the internet from their lonely little box-room... doesn't make sense at all.

Tell that to the families of the numerous teenagers who have been driven to suicide by trolls in this country!:mad:

dxhound2005

MadYaker wrote: »

Thats not trolling at all.

No, it's this.

After pleading guilty to one charge of sending a grossly offensive message via a public communications network

SEPT 23 1989

I believe in free speech which is not easy at times such as this

Shakespeare's Sister

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Tell that to the families of the numerous teenagers who have been driven to suicide by trolls in this country!:mad:

What about people who have been driven to suicide by face-to-face bullies? Strange that it isn't so easy for them to wind up in jail.

sillyoulfool

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I believe in free speech which is not easy at times such as this

I don't , and happily I cannot think of a single civilized state that allows un-moderated free speech.

jane82

Are the police moderating twitter?
I hope they are being paid handsomly for this.

No Pants

Magaggie wrote: »

What about people who have been driven to suicide by face-to-face bullies? Strange that it isn't so easy for them to wind up in jail.

They generally don't leave a written record.

stimpson

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting

Eh... So I've heard

sillyoulfool

Magaggie wrote: »

What about people who have been driven to suicide by face-to-face bullies? Strange that it isn't so easy for them to wind up in jail.

I'm not as aware of those cases but of course they should be.
I am however very aware of the very many kids in this country, including two sister , who committed suicide as a result of online bullying.

Mech1

A public humiliation would be more suitable like sometimes happens in America.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/11/public_shaming_sentences_can_judges_subject_criminals_to_humiliation.html

darced

This post has been deleted.

No Pants

Well, that's one jail space that can't be used for a violent offender.

Pat Mustard

sillyoulfool wrote: »

We have a lot to learn in this country about how to deal with internet trolls and bullies.
I look forward to day when scum like this are jailed here too!

I wasn't a bit pleased to hear of this clown getting jailed. A waste of perfectly good prison space, imo.

Tokyo

For situations like this, 8 weeks chain gang/community service would be more beneficial to all involved surely? He gets his dose of medicine, the community benefits from it, and the prisons don't have to bear the burden of housing him for two months....

catallus

The key is in the wording of the charge; he was being grossly offensive; this guy had little in the way of the mindfulness and necessary subtlety for surreptitiously sowing acrimony. His offence was brazenly artless, without guile or indeed taste. To call such a brainless lout a troll is to elevate his juvenile rants beyond what they were; verbal diarrhea, akin to lowly graffiti, scrawled by an idiot.

My name is URL

Mech1 wrote: »

A public humiliation would be more suitable like sometimes happens in America.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/11/public_shaming_sentences_can_judges_subject_criminals_to_humiliation.html

Well, he's been named and shamed already, which is pretty humiliating.

Jail is stupid for such crimes imho. Who benefits from it?

catallus

My name is URL wrote: »

Well, he's been named and shamed already, which is pretty humiliating.

Jail is stupid for such crimes imho. Who benefits from it?

Society benefits. His punishment is a deterrent for other like-minded fools.

Scruffy...The Janitor

dxhound2005 wrote: »

No, it's this.

After pleading guilty to one charge of sending a grossly offensive message via a public communications network

I understand that unmoderated free speech isn't always a good thing but if this is the reason he was jailed and it's a crime that requires a jail sentence then I can't understand why the owners of sites like Sickipedia aren't prosecuted and jailed too. Why don't they have someone on Google hunting down and prosecuting every person who, somewhere on the internet, posts a joke, opinion or quip that's racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, ageist etc. etc.

dxhound2005

My name is URL wrote: »

Well, he's been named and shamed already, which is pretty humiliating.

Jail is stupid for such crimes imho. Who benefits from it?

I don't think the court is supposed to consider who will benefit from someone being jailed. If part of the legislation includes a custodial sentence for the offence then that is what the legislators intended and the court considered the offence serious enough to warrant such a sentence.

Tokyo

catallus wrote: »

Society benefits. His punishment is a deterrent for other like-minded fools.

There are punishments that are far more of a deterrent than jail, that cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot less and benefits society far more though...

Mech1

My name is URL wrote: »

Well, he's been named and shamed already, which is pretty humiliating.

Jail is stupid for such crimes imho. Who benefits from it?

Naming and shaming isnt enough, get him a sandwich board for a week

Custardpi

sillyoulfool wrote: »

I don't , and happily I cannot think of a single civilized state that allows un-moderated free speech.

The important question is sure not whether speech is moderated at all but rather at what point moderation comes into play & the consequences of falling afoul of the rules. Free speech is an incredibly important right & the cornerstone of a free society. It's not an absolute right but then pretty much no right is, to the extent that they come into contact with competing rights which balance them out.

Most people would agree that a person's right not to have their reputation destroyed by lies overrides another person's free speech, so we have libel laws. But does someone's "right" to merely not be offended trump free speech? If so, does it trump it enough to warrant jail & is that the best use of society's resources?

I would not be surprised to learn that the individual in this case was a pretty sad, lonely & isolated character for whom posting stuff like this on the internet was the only way he felt he could vent his frustration at life. Such people are surely to be more pitied than despised. While sanctions of some sort might well be appropriate (removing internet access for example), I fail to see what ultimate societal good is served by imprisoning people who probably need psychological help more than punishment.

catallus

mike_ie wrote: »

There are punishments that are far more of a deterrent than jail, that cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot less and benefits society far more though...

Go on then, hit me with one.

No Pants

catallus wrote: »

Society benefits. His punishment is a deterrent for other like-minded fools.

Exactly and the next offence that is committed by someone out on bail who should be in a cell is okay because we stopped someone from being mean on the internet.

Holsten

Completely disagree with this.

Free speech no matter what.

Waste of time and money jailing someone for this.

Holsten

catallus wrote: »

Society benefits. His punishment is a deterrent for other like-minded fools.

No it's not.

dxhound2005

No Pants wrote: »

Exactly and the next offence that is committed by someone out on bail who should be in a cell is okay because we stopped someone from being mean on the internet.

If they're out on bail then surely a court decided that they did not need to be remanded in custody.

My name is URL

catallus wrote: »

Society benefits. His punishment is a deterrent for other like-minded fools.

People have been jailed for sending offensive messages electronically for years, and there are more 'trolls' than ever!

I think the threat of losing anonymity, or being barred from having an internet subscription would be more of a deterrent.

Tokyo

catallus wrote: »

Go on then, hit me with one.

8 weeks of cleaning out roadside ditches from morning to night as part of a community service project for one.

dharma200

All it is is one step closer to a closed internet.....

We live in a society of control.... This is one step closer to the internet being a completely controlled environment.

The man is mentally ill. Ridiculous.

Shakespeare's Sister

Holsten wrote: »

Completely disagree with this.

Free speech no matter what.

Waste of time and money jailing someone for this.

As I said, jail is ridiculous for this but if there was free speech no matter what, there'd be no limit to what people can say to others, to the point of harassment. Free speech no matter what, isn't possible.

dxhound2005

dharma200 wrote: »

All it is is one step closer to a closed internet.....

We live in a society of control.... This is one step closer to the internet being a completely controlled environment.

The man is mentally ill. Ridiculous.

The existence of the internet does not give anyone the right to publish anything on it which would be an offence if it was published in a book or a newspaper. Or sent maliciously in the post. The sooner that people wake up to this fact the better.

Custardpi

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If they're out on bail then surely a court decided that they did not need to be remanded in custody.

Yes, because a: courts don't have to take into account prison space when deciding to remand someone in custody & b: no one has ever committed a crime when on bail. Yep, a court deciding something means everything is perfect & beyond question, glad we cleared that up.

darced

This post has been deleted.

catallus

mike_ie wrote: »

8 weeks of cleaning out roadside ditches from morning to night as part of a community service project for one.

And that would involve no cost to the state? Having a person paid to watch over an individual and ensure his compliance in an open space "from morning to night" would not be free.

It's great to see ivory-tower residents criticise public administrators doing the nitty-gritty when it comes to the nasty problem of what to do with criminals. Coming up with pie-in-the-sky notions such as this (not to mention the idea of "revoking a person's internet privileges" hahaha) is just silly.

Jail is just what this guy needs; a short sharp rap on the knuckles will do him the world of good.

Custardpi

Magaggie wrote: »

As I said, jail is ridiculous for this but if there was free speech no matter what, there'd be no limit to what people can say to others, to the point of harassment. Free speech no matter what, isn't possible.

No one is seriously arguing for unlimited free speech, to the extent that pretty much everyone would support some form of defamation protection for people against lies. But that in itself doesn't justify any & all limitations on free speech that lawmakers might seek to impose. Should someone's desire to merely not be offended override someone else's right to expression? If someone is actively shoving their opinion in someone's face "to the point of harrassment" then that's another story, but should merely posting "offensive" content to the web that doesn't actually libel people be a jailable crime?

wp_rathead

Free speech does not mean consequence free speech..

That said, jailing people for what they say on twitter is an area I havn't made up my mind on yet - valid arguments on both sides..

sillyoulfool wrote: »

I'm not as aware of those cases but of course they should be.
I am however very aware of the very many kids in this country, including two sister , who committed suicide as a result of online bullying.

you never heard of people commiting suicide due to bullying that wasn't done online?

dharma200

A simple internet ban might be more productive... Ie judge says you are banned from the internet for x amount of time.
I don't mean to advocate abuse ect but jailing so done who is obviously mentally ill, all the whole seriously crazy sh I t going on in the net all the time is totally pointless... No deterrent and very daily mail