Fraping: Criminal damage?

Javan

There are reports on the radio this morning about a man being convicted on a criminal damage charge for a malicious Facebook update. Does anyone know anything about this? Under what theory is this criminal damage?

I could understand if this were a conviction for libel, or maybe even a criminal conviction for harassment but criminal damage seems a bit of a stretch.

Ken.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/donegal-man-fined-2000-for-facebook-abuse-in-first-case-of-its-kind-634938.html

A Donegal man has avoided a jail term for criminal damage to his ex-girlfriend’s Facebook page after he admitted posting an offensive “status update” on it.
.......
The judge noted there was no relevant precedence to guide him in sentencing. He called it a reprehensible offence which seriously damaged the woman’s good name but said that “fortunately” the status was quickly was spotted and taken down.
He said that a financial penalty was the most appropriate and imposed a €2000 fine.
.......
A local garda told prosecuting counsel Sean Gillane SC that in the early hours of April 6, 2011, the accused went to her house to confront her over a perceived infidelity. When the accused later left the house, the woman noticed that he had taken her phone.
He went through her text messages which confirmed to him that she was in a new relationship. He then logged into her Facebook from her phone and posted a “status update” in her name stating that she was “a whore” who would take “any offers.”
The man was arrested shortly after. He admitted making the post and said it was because he was angry about the woman’s new partner.
.......

No Pants

I think it's considered as unauthorised use of a computer system.

No Pants

No Pants wrote: »

I think it's considered as unauthorised use of a computer system.

Charge was definitely criminal damage.

Guilty plea was entered and apart from the judge having no idea how to sentence the crime, that was that.

This case has no value as precedent and I can't see the Oireachtas leaping in to fill the void left by the repeal of criminal libel. Once off freak of a case if you ask me

Zambia

The accused on the 1/1/2014 damaged property of the victim namely her facebook page by changing the state of the status of the page.

No Pants

Zambia wrote: »

The accused on the 1/1/2014 damaged property of the victim namely her facebook page by changing the state of the status of the page.

Is my Facebook page considered to be my property? I thought that under the Ts&Cs, Facebook owned all content.

Zambia

No Pants wrote: »

Is my Facebook page considered to be my property? I thought that under the Ts&Cs, Facebook owned all content.

Maybe it's like a lease.

Why this man plead guilty is beyond me. Actually the whole thing is beyond me.

GerardKeating

Zambia wrote: »

Maybe it's like a lease.

Why this man plead guilty is beyond me. Actually the whole thing is beyond me.

He was acquitted (earlier) of Rape and other offences which occurred at the same time. Maybe he went with the lesser charge.

Little CuChulainn

An interesting expansion of the definition of damage.

tricky D

No Pants wrote: »

Is my Facebook page considered to be my property? I thought that under the Ts&Cs, Facebook owned all content.

A common misconception. From FB's Terms:

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Javan

GerardKeating wrote: »

He was acquitted (earlier) of Rape and other offences which occurred at the same time. Maybe he went with the lesser charge.

The idea that is is a plea bargain makes more sense than anything else.
The damage done here was to the woman's reputation and psychological well-being, and those are not covered by criminal damage.

Little CuChulainn

I doubt it was a plea bargain if he pleaded after an acquittal.

hullaballoo

GerardKeating wrote: »

He was acquitted (earlier) of Rape and other offences which occurred at the same time. Maybe he went with the lesser charge.

If he was acquitted, then no other offences occurred. Ye get me?

Zambia

GerardKeating wrote: »

He was acquitted (earlier) of Rape and other offences which occurred at the same time. Maybe he went with the lesser charge.

Sorry he was found not guilty of those charges and still pleads to the charge any first year law student could get him off.

I reckon the prosector was all set to withdraw when he pled. I could not see anyone taking this to a criminal trial.

Javan

Deleted User wrote: »

Charge was definitely criminal damage.

Guilty plea was entered and apart from the judge having no idea how to sentence the crime, that was that.

This case has no value as precedent and I can't see the Oireachtas leaping in to fill the void left by the repeal of criminal libel. Once off freak of a case if you ask me

I hope you are right. This seems like a terrible precedent.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.