Internet Troll gets three years

Here is a guy who clearly has mental health issues - he even said he was suicidal during the abuse - whose threats were exclusively made online gets 3 years :

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/his-campaign-of-harassment-against-us-went-on-for-years-female-writers-and-journalists-speak-out-after-internet-troll-jailed-for-three-years-38692690.html

Yet people with multiple violent assaults get suspended sentences? Is the lesson here that if he actually physically assaulted his victims he would have gotten a lesser sentence?

This is not some misguided defence of free speech, I totally agree he should have faced sanction, preferably in a mental health unit, but THREE YEARS is a murder level sentence.

Salary Negotiator

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is a guy who clearly has mental health issues - he even said he was suicidal during the abuse - whose threats were exclusively made online gets 3 years :

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/his-campaign-of-harassment-against-us-went-on-for-years-female-writers-and-journalists-speak-out-after-internet-troll-jailed-for-three-years-38692690.html

Yet people with multiple violent assaults get suspended sentences? Is the lesson here that if he actually physically assaulted his victims he would have gotten a lesser sentence?

This is not some misguided defence of free speech, I totally agree he should have faced sanction, preferably in a mental health unit, but THREE YEARS is a murder level sentence.

No it's not.

Wheety

It was a prolonged and sustained campaign. Nearly 6 years. He won't serve the full 3 years either.

What do you think would have been an appropriate sentence?

Eric Cartman

Wheety wrote: »

It was a prolonged and sustained campaign. Nearly 6 years. He won't serve the full 3 years either.

What do you think would have been an appropriate sentence?

6 months, its just words on the internet...

I suspect if it wasnt female journalists who love the victim card and turning on the crocodile tears then ut would have been more reasonable

is_that_so

The sentence is justified but he clearly needs help to become a more normal member of society.

c.p.w.g.w

I think if they were male jorno's he'll have got a slap on the wrist if even that

Wheety

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I think if they were male jorno's he'll have got a slap on the wrist if even that

Well, why didn't he pick male journalists?

biko

John Berry BL, prosecuting, told Judge Martin Nolan that all the cases shared similar features in that each of the women Doolin targeted either worked as journalists or had a strong social media presence, particularly on twitter.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/his-campaign-of-harassment-against-us-went-on-for-years-female-writers-and-journalists-speak-out-after-internet-troll-jailed-for-three-years/ar-BBWKI21

Det Gda Gallagher said each of the women received hundreds of emails, usually using the same unusual font, containing insults such as calling the women “wannabes, nobodies, whiteist, bigots, lefties and pseudo intellectuals.”

He accused them of being narcissistic attention seekers, self-obsessed and concerned with their own self-promotion, referring to their “twitter bubble” and suggesting that they don't care for others.

Doolin used the same insult twice with two different women telling them they were “as interesting as a bucket of water and as deep as the goldfish in it” and said in other messages “I love the middle class whiteist, the shiny white people”.

Mezzotint

3 years seems reasonable enough to me given the amount of distress he was likely causing and if the Gardai had (and it sounds like they were) contacted he had ample opportunity to stop.

Three people I know (both male and female) were very badly stalked and it is horrific and absolutely life altering stuff because it's absolutely relentless and designed to terrify.

It's very easy to underestimate how serious this stuff is. In one case one of the people I know ended up quitting university to get away from the stalker and had all sorts of horrific false accusations made about them and practically had a nervous breakdown that took years to get over.

I think our anti harassment / stalking laws are far, far too weak as things tend to get to extreme levels before there's an ability for Gardai to intervene.

I would agree that there needs to be a mental health intervention too, as some of this stuff can be driven by various psychological / psychiatric issues and also that in some cases an prison sentence, even a prison sentence may not solve the problem, but I think that also applies across a whole range of offending in Ireland and not just this. We need a lot more psychological intervention to break cycles of offending sooner rather than when it escalates to this kind of level.

But I would agree with the lengthy sentence. It's also important to drive home that this is a serious offence that will be taken seriously by a court and that is an element of the role of criminal law. It lays down a marker of what is most definitely intolerable behaviour.

Boggles

Did I just hear a bunch of re-regs swallowing hard?

:pac:

Wheety

Eric Cartman wrote: »

6 months, its just words on the internet...

I suspect if it wasnt female journalists who love the victim card and turning on the crocodile tears then ut would have been more reasonable

So young people being bullied on the Internet, enough in some cases to attempt to take their own lives, should just be told it's only words?

TomSweeney

Eric Cartman wrote: »

6 months, its just words on the internet...

I suspect if it wasnt female journalists who love the victim card and turning on the crocodile tears then ut would have been more reasonable

Exactly, I'd say the just loved playing the victim.
In 2019 it seems a great way to get ahead - play the oppression Olympics.

antix80

In this case, prison is a good shout.
No internet, and he'll have access to support.

c.p.w.g.w

Wheety wrote: »

Well, why didn't he pick male journalists?

I don't know, maybe his a misogynist...

TomSweeney

Wheety wrote: »

So young people being bullied on the Internet, enough in some cases to attempt to take their own lives, should just be told it's only words?

I agree with you here, but the comparison isn't fair.

Unearthly

Good riddance

Wheety

TomSweeney wrote: »

I agree with you here, but the comparison isn't fair.

Well that seems to be the attitude of some people.

Just because it's the Internet, doesn't mean you can say and do anything and there be no consequences, just because 'it's only words'.

Boggles

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I think if they were male jorno's he'll have got a slap on the wrist if even that

The fact that they were exclusively female is key to the crime FFS.

:rolleyes:

One of them tried to actually help him, he ramped up the abuse towards her.

Absolute cretin who knew the difference between right and wrong.

Mezzotint

I also think we need to stop using the term "internet troll" to describe this kind of thing. It's not trolling. It's serious harassment and stalking.

Using the term "troll" somehow diminishes the seriousness of the offence but also conflates it with light hearted wind up merchants on forums who, while annoying, are not committing criminal offences or going out to cause hurt and harm.

biko

He clearly needs help and somehow fixated on these women.
Not sure prison is the way to go though.

TomSweeney

Boggles wrote: »

The fact that they were exclusively female is key to the crime FFS.

:rolleyes:

One of them tried to actually help him, he ramped up the abuse towards her.

Absolute cretin who knew the difference between right and wrong.

hmm, this does change things ...

This guy was mentally ill. Most people have better things to do than obsess over strangers on the internet. Why isn't some sort of mandatory mental health intervention the first port of call?

Kudos to the woman who tried to help him BTW.

valoren

Eric Cartman wrote: »

6 months, its just words on the internet...

I suspect if it wasnt female journalists who love the victim card and turning on the crocodile tears then ut would have been more reasonable

Sounds to me like he was the one playing the victim card, claiming he was suicidal during the period of abuse. He was asked to stop, he continued and proactive steps were taken to get him to stop. Interestingly, when the seriousness of the charges are laid out to him presumably by his solicitor, he maintains he was suicidal. He was clearly obsessed, it was completely over the top but he should not be surprised for getting into trouble for it.

Wheety

Wheety wrote: »

It was a prolonged and sustained campaign. Nearly 6 years. He won't serve the full 3 years either.

What do you think would have been an appropriate sentence?

I think being committed to a mental health institution would have been a more appropriate sentence.

Wheety

Mezzotint wrote: »

I also think we need to stop using the term "internet troll" to describe this kind of thing. It's not trolling. It's serious harassment and stalking.

Using the term "troll" somehow diminishes the seriousness of the offence but also conflates it with light hearted wind up merchants on forums who, while annoying, are not committing criminal offences or going out to cause hurt and harm.

This is true. I'd say some trolls on boards are thinking "Hey, he's just a troll like me, he's not so bad".

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I think being committed to a mental health institution would have been a more appropriate sentence.

Based on?

The report furnished to the court didn't say he didn't know right from wrong.

You can have mental illness and know exactly what you are doing is wrong.

I imagine he was getting some form of gratification from it, probably sexual.

An absolute menace to society and I can only imagine how scared the victims were when he started mentioning home addresses.

Wheety

Deleted User wrote: »

I think being committed to a mental health institution would have been a more appropriate sentence.

Well that's certainly a better suggestion than "It's only women. Men would just get on with it".

This country is fairly lacking in the mental health stakes. There are people who have done a lot worse than him and they're not sent to a mental health institution. We just don't have the facilities to treat everyone. It's a major failing of the state.

sbsquarepants

I'm not getting the outrage OP - Fúck him, he got what he deserved!

alchemist33

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think being committed to a mental health institution would have been a more appropriate sentence.

"Mental health institutuons" are for treatment, not punishment. And having mental health problems doesn't usually absolve someone of responsibility for their crimes. He can have treatment in prison.

Mezzotint

The law around this definitely needs to be modernised because the internet has made this stuff easier and more commonplace. My observation of it is that the Gardai and courts need to be able to intervene much sooner and maybe deflect someone into solving whatever issues are causing their behaviour through tackling whatever is going on in their world view and mental state.

However, it doesn't take away from the seriousness of what happened in this case, but that also doesn't mean we shouldn't be examining what laws and processes we have to deal with obsessive stalking type behaviours and harassment / stalking.

That being said you'll always get an element of society who commit crimes and engage in seriously antisocial behaviour and there has to be some sanction for that. I think we can also end up going far too soft on what are very serious and disturbing crimes and send our a message that they're somehow not the perpetrators' responsibility.

A big part of criminal law is that it acts as a deterrent and that's something I would suspect this sentence will be.

Eric Cartman

biko wrote: »

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/his-campaign-of-harassment-against-us-went-on-for-years-female-writers-and-journalists-speak-out-after-internet-troll-jailed-for-three-years/ar-BBWKI21

He wasn’t wrong though...

I was expecting the usual ‘ill murder you in your sleep’ it appears he was just spitting truth

tigger123

Sentence is good enough for him. He knows what he was doing was wrong.

Eric Cartman

Wheety wrote: »

Well, why didn't he pick male journalists?

Not many male journalists spitting anti white anti male claptrap... its the new go to for professionally outraged women , and so those professionally outraged women are the new targets for internet trolls...

suicide_circus

a sad sack of the highest order

c.p.w.g.w

Boggles wrote: »

The fact that they were exclusively female is key to the crime FFS.

:rolleyes:

One of them tried to actually help him, he ramped up the abuse towards her.

Absolute cretin who knew the difference between right and wrong.

Very interesting, someone who can't tell the difference between right and wrong needs help not prison

Boggles

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Very interesting, someone who can't tell the difference between right and wrong needs help not prison

The psychologist who evaluated him disagrees?

What are you basing your evaluation on?

tigger123

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Not many male journalists spitting anti white anti male claptrap... its the new go to for professionally outraged women , and so those professionally outraged women are the new targets for internet trolls...

Sounds like you're suggesting the women brought it upon themselves.

ahnowbrowncow

I definitely agree with him being sent to jail but as is so often the case, there's no consistency and thus makes the sentence seem harsh.

Here's a woman getting three and a half years for "manslaughter", stabbed her boyfriend in the heart, claimed to guards someone else did it and ran off. She later changes her story to self defence.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/victim-s-family-criticise-sentence-of-3-years-for-killer-1.2982109?mode=amp

Wheety

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Not many male journalists spitting anti white anti male claptrap... its the new go to for professionally outraged women , and so those professionally outraged women are the new targets for internet trolls...

So you have the same issue with women? I hope you're only trolling on here and not harassing anyone.

c.p.w.g.w

Boggles wrote: »

The psychologist who evaluated him disagrees?

What are you basing your evaluation on?

I was quoting you...You stated he couldn't tell right from wrong...

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Not many male journalists spitting anti white anti male claptrap... its the new go to for professionally outraged women , and so those professionally outraged women are the new targets for internet trolls...

He targeted one of the Victims because she wrote a piece on male suicide, she then encouraged him to get help and he ramped up the abuse?

Why are you identifying more with the criminal and not the victims?

marvin80

Boggles wrote: »

Did I just hear a bunch of re-regs swallowing hard?

:pac:

That was for a different reason!

:pac:

Boggles

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I was quoting you...You stated he couldn't tell right from wrong...

Link?

tigger123

Think the judge specifically said that while he did have mental health challenges, he could tell right from wrong.

Mezzotint

According to the report he was psychiatrically assessed and there was no indication that he was unable to tell right from wrong and knew that what he was doing was wrong, yet persisted.

He wasn't just sending them emails disagreeing with their articles. He sent threats to them. You cannot send someone threats and engaged in threating behviour. He also seems to have sent an absolute barrage of messages, despite being asked to stop. That is harassment, not normal communication. It's as simple as that.

That isn't a freedom of speech issue.

joseywhales

Non violent crime should not lead to a multi year custodial sentence in my opinion.
I'm sure plenty of it was vile but the quotes from the judge appear to be valid opinion, you can give feedback about a piece being self obsessive or narcissistic, that sounds like just his opinion, he didn't need to send it hundreds of times though. Is it really worth years in prison? Will that rehabilitate the offender? Nevermind that taxpayers have to pay for it.

nkl12xtw5goz70

A three-year prison sentence for calling them "wannabes, nobodies, whiteist, bigots, lefties and pseudo-intellectuals" seems bizarre, especially for a mentally ill recluse who left his home twice in 17 years.

It will also have the effect of chilling free speech in Ireland. People will now think twice about calling out female public figures on social media for fear of being hauled before the courts.

tigger123

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

A three-year prison sentence for calling them "wannabes, nobodies, whiteist, bigots, lefties and pseudo-intellectuals" seems bizarre, especially for a mentally ill recluse who left his home twice in 17 years.

It will also have the effect of chilling free speech in Ireland. People will now think twice about calling out female public figures on social media for fear of being hauled before the courts.

People can react to any article on Twitter and social media. What you're not allowed is maintain a campaign of harassment for years at a time.

There's a bit of a difference.

biko

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

A three-year prison sentence for calling them "wannabes, nobodies, whiteist, bigots, lefties and pseudo-intellectuals" seems bizarre, especially for a mentally ill recluse who left his home twice in 17 years.

It will also have the effect of chilling free speech in Ireland. People will now think twice about calling out female public figures on social media for fear of being hauled before the courts.

I think in this case (just guessing of course) that is not so much what he said, as how often he said it.
I'm sure journalists get a lot of criticism (warranted and unwarranted), and I see it in here and AH all the time, but then it's not directed to the journo by mail or constant over several months/years.

nkl12xtw5goz70

tigger123 wrote: »

People can react to any article on Twitter and social media. What you're not allowed is maintain a campaign of harassment for years at a time.

Numerous public figures on Twitter have armies of online opponents mocking and ridiculing them daily, sometimes carrying on for years. Should these critics all be thrown in prison for "maintaining a campaign of harassment"?

Mezzotint

It won't have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and please stop trying to conflate this with having a right to reply.

Read the article : https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/his-campaign-of-harassment-against-us-went-on-for-years-female-writers-and-journalists-speak-out-after-internet-troll-jailed-for-three-years/ar-BBWKI21

"told to “break both legs” after she tweeted to promote an upcoming appearance on a television programme."

"tweeted that her housemate had gone out for the evening, he messaged “good, I'll be over soon” "

He also, amongst other things, trawled the internet looking for old photos of one of the victims sending them to her and so on.

One of the victims mentioned in the report received hundreds of messages.

This is absolutely not a freedom of speech issue. It's harassment / stalking.

Nobody is suggesting that people don't have a right to critique and respond to published articles in a normal and non harassing way.