Internet Troll gets three years

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.

tigger123

Mezzotint wrote: »

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.

This sums it up very well.

Canis Lupus

Boggles wrote: »

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

:pac:

All them fellas on that never ending Louise O Neill thread are frantically deleting their posts.

osarusan

Sure it'll get him out of the house at least.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Mezzotint wrote: »

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

An evident play on "break a leg," often said to actors before they go on stage to wish them well. "Break both legs" could be interpreted as hoping the person does poorly. It's a stretch to interpret it as a threat.

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

Could be interpreted as a threat, I suppose, if he had credible information about where the person lived. But certainly not something that merits a custodial sentence.

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

So? It's not a crime to look for photos of people on the Internet, is it? Anything on the Internet should be regarded as public information accessible to anyone.

Boggles

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Could be interpreted as a threat, I suppose, if he had credible information about where the person lived. But certainly not something that merits a custodial sentence.

Kate McEvoy was informed that the sender of the emails was in the area where she lived and once when she tweeted that her housemate had gone out for the evening, he messaged “good, I'll be over soon”

.

Could be?

:pac:

Maddux Modern Rule

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

An evident play on "break a leg," often said to actors before they go on stage to wish them well. "Break both legs" could be interpreted as hoping the person does poorly. It's a stretch to interpret it as a threat.



Could be interpreted as a threat, I suppose, if he had credible information about where the person lived. But certainly not something that merits a custodial sentence.



So? It's not a crime to look for photos of people on the Internet, is it? Anything on the Internet should be regarded as public information accessible to anyone.

You're going to an awful lot of effort to try to trivialise the despicable actions of this man.

tigger123

Me thinks the poster doth protest too much.

Wheety

The women in this case have released a joint statement. I think a very pertinent point they make, that some on here would do well to grasp, is "online harassment is harassment".

Why do so many think you can do what you want on the internet? If he was physically following these women and shouting at them in the street, you'd have no problem with his sentence.

The Internet can be a cesspit and people thinking they can do and say what they want is one of the worst aspects.

Wibbs

Not seeing any "freedom of speech" angle in this at all(never mind that this is not America). There's a vast gulf between saying "I think you're talking crap and here's why..." and "I think you're talking crap and I know where you live..." repeated over years to several people. Vast gulf.

Wheety

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

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

So? It's not a crime to look for photos of people on the Internet, is it? Anything on the Internet should be regarded as public information accessible to anyone.

She said she wasn't named in these pictures so he put a lot of effort into trying to find information on her. That's very salkerish behaviour.