Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Internet Troll gets three years

Options
13567…19

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Wheety wrote: »
    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".

    If I were to send Ruth Coppinger 450 emails and tweets over six years (averaging one approximately every 5 days) calling her a wannabe, a nobody, a bigot, a lefty, and a pseudo-intellectual narcissist, would I be guilty of harassment?

    Some people have made a part-time job out of abusing @realDonaldTrump on Twitter, for instance. They'd rack up 450 messages over a few days.


  • Options
    #63
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Wheety wrote: »
    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.

    You're really stretching now.

    Digging up old pictures of someone on the Internet isn't a crime, no matter how much effort the person invests.


  • Options
    #64
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,489 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Eric Cartman - do not post in this thread again. Any questions PM me


  • Options
    #65
    Wheety
    Registered Users Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭Wheety


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    You're really stretching now.

    Digging up old pictures of someone on the Internet isn't a crime, no matter how much effort the person invests.

    Well when it's part of a sustained harassment campaign it is.

    Do you think this person has done nothing wrong?


  • Options
    #66
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,641 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    You're really stretching now.

    Digging up old pictures of someone on the Internet isn't a crime, no matter how much effort the person invests.

    See what you are doing is singling out and cheery picking from the 1000s of things he has done and claiming they are not crimes within themselves.

    Which you probably have a point.

    Collectively though it is most certainly continuous stalking and sustained harassment which is a crime.

    Unless you think it isn't, of course please explain why not and why you think someone like this should be allowed distress people unchecked?

    Bare in mind he was asked to stop several times.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Wheety wrote: »
    Well when it's part of a sustained harassment campaign it is.

    Do you think this person has done nothing wrong?

    I think people have the right to robustly criticize public figures and to do so repeatedly.

    According to RTE, the women were all "journalists and writers with a strong social media presence, particularly on Twitter."

    Anyone who sets herself up on Twitter as a person opining on matters of public concern inevitably will be called a wannabe, a nobody, a bigot, a leftist, a pseudo-intellectual, and so on. Some people will target public figures for such criticism hundreds of times. But defining this as a "harassment campaign" and letting public figures have their critics imprisoned sets a dangerous precedent.

    I don't believe the man did nothing wrong. He crossed the line when he intimated that he knew where one of the women lived and was coming to her house. But he did nothing that warrants a three-year custodial sentence, in my view.

    Violent criminals have got far more lenient sentences, so I find the judge's decision in this instance inexplicable.

    Earlier this week, a man found in possession of "58 images and 59 video clips of children engaging in sexual acts with adults" received an 18-month suspended sentence. And yet this internet troll got a five-year sentence with two years suspended.


  • Options
    #68
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Regrettable to see a case of a mentally ill individual used as another vehicle to portray women as being under attack and living in a dangerous country

    At no time in history have women ever had it better

    Enough of the pity parties


  • Options
    #69
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,641 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    I don't believe the man did nothing wrong. He crossed the line when he intimated that he knew where one of the women lived and was coming to her house. But he did nothing that warrants a three-year custodial sentence, in my view.

    You believe what he didn't wasn't criminal. So you wouldn't agree with any sanction, would you? He plead guilty by the way.

    So how would you deal with an obvious cretin like this specimen who brought distress to quite a large amount of people, not just their victims but their families too.

    Have the dog warden call around and have a chat?


  • Options
    #70
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    Odd that there are some posters who would normall be the first to complain about "bleeding heart liberals" who would be soft on criminals. Yet here they are going on about the poor criminal with not a thought for the women who were harrassed for years.


  • Options
    #71
    dd973
    Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭dd973


    The chances are this chap is a misogynist with mental health issues, the IT mentioned he'd only left his house twice in 17 years!

    I think what underpins a lot of trolling is a sense that a lot of struggling people are sick to the back teeth of looking at moneyed tv presenters, sports stars, celebrities and politicians while everything else especially people's living standards are either stagnating or going to hell in a handcart. It seems a tempting way of having a go back about things without physical or verbal confrontation or leaving the sofa.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Why cant there be a law that says as part of a sentence, the person is banned from the internet for a defined period of time, for people with mental health issues the internet is a double-edged sword, its great for online support and information, but it also allows a free-range for their deranged negative thinking and targeting of those they have some sort of grip with.

    And then there is this.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

    The perpetrator of the attack was Thomas Alexander Mair, a 53-year-old unemployed gardener born in Scotland.[20] Mair had mental health problems,[21][1] though he was declared sane in the moment of the crime.[2] He believed individuals of liberal and left-wing political viewpoints, and the mainstream media, were the cause of the world's problems.


  • Options
    #73
    Mezzotint
    Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭Mezzotint


    In the 21st century, very few journalists are 'moneyed' is utterly risible. The majority work for the love of the work, as the pay is typically abysmal and there's usually little or no job security, as the vast majority work as freelancers (which is just pay per piece written and it's really not good money) or are on very low wages.

    There's some deluded notion that most people working in media are loaded. The reality couldn't be further from that in I would estimate about 99% of cases.

    Most media organisations can barely make ends meet.


  • Options
    #74
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Mezzotint wrote: »
    In the 21st century, very few journalists are 'moneyed' is utterly risible. The majority work for the love of the work, as the pay is typically abysmal and there's usually little or no job security, as the vast majority work as freelancers (which is just pay per piece written and it's really not good money) or are on very low wages.

    There's some deluded notion that most people working in media are loaded. The reality couldn't be further from that in I would estimate about 99% of cases.

    Most media organisations can barely make ends meet.

    But none of this is about reality for the perpetrator, it a projected fantasty or delusion on to their targets.


  • Options
    #75
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    I wonder if the women had been U-18 would he have gotten a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence. It was Judge Nolan after all.


  • Options
    #76
    begbysback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    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?

    Ya, if I had a choice between a few slaps, and 6 years of mental stress I’d take the slaps


  • Options
    #77
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,361 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    As soon as I read about the case the first thought that went through my head was - that lad was definitely a boards user.

    Complicated case. Obviously deserves some punishment, it was pretty awful stuff. But equally the guy clearly has "issues", oh boy, does he have issues. You would wonder is a custodial sentence the correct approach.


  • Options
    #78
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,361 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    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.

    Don't be ridiculous.


  • Options
    #79
    begbysback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    Very true, we’re probably better off building more mental hospitals in the country, I’d imagine there’s a high % of prisoners which require help more than incarceration.


  • Options
    #80
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    Odd that there are some posters who would normall be the first to complain about "bleeding heart liberals" who would be soft on criminals.

    The issue is with a broken judicial system that routinely lets actual violent criminals off with a slap on the wrist, while imprisoning a mentally ill recluse for three years because he repeatedly sent messages calling journalists wannabes, nobodies, bigots, lefties, and pseudo-intellectual narcissists.

    Here's a case of a man who assaulted his former partner in a hospital, in front of their child, punching her repeatedly, breaking her nose, and leaving her with double vision. His sentence was 3 years with 18 months suspended, meaning that he'll do half the prison time of the internet troll.

    Sentencing in Ireland seems purely capricious and random. That needs to be fixed.


  • Options
    #81
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    The issue is with a broken judicial system that routinely lets actual violent criminals off with a slap on the wrist, while imprisoning a mentally ill recluse for three years because he repeatedly sent messages calling journalists wannabes, nobodies, bigots, lefties, and pseudo-intellectual narcissists.

    Here's a case of a man who assaulted his former partner in a hospital, in front of their child, punching her repeatedly, breaking her nose, and leaving her with double vision. His sentence was 3 years with 18 months suspended, meaning that he'll do half the prison time of the internet troll.

    Sentencing in Ireland seems purely capricious and random. That needs to be fixed.

    Eliminate judicial discretion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Arghus wrote: »
    As soon as I read about the case the first thought that went through my head was - that lad was definitely a boards user.

    Complicated case. Obviously deserves some punishment, it was pretty awful stuff. But equally the guy clearly has "issues", oh boy, does he have issues. You would wonder is a custodial sentence the correct approach.


    The person receiving the abuse dose not know if the perpetrator is a mentally ill recluse they may well be harmless, but they may well not be and could be dangerous, dose mental illness give people a free pass to behave like that?

    What if they are not mentally ill just an angry man with issues about women and liberals?.


  • Options
    #83
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,641 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

    Sentencing in Ireland seems purely capricious and random. That needs to be fixed.

    Sure.

    But you have stated what this man did was not criminal.

    So from your perspective sentencing is moot.

    You think he shouldn't have been prosecuted full stop.

    So again I ask how do you deal with odious little cretins that harass and distress numerous law abiding people?

    The distress is real whatever the method of delivery.


  • Options
    #84
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,818 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    On one hand, people like Eddie Halvey can serve no time for killing people while drunk driving, but scrotes like this get what they deserve for stalking Etc.
    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    The issue is with a broken judicial system that routinely lets actual violent criminals off with a slap on the wrist, while imprisoning a mentally ill recluse for three years because he repeatedly sent messages calling journalists wannabes, nobodies, bigots, lefties, and pseudo-intellectual narcissists.

    Here's a case of a man who assaulted his former partner in a hospital, in front of their child, punching her repeatedly, breaking her nose, and leaving her with double vision. His sentence was 3 years with 18 months suspended, meaning that he'll do half the prison time of the internet troll.

    Sentencing in Ireland seems purely capricious and random. That needs to be fixed.

    Ireland needs a sweeping crime reform bill or terrible sentencing precedent will continue. Must be measured though (see Clinton era crime reform aftermath)


  • Options
    #85
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Guy gets three years for years of harassment against six women.

    Yet the usual suspects here are either downplaying it, or blaming the women for being outraged all the time.

    Have a day off, lads.


  • Options
    #86
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Boggles wrote: »
    But you have stated what this man did was not criminal.

    Nope. I've said that calling journalists wannabes, nobodies, bigots, lefties, and pseudo-intellectual narcissists, even doing so repeatedly over years, isn't criminal. Threatening to come to someone's home is potentially threatening their safety, but that certainly doesn't rise to the level of an offence warranting three years behind bars.
    So again I ask how do you deal with odious little cretins that harass and distress numerous law abiding people?

    Let's not confuse harassing ordinary people with criticizing public figures.

    For a public figure, being called a wannabe, nobody, bigot, etc., is all part of life in the public eye. Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get thousands of such messages every day. These women all actively courted public attention — they were all "journalists and writers with a strong social media presence, particularly on Twitter" — and they should have been prepared to take the good with the bad.

    Did any of them know how to use the "block" button on Twitter?


  • Options
    #87
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,641 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Let's not confuse harassing ordinary people with criticizing public figures.

    That's exactly what you are doing.

    Unless these 6 women and their families were someway extraordinary and therefore fair game to be harassed for years?

    :confused:

    Personally I have never heard of any of them. Comparisons with Trump is fair bizarre.
    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

    Did any of them know how to use the "block" button on Twitter?

    The harassment just wasn't on twitter.

    Again you are forgetting he was asked multiple times to stop, one of the victims even offered help.


  • Options
    #88
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,818 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Nope. I've said that calling journalists wannabes, nobodies, bigots, lefties, and pseudo-intellectual narcissists, even doing so repeatedly over years, isn't criminal. Threatening to come to someone's home is potentially threatening their safety, but that certainly doesn't rise to the level of an offence warranting three years behind bars.

    Let's not confuse harassing ordinary people with criticizing public figures.

    For a public figure, being called a wannabe, nobody, bigot, etc., is all part of life in the public eye. Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get thousands of such messages every day. These women all actively courted public attention — they were all "journalists and writers with a strong social media presence, particularly on Twitter" — and they should have been prepared to take the good with the bad.

    Did any of them know how to use the "block" button on Twitter?

    You make it sound like the scumbag didn’t know how to re-register user or email accounts. Or are you not the real Permabear!

    Why should the victims not get at least 3 years of peace of mind after 6 years of worrying some deranged lunatic might finally snap any given night and come do them real physical or mortal harm?


  • Options
    #89
    Silly Gilly
    Registered Users Posts: 128 ✭✭Silly Gilly


    Intolerant Misogynists Haven Online


  • Options
    #90
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Overheal wrote: »
    Why should the victims not get at least 3 years of peace of mind after 6 years of worrying some deranged lunatic might finally snap any given night and come do them real physical or mortal harm?

    A recluse who had left his house twice in the previous 17 years?

    Hardly seems likely, does it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    Here's a paragraph from the RTE report which might have had a bearing on sentencing:
    The court heard how Doolin had initially been remanded on bail ahead of his sentence hearing but was taken into custody after making contact with people connected to the victims. He had spent the last three months in custody.

    He's not just guilty of some name-calling.


Advertisement