# Internet 'troll' jailed after mocking deaths of teenagers



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 13, 2011)

> An internet troll who posted videos and messages mocking the deaths of teenagers, including a girl hit by a train, has been jailed.
> 
> Sean Duffy, 25, targeted Facebook tribute pages and posted videos on YouTube taunting the dead and their families.
> 
> ...





..


----------



## Mael (Sep 13, 2011)

erictheking said:


> ..



Basement dweller...he will not be missed.


----------



## bullsh3t (Sep 13, 2011)

What a fat no neck dick


----------



## dream (Sep 13, 2011)

Saw this earlier, he got what he deserved.


----------



## vegitabo (Sep 13, 2011)

lol at "These days children live on Facebook, it's their lives and they're just so vulnerable."


----------



## IDGabrielHM (Sep 13, 2011)

Patton Oswald?



> Lauren Drew's father Mark spoke of the devastation it caused her family as they struggled to come to terms with her death: "We were already having a hard time. Lauren was my only daughter *and I worshipped the ground she walked on* and this person was hiding behind a computer.
> 
> 
> He then went on to focus on Lauren Drew, a 14-year-old who* died from an epilepsy attack *at her home in Gloucester in January.


Boy he must've been busy cause her ass walked all the fuck over that ground.




Really though they singled out this malignant dickhead, it's like if 20 people fired rifles into a corpse and they only charged the one who's bullet hit first with desecrating a deceased body and let the other 19 skate.

Banned from the Internet for being a dick.  To an American this looks a bit odd.
I guess he had no money to be fined and no empathy through which to make restitutions......and they threw him in jail.  Ehhh, I can see it but just barely, and I can't really agree with the countermeasure taken in this instance.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 13, 2011)

*Poster Child for Down Syndrome*


----------



## IDGabrielHM (Sep 13, 2011)

I like how this guy got jail time for mocking people who had diseases and died because of circumstance or social bullying and half of the response posts are no-name anons mocking him publicly on the internet for being mentally handicapped and for his physical appearance.


I wonder if the people who picked on Natasha were sentenced to lethal injection after she off'd herself.  After all they did what he did, except someone actually died.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 13, 2011)

Europe could really learn a thing or two from the US when it comes to free speech. To actually jail someone for his words is disgusting.

And yes, he's a fat, basement-dwelling piece of shit but he still shouldn't have his life ruined by this kind of thing.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Sep 13, 2011)

How do you even get hit by a train anyway?
I mean... it's a train.


----------



## Skywalker (Sep 13, 2011)

And nothing of value was lost.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Sep 13, 2011)

wow wtf. yeh he is a dick but he should have that fuckin right, let them sue him but dont fuckin jail his ass thats fucked up. so fucked up.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Sep 13, 2011)

I better start being nice on the Internet. The police gonna 'rrest me for bein' mean to people.


----------



## KidTony (Sep 13, 2011)

I was going to say, that if he can be jailed for this, why can't the westeros baptist church also be jailed for similar reasons? Just hadn't ralized that this is the U.K.

But honestly, i don't think he should have been jailed for it. What he said, even though extrmely tasteless, is free speech.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Sep 13, 2011)

Man if this shit happened in the states there would be a uproar over invading our rights.


----------



## Jesus (Sep 13, 2011)

Excellent.


----------



## Sophie (Sep 13, 2011)

Well deserved.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Sep 13, 2011)

Bishop said:


> *Poster Child for Down Syndrome*



He looks like he could have been in The Ringer actually.


----------



## Terra Branford (Sep 13, 2011)

What an asshole.



> Duffy was also given a five-year antisocial behaviour order to prohibit him from creating and accessing social network sites including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Bebo and Myspace. He will also have to inform police of any phone he has or buys that comes with internet access.


Good, he'll learn his lesson.


----------



## Hercule (Sep 13, 2011)

I wish every troll would go to jail


----------



## Inuhanyou (Sep 13, 2011)

Sounds fine to me. There were loads of video's mocking specific 9/11 victims, and loads of video's mocking 3/11 a few days ago as well. Would have liked to see some punishment, even if it isn't feasible here in this country


----------



## Griever (Sep 13, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Sounds fine to me. There were loads of video's mocking specific 9/11 victims, and loads of video's mocking 3/11 a few days ago as well. Would have liked to see some punishment, even if it isn't feasible here in this country



I wouldn't have, it sets a poor precedent. Those kind of jokes are in bad taste sure, but in the end it is their right to say it, freedom of speach an all.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Sep 13, 2011)

i would have liked to see punishment dealt. i'm not unaware of the precedent it sets, but everyone would like to see justice once in a while


----------



## Talon. (Sep 13, 2011)

what he did was going to far.

but now the stupid people of the world are gonna see this as an opportunity to jail everyone that pisses them off on the internet.


----------



## The Weeknd (Sep 13, 2011)

i lol at the picture


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 13, 2011)

Freedom of speech and all?

Oh god you people, what does taunting the families of these people do, what does it serve or achieve but create more pain and hurt than can spiral in to depression and suicide. Why should innocent people put up with it? If it’s punished it’s doing more good than harm.

FoS is blown out of proportion to absurd degrees.


----------



## Miss Fortune (Sep 13, 2011)

Hercule said:


> I wish every troll would go to jail



Don't have enough jails nor the manpower for that.


----------



## Basilikos (Sep 13, 2011)

For once a troll gets what he deserves.


----------



## Tiger (Sep 13, 2011)

Got what he deserved.

And to all those talking about freedom of speech as if they're high and mighty- do you even know what you're talking about, you sanctimonious blow-hards?

This guy infringed upon the rights of those families in a malicious and damaging way. Do you even know the law you seem to spout so religiously? I fucking doubt it. Read a fucking book. Free speech laws aren't as binding or strict as you seem to think.

Go bleed your heart elsewhere. If this guy going to prison for a year stops some other loser asshole living in his parent's basement from committing senseless internet hate-crimes, then the world has become a slightly better place.

As for the people who took the opportunity simply to mock the guy's appearance...are you 9? The only thing separating you from him, is you did it anonymously, whereas he did it on Facebook to the victim's faces.

Seriously, half of you are fucked in the brain six ways from Sunday. A few of you probably thought "Ah shit, better not do _that_ again, I could go to jail." Because I've seen shit almost as cruel and malicious on this forum as this article details.

Just some random, nobody loser sitting behind a computer who thinks he's untouchable by the outside world, so he can say whatever he wants. If this article makes you think twice next time...then fucking bravo to that judge for setting a precedent.

Give your collective heads a shake or two.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Sep 13, 2011)

Aren't you being too high and mighty yourself for criticizing other people's opinions Law?

From both sides of the argument, i can see lots of common sense arguments. 

But from a logical standpoint, how do you enforce such a law? There are thousands of trolls on the interweb every day, how does one scout out which ones are worth jailing and punishing? Does it go by the scale of the incident? By age? By malicious intent?

Logistics is a problem when you open the floodgates


----------



## AtomCy (Sep 13, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Freedom of speech and all?
> 
> Oh god you people, what does taunting the families of these people do, what does it serve or achieve but create more pain and hurt than can spiral in to depression and suicide. Why should innocent people put up with it? If it?s punished it?s doing more good than harm.
> 
> FoS is blown out of proportion to absurd degrees.



I agree with this. Fucking pathetic piece of shit overdid it.


----------



## Griever (Sep 13, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> i would have liked to see punishment dealt. i'm not unaware of the precedent it sets, but everyone would like to see justice once in a while



I don't see sending them to jail as being anything even resembling justice. saying offensive words or making offensive vidoes (well, actually it depends on the video) is by no means a reason to send someone to jail, i have a much bigger problem with that then the initial offence. thats one of those things that should be settled between the individuals, in my opinion.


----------



## WT (Sep 13, 2011)

Hercule said:


> I wish every troll would go to jail



Trolling is sometimes fun.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 13, 2011)

People seem to think going to jail means you sit in a cell 24 hr until released.

You sillies.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Sep 13, 2011)

Griever said:


> I don't see sending them to jail as being anything even resembling justice. saying offensive words or making offensive vidoes (well, actually it depends on the video) is by no means a reason to send someone to jail, i have a much bigger problem with that then the initial offence. thats one of those things that should be settled between the individuals, in my opinion.



i never said the appropriate punishment was anything. i said "i'd like to see punishment dealt to trolls of 9/11 and 3/11".


----------



## Griever (Sep 13, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> i never the appropriate punishment was anything. i said "i'd like to see punishment dealt to trolls of 9/11 and 3/11".



if that's the case can we agree that a broken nose is adequate?.


----------



## LadyTenTen (Sep 13, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> i never said the appropriate punishment was anything. i said "i'd like to see punishment dealt to trolls of 9/11 and 3/11".



Don't forget 11M


----------



## Stunna (Sep 13, 2011)

I've seen worse trolling. And by worse I mean better.


----------



## siyrean (Sep 13, 2011)

what's the line between harassment and free speech?


----------



## Bender (Sep 13, 2011)

Good lord he has the face of troll


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 13, 2011)

Law said:


> Got what he deserved.
> 
> And to all those talking about freedom of speech as if they're high and mighty- do you even know what you're talking about, you sanctimonious blow-hards?
> 
> This guy infringed upon the rights of those families in a malicious and damaging way. Do you even know the law you seem to spout so religiously? I fucking doubt it. Read a fucking book. Free speech laws aren't as binding or strict as you seem to think.



Do point out precisely which of their rights were violate, I'll wait right here. I'm not an expert on UK law, but I don't remember browsing the internet without having your feelings hurt to be a right.



> Go bleed your heart elsewhere. If this guy going to prison for a year stops some other loser asshole living in his parent's basement from committing senseless internet hate-crimes, then the world has become a slightly better place.
> 
> As for the people who took the opportunity simply to mock the guy's appearance...are you 9? The only thing separating you from him, is you did it anonymously, whereas he did it on Facebook to the victim's faces.
> 
> ...



Well, aren't we quite upset about people standing up for freedom of speech. You know, freedom of speech is very important to me, so important in fact that people like you insulting it cause severe emotional distress to me. And since that should be a crime according to you, I suppose I'll see you in court, good sir.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Sep 13, 2011)

and nothing of value was lost.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 13, 2011)

Troll are just people who think they are funny by acting like an asshole.


----------



## cnorwood (Sep 13, 2011)

LOL the internetz must be some srs business


----------



## Archangel Michael (Sep 13, 2011)

1 That good for him .

2 Never thought you can go to jail like that.

3 I hope he learn his lesson after hes out of jail


----------



## Watchman (Sep 13, 2011)

Law pretty much summed up my feelings on this matter. The asshole went out of his way to harass and torment people grieving over the death of their daughter/sister. Freedom of speech shouldn't cover that sort of behaviour.


----------



## Cornbreesha (Sep 13, 2011)

Don't take it out on dead people and their families just because you have no life......asshole...


----------



## Kaitlyn (Sep 13, 2011)

Pbff, this guy could only troll dead people cause he's too much of a coward to bully them in person. And I don't wanna hear that he was purposefully being a dick cause he had a sucky life with Aspergers Syndrome and was taking out on those who couldn't defend themselves. There are plenty of people with his disorder who are stand-up people.

Bullies are cowards and a waste of human life. That is all they are.


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 13, 2011)

As if this kind of shit doesn't happen alot online, see also Mitchell Henderson.

I don't agree with what this dumbass was doing but I also don't like the punishment.  Mostly because he's likely to take his issues out on people in other ways.  I mean if he's so bitter as to take things out on grieving families then what the hell is stopping him from going farther than that when he has no outlet for his bitterness?  


In short, this doesn't really address the problem, he obviously needs some kind of mental help.



> Freedom of speech shouldn't cover that sort of behaviour.


Wrong.

Either ALL speech is free or NONE of it is.  That's why the phelps family is allowed to do what they do.

You can't get into this "well you can't say that cuz it's offensive" crap because that just leads to a slippery slope.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Sep 13, 2011)

As much as this guy is an insufferable prick who needs to die of ass-cancer while burning alive in a fire, can't say I agree with any sort of limits on speech--distasteful speech or otherwise.

Now this was in Britain, so their laws and rights are different, but eh...public authorities shouldn't be enforcing bans against trolls.

They could have just banned him from Facebook for life.


----------



## Huntress (Sep 13, 2011)

^our prisons are overcrowded anyway. they put this guy in for trolling, but do nothing about those bastards who assaulted and bullied that woman and her down syndrome daughter.

That guy has no redeeming features at all, but putting him in jail for trolling is fucking retarded.
sure he was an asshole but have u seen tribute pages? they are jokes unto themselves.
really, if any of my family died, the last thing i would do is post a load of RIP messages all over the internet. Doing anything online is opening urself to being mocked.


----------



## EJ (Sep 13, 2011)

erictheking said:


> ..



Good lord.....



> They could have just banned him from Facebook for life.



You're acting like he wouldn't just find another webstite to troll on.


----------



## Stunna (Sep 13, 2011)

Wait, can's groups on Facebook be made private? Why wouldn't that be done for a funeral group?


----------



## Heloves (Sep 13, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> i would have liked to see punishment dealt. i'm not unaware of the precedent it sets, but everyone would like to see justice once in a while



that is just stupid  justice over being an asshole? wasting resources on actual criminals to arrest people trolling ?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Sep 13, 2011)

> Duffy was also given a five-year antisocial behaviour order to prohibit him from creating and accessing social network sites including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Bebo and Myspace. He will also have to inform police of any phone he has or buys that comes with internet access.



Er... way too nanny state for me. Sorry, no, just no. 

I could take this more seriously if chavs, who abuse people in real life, were treated the same way.


----------



## T.D.A (Sep 13, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Europe could really learn a thing or two from the US when it comes to free speech. To actually jail someone for his words is disgusting.
> 
> And yes, he's a fat, basement-dwelling piece of shit but he still shouldn't have his life ruined by this kind of thing.



he got what he deserved.


----------



## On and On (Sep 13, 2011)

erictheking said:


> ..



 Nuff said 

This is completely retarded though. They incarcerate that guy, but fail to do anything about sickfucks like the Westboro Baptist Church, who has caused countless cases of unrest and distress in the families of dead SOLDIERS  

Gotta love our system. Making "examples" of the lesser folk all the time


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Sep 13, 2011)

Where the hell have I seen that pic before? Oh, yeah, mod lounge pic thread.


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 13, 2011)

On and On said:


> Nuff said
> 
> This is completely retarded though. They incarcerate that guy, but fail to do anything about sickfucks like the Westboro Baptist Church, who has caused countless cases of unrest and distress in the families of dead SOLDIERS
> 
> Gotta love our system. Making "examples" of the lesser folk all the time


Look at the person that didn't read the article.

THIS WAS IN THE UK MORON.


----------



## g_core18 (Sep 13, 2011)

Yep, they mad.


----------



## On and On (Sep 13, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> Look at the person that didn't read the article.
> 
> THIS WAS IN THE UK MORON.



Then it makes sense for everything to be completely retarded 

Actually I did, I just missed out on the UK tidbit. UK/USA, same fucking difference.

Also, the article never even said it took place in the UK, and I didn't look at the source, because meh

So I'm tempted to neg you now


----------



## Bill G (Sep 13, 2011)

ITT: A bunch of pussies with easily hurt feelings saying he got what he deserved.

People. Sure, the man was an asshole.  But banning all "offensive" speech would just be a load of bullshit waiting to happen. 

I'm offended by that


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 13, 2011)

On and On said:


> Then it makes sense for everything to be completely retarded
> 
> Actually I did, I just missed out on the UK tidbit. UK/USA, same fucking difference.
> 
> ...


You really don't pay attention do you!?  I'm rep sealed.


----------



## On and On (Sep 13, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> You really don't pay attention do you!?  I'm rep sealed.



Yea, because I totally go around looking to see who is rep sealed and who isn't. I care that much


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Sep 13, 2011)

Watchman said:


> Law pretty much summed up my feelings on this matter. The asshole went out of his way to harass and torment people grieving over the death of their daughter/sister. Freedom of speech shouldn't cover that sort of behaviour.



Actually it should have and would have if "IF" The one who Dwells within the Basement had actually gone 'out' of his way to properly word his troll-a-thon
he would have had no jail time and that would have been that but he didn't and this is the FACT' of not doing that when people go on a tare to bash and get sued for libel if they don't word their shit right they will be paying for the other persons new flat screen tv...


----------



## Lilykt7 (Sep 13, 2011)

im all for free speech but targeting the grieving families through the internet is sick. He went on their memorial pages. i mean seriously? keep that shit on the forums. he did this with malicious intent to hurt these families who have gone through a lot. if he had said these things on his own page or a website fine, but he crossed a line.

edit- haven't been on this forum for a while but on and on you sound like the dumbest 12 year old i can't even.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Sep 13, 2011)

Hardly but what I said was fact about people mouthing off on tares on individuals you word it right and no one can touch you no matter how irritated they may be by what ever the fuck you said -- but at the same time their is a place for more of the insinsitive shit and facebook is not it #-chan yes; facebook and Youtube not so much as its more publicly known and leaves you with a 95% chance of trouble 5% if you're a lucky troll otherwise these news articles happen.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 13, 2011)

He's an idiot either way. He basically left a trail of breadcrumbs for the investigators.


----------



## Fran (Sep 13, 2011)

Tasha the Tank Engine


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Sep 13, 2011)

He's a 25 year old man making fun of a dead 15 year old girl. 


*Fuck this guy. *


----------



## impersonal (Sep 14, 2011)

Kaitlyn said:


> Pbff, this guy could only troll dead people cause he's too much of a coward to bully them in person.


Exactly, I only bully people in person.


----------



## Kαrin (Sep 14, 2011)

Wow... He got what he deserved. Throw the key away. 



Saufsoldat said:


> Europe could really learn a thing or two from the US when it comes to free speech. To actually jail someone for his words is disgusting.
> 
> And yes, he's a fat, basement-dwelling piece of shit but he still shouldn't have his life ruined by this kind of thing.





There's a difference between freedom of speech and cruel harassment.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

Kαrin said:


> There's a difference between freedom of speech and cruel harassment.



Creationists voicing their opinions is cruel harassment of my intelligence, so I guess they should all go to jail?


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Sep 14, 2011)

Trying to enforce a law aimed at stopping "excessive speech/etc cruelty" is like trying to fly when after you've already been buried alive. That is to say, it is technically possible, but it requires you to selectively choose what constitutes flying. Not to say some kind of "enforcement" might not begin to bequest improvement, but realistically, equally malicious "excessive speech/etc cruelty" happens in elementary and high schools every day across the world. You’d need to completely overhaul most current institutional systems for there to be any serious impact on “trolling”. Deterrence isn’t very effective when it’s limited to some random fodder, and even less on occasion when those trying to be deterred (kids) have proven diminished faculties…

Meh, at least in the case of defamation of character it's always clear cut.

Edit: I'd say you can identify what is "common sense over the lien trolling" by evaluating whether the average person would reasonably expect to do it in real life. For instance, the average person wouldn't stalk/follow a bereaving family and taunt them while desecrating whatever photos he can find of the dead. Internet or not, that's basically what this guy did...


----------



## Grep (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Europe could really learn a thing or two from the US when it comes to free speech. To actually jail someone for his words is disgusting.
> 
> And yes, he's a fat, basement-dwelling piece of shit but he still shouldn't have his life ruined by this kind of thing.



People arguing for and against this are actually both right as far as their points go.

But the people arguing against the sentencing are mistaking this for a freedom of speech issue.

Freedom of speech would apply if he was just saying these things. However he was specifically targeting the dead individuals and their families. Freedom of speech does not allow you to harass people. The key is intention. His intention was malicious and directed at the family members of the deceased.

Now if he was just on FB in general or youtube or wherever else it would be a different story in my opinion

There are of course issues like Westboro baptist nutjobs. They fall into a grey area sadly. SUPPOSEDLY their intention is religious so in the US they already get protection there. And they don't directly target they families of people they troll. They protest public things like funerals and shit. It does suck though because they are just in between where I believe the line is drawn. And I GUESS their intention isn't to cause damage to the families but to educate and spread the word or some bullshit. So it is slightly different.

But yeah the difference is this guy was essentially harassing these people and intentionally causing emotion damage.

Freedom is speech is about voicing your opinion, especially in public settings. It doesn't allow you to harass people in public or especially private settings repeatedly.

I'd also like to add it was a terrible troll. Too direct and inflammatory. A good troll is subtle and smooth like a cool evening breeze


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

BGtymin said:


> People arguing for and against this are actually both right as far as their points go.
> 
> But the people arguing against the sentencing are mistaking this for a freedom of speech issue.
> 
> ...



I fail to see how intention makes it any less of a freedom of speech issue. When I say libertarians are sociapathic fuckwits, I fully intend to cause them as much emotional distress as humanly possible, but still it's covered under freedom of speech in most countries.



> Freedom is speech is about voicing your opinion, especially in public settings. It doesn't allow you to harass people in public or especially private settings repeatedly.
> 
> I'd also like to add it was a terrible troll. Too direct and inflammatory. A good troll is subtle and smooth like a cool evening breeze



As far as the article goes he did not infringe upon their privacy in the least, it was a public facebook group.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Sep 14, 2011)

norris, is that you?


----------



## Zaru (Sep 14, 2011)

I'm not even going to tackle the freedom of speech vs. getting what he deserves issue.

What I DO have a problem with though is the punishment in this case. Prison? I mean really? What is locking up an asshole going to achieve? Introducing him to the world of crime? Getting his anus sore? Wasting tax payer's money?
There are likely much better ways to teach someone like him a lesson, without giving him a criminal record and experience in jail. Keep that for the murderers, rapists etc.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Sep 14, 2011)

Still trying to figure out how people are hit by trains.


----------



## Zaru (Sep 14, 2011)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Still trying to figure out how people are hit by trains.



1. Stand in front of a train coming at you 
2. ???
3. Enjoy being dead


----------



## Grep (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I fail to see how intention makes it any less of a freedom of speech issue. When I say libertarians are sociapathic fuckwits, I fully intend to cause them as much emotional distress as humanly possible, but still it's covered under freedom of speech in most countries.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the article goes he did not infringe upon their privacy in the least, it was a public facebook group.



Last time I checked libertarians are not a single person. 

If you followed a single libertarian around and heckled him that would be harassment. You can very well harass someone in public anyways even on the internet.

The issue is people do not properly understand what freedom of speech is. There are and have always been limitations on freedom of speech (in the US). Slander, libel, obscenity, incitement, harassment. There a ton of other things that don't apply. But freedom of speech isn't some magic thing that allows people to say whatever they want anywhere all the time. If there wasn't limitations I could just chase kids around all day screaming obscenities in their faces, stand outside a restaurant and scream that they serve feces, and then say I put a bomb in the train station. Freedom of speech has and needs to have limits.


----------



## Plush (Sep 14, 2011)

I don't think I have anything meaningful to say here.


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Well, Sauf, we do have libel and slander.


----------



## Goobalith (Sep 14, 2011)

Good riddance, he got what he deserved. You wanna be a dick to people? Than prepare to be treated like shit because thats all you are and all you deserve. Pretentious little pussies trying to compensate for lack of any real balls with insecure displays of "manliness". Its a phony pathetic display by the shitstains of humanity if you ask me.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> Well, Sauf, we do have libel and slander.



Which is a different thing altogether. Defamation doesn't just hurt someone's feelings, it can (and does) cause actual loss of income.



BGtymin said:


> Last time I checked libertarians are not a single person.



Making fun of dead people doesn't target a single person, either, unless you're saying dead people should enjoy all the rights of living people.



> If you followed a single libertarian around and heckled him that would be harassment. You can very well harass someone in public anyways even on the internet.
> 
> The issue is people do not properly understand what freedom of speech is. There are and have always been limitations on freedom of speech (in the US). Slander, libel, obscenity, incitement, harassment. There a ton of other things that don't apply. But freedom of speech isn't some magic thing that allows people to say whatever they want anywhere all the time. If there wasn't limitations I could just chase kids around all day screaming obscenities in their faces, stand outside a restaurant and scream that they serve feces, and then say I put a bomb in the train station. Freedom of speech has and needs to have limits.



It's extremely easy to block a person on the internet. The article doesn't indicate that he went out of his way to target specific people (i.e. the parents or specific friends), the way it seems he just put the material out there and people could choose whether or not they want to feel offended about it.


----------



## Krombacher (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Blub



You are a very intelligent person Saufsoldat, but I think ur version of social community is strange.

In your opinion every kind of dealing psychic pain willingly should be allowed because otherwise ur mighty free speech would be offended? It is already confirmed that psychic pain is just as bad as physical pain to humans, in some ways it is even worse as physical pain results from psychic one.

But now u sit there and tell me "Free speech is the most important". That might sound good in your head but in reality that statement is very anti social. People who bring people to commit suicide by their words are just as bad as people who kill someone themselves. 

Free speech and insults are good as long as you have no intent of using it as a weapon. And this man was hurting people willingly. He hurts society just as much as people who go around and beat up other people and should be punished as such.

edit:



Saufsoldat said:


> It's extremely easy to block a person on the internet. The article doesn't indicate that he went out of his way to target specific people (i.e. the parents or specific friends), the way it seems he just put the material out there and people could choose whether or not they want to feel offended about it.



Well, I want to see your reaction when a video like this pops up about your dead mother. After all you dont need to feel offended about it...


----------



## G (Sep 14, 2011)

> Duffy was also given a five-year antisocial behaviour order to *prohibit him from creating and accessing social network sites including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Bebo and Myspace.* He will also have to inform police of any phone he has or buys that comes with internet access.


Derp he can still access Google +


----------



## Hunter (Sep 14, 2011)

He got what he deserved. Families who lost loved ones due to tragic accidents do not deserve what he did. And it's sad to see a man who is 25 doing such acts.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

Krombacher said:


> You are a very intelligent person Saufsoldat, but I think ur version of social community is strange.
> 
> In your opinion every kind of dealing psychic pain willingly should be allowed because otherwise ur mighty free speech would be offended? It is already confirmed that psychic pain is just as bad as physical pain to humans, in some ways it is even worse as physical pain results from psychic one.
> 
> ...



There is such a thing as harassment, which is one person specifically being targeted, but that's not what I see happening here. He didn't target say the mother or friend XYZ of the dead person in order to cause them psychological damage. All he did was produce something that these people then watched and considered offensive.



> Well, I want to see your reaction when a video like this pops up about your dead mother. After all you dont need to feel offended about it...



You're right, I don't even need to watch it.


----------



## Arinna (Sep 14, 2011)

This guy got what coming to him. 18 weeks jail time is not even that long.


----------



## Toroxus (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Which is a different thing altogether. Defamation doesn't just hurt someone's feelings, it can (and does) cause actual loss of income.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quoted for truth. I don't support a criminal offense called "malicious communications."


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

Arinna said:


> This guy got what coming to him. *18 weeks jail time is not even that long*.



 Spoken like someone who has no concept of time whatsoever.


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 14, 2011)

""I fell asleep on the track lolz""

Lol... I do feel sorry for the guy though, I'm sure he didn't mean what he said.

Based on this verdict, all american's who laughed and celebrated at bin laden's death should also be put to jail.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Based on this verdict, all american's who laughed and celebrated at bin laden's death should also be put to jail.



Well that was incredibly stupid.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well that was incredibly stupid.



Why is it more legal to make fun of dead criminals than to make fun of regular dead people? Does it not cause the same psychological damage to their family?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why is it more legal to make fun of dead criminals than to make fun of regular dead people? Does it not cause the same psychological damage to their family?



I know you like to play Devil's Advocate to idiotic levels, but you stated it yourself. One is a criminal, specifically an international criminal responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths across the globe, and harming millions in contrast to individuals whom we have no idea of in regards to their criminal history, if they have any. Regardless of what one thinks about the guy's jailing, that comparison by Perseverance was incredibly stupid.


----------



## Agmaster (Sep 14, 2011)

Bet you if it was a hot chick, response paradigm would differ.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I know you like to play Devil's Advocate to idiotic levels, but you stated it yourself. One is a criminal, specifically an international criminal responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths across the globe, and harming millions in contrast to individuals whom we have no idea of in regards to their criminal history, if they have any. Regardless of what one thinks about the guy's jailing, that comparison by Perseverance was incredibly stupid.



It doesn't necessarily have to be a Bin Laden, many criminals have families that care about them. I'm just not seeing someone getting jailed over insulting a dead murderer, even though it should make no difference. We'll have to see what precedent this sets, but I think that factors have played in the ruling here which shouldn't influence a judge's decision in the least, like the fact that the dead people were innocent children or that the defendant is a fat aspie.


----------



## kazuri (Sep 14, 2011)

So many people here who will fail so hard, or ruin peoples lives if they had any power. You don't go using power just because your emotions flare up. Bunch of damn animals.

It is not criminal to say mean things about people. What he 'deserved' was to be put on ignore. If he tries avoiding that, then that is harassment. It is not harassment to tell people what you feel, even if its mean, once. It's harassment when you start doing it over and over. Him making pictures and videos isnt harassment unless he is spamming their emails etc.


You don't throw people in jail because people don't know how to block people from email and facebook.

What he deserves is an equal and opposite reaction from society, ignoring him. If this guy were to post on a dozen dead peoples websites, get 0 responses, do you think he would continue? How fucking dumb do you have to be to not realize giving him attention, and letting him know you are annoyed is what he wants?  Especially when its as simple as putting someone on ignore on a social media website? You don't teach him anything this way. If your dog pisses on the floor, you don't lock them in a closet. It solves nothing.


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 14, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I know you like to play Devil's Advocate to idiotic levels, but you stated it yourself. One is a criminal, specifically an international criminal responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths across the globe, and harming millions in contrast to individuals whom we have no idea of in regards to their criminal history, if they have any. Regardless of what one thinks about the guy's jailing, that comparison by Perseverance was incredibly stupid.



I believe celebrating/insulting anyone's "death" is wrong, regardless of who the are.


----------



## Gino (Sep 14, 2011)

That picture has me luaghing uncontrollably........

Karma's a bitch.....


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 14, 2011)

By these definition sites like the darwin awards probably shouldn't exist.


----------



## Pseudo (Sep 14, 2011)

Wow, what a prick. 

Greatest trolling ever?


----------



## -Dargor- (Sep 14, 2011)

vegitabo said:


> lol at "These days children live on Facebook, it's their lives and they're just so vulnerable."



Take away a teen's internet access + cellphone nowadays and they'll react like crack addicts, seriously.

It's fucking pathetic.


----------



## very bored (Sep 14, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> By these definition sites like the darwin awards probably shouldn't exist.



The darwin awards only require that you remove yourself from the gene pool:  You don't *have to * die for that to happen, so they would probably still be around.


----------



## Nikushimi (Sep 14, 2011)

> Among his victims was Natasha MacBryde, 15, *who died instantly when hit by a passenger train* near her home in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.
> 
> The day after Natasha's death in February, Duffy posted comments including "*I fell asleep on the track lolz*" on the Facebook tribute page created by her brother James, 17.
> 
> Four days later he created *a YouTube video called "Tasha the Tank Engine" featuring her face superimposed on to the front of the fictional engine*.





Oh wow, the family must've been pissed. I've never seen trolling of this level before. But going to jail for it? Ehhh... I don't like the implications that has. Not to condone what he did, as it was certainly malicious and reprehensible, but being an asshole isn't exactly a crime. Especially when it's this transparent, you'd think they'd just be able to block him or adjust privacy settings so he couldn't access their pages. I mean, it's just some guy on the internet who was very clearly looking to start trouble... Then again, I guess he got exactly what he was looking for.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Sep 14, 2011)

> Malicious communication through social networking is a new phenomenon



bull



shit


----------



## Monzaemon (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> And yes, he's a fat, basement-dwelling piece of shit but he still shouldn't have his life ruined by this kind of thing.



He only got jailed for four months.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 14, 2011)

As much of a dick as he is and as inexcusable as his actions were, the fact that he was jailed for it is bullshit and a violation of free speech


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Sep 14, 2011)

Zaru said:


> 1. Stand in front of a train coming at you
> 2. ???
> 3. Enjoy being dead



*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Mikaveli (Sep 14, 2011)

Cyber police got on that ass, he goofed.


----------



## Xion (Sep 14, 2011)

He dun goofed indeed!

But wow you have to be a real class act asshole to go to those lengths to harass friends of dead people. Did the girl reject his neckbearded advances or something?


----------



## Mizura (Sep 14, 2011)

> She said his condition meant he was not aware of the effect he was having on his victims.


Nonsense! People with Aspergers have trouble guessing the thoughts of the people they's directly interacting with, so they may come across as offensive. However, they're not intellectually incompetent either. If they're going to the person's Facebook and posting offensive messages, they know exactly what they're doing.

It's like some people don't realize their strength when they push or grab someone, but if he walked to someone on the street purposely and stabbed him with a knife, he knows exactly what he's doing.


----------



## Xion (Sep 14, 2011)

Ah the Aspergers Defense. Because apparently having Aspergers turns you into an asocial, basement-dwelling troll who lolz at dead kids.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> It doesn't necessarily have to be a Bin Laden, many criminals have families that care about them. I'm just not seeing someone getting jailed over insulting a dead murderer, even though it should make no difference. We'll have to see what precedent this sets, but I think that factors have played in the ruling here which shouldn't influence a judge's decision in the least, like the fact that the dead people were innocent children or that the defendant is a fat aspie.



Context makes all the difference, though I don't agree with the ruling. At the same time, I have no sympathy for the guy as he set himself up. I think he probably would have offed himself sooner or later anyways.

Perseverance used Bin Laden as his choice (big surprise), and I'm just not seeing how making fun of or rejoicing over the death of Bin Laden is even comparable to doing the same over citizens that didn't harm anyone.


----------



## Pink Floyd (Sep 14, 2011)

If he had a good enough lawyer, he would be suing the family, and probably win!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Monzaemon said:


> He only got jailed for four months.



Look, another person with no concept of time and no idea what it means to have a criminal record.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Sep 15, 2011)

Mizura said:


> Nonsense! *People with Aspergers have trouble guessing the thoughts of the people they's directly interacting with*, so they may come across as offensive.


So we all have Aspergers?


----------



## Kittan (Sep 15, 2011)

siyrean said:


> what's the line between harassment and free speech?



Ugly people shouldn't have free speech.


----------



## hammer (Sep 15, 2011)

family should learn how to block

fatass should learn to proxy


----------



## Zhariel (Sep 15, 2011)

Wow, pretty shocked to read this, but definitely happy. Wake up call for this pathetic fuck. I bet he shit his pants a little bit.


I will say that he does look like he could be a tad retarded. Like, if there was a Down Syndrome train, it hit him.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Sep 15, 2011)

Wait, I can get like, half the Cafe sent to jail just by reporting the shit they post here?

_Sweet_


----------



## James Bond (Sep 15, 2011)

Okay what he did was really bad and could see how the family could be upset but to be sent to jail for this ? In real life it would've been a telling off or a restraining order where if the person in this case was to post/upload anything to do with the deceased family member than further action should be taken but to be sent straight to jail.. this could spiral horribly and could even be abused.


----------



## Monzaemon (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Look, another person with no concept of time and no idea what it means to have a criminal record.



Given that I have friends and family with criminal record, I know very well what it means. And none of their lives were "ruined" by being in jail for couple of weeks.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Sep 15, 2011)

I'm starting to believe that looks can tell your personality. Personally I'd sentence him to jail for far more years. I do not want such sick humans in the society.


----------



## gtw1983 (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Well, aren't we quite upset about people standing up for freedom of speech. You know, freedom of speech is very important to me, so important in fact that people like you insulting it cause severe emotional distress to me. And since that should be a crime according to you, I suppose I'll see you in court, good sir.



Wow..are you REALLY comparing you being offended by a simple comment about free speech;to a Parent being taunted maliciously after their child is murdered or commits suicide?

The point the others are trying to make is that while 'freedom of speech' is operable,there also has to be a line in the sand drawn eventually.Other wise the Trolls and sick freaks will just continue to push their luck further each time.


There is a difference between 'freedom of free speech' and using that right to spout pure venom and hatred.I highly doubt the founding fathers envisioned that law used in the way it is nowadays.

Back in their day even dissenting against the King could land you in prison.They wrote the founding documents with the intention of the common people having power over the govt and not vice versa as it was pre Revolutionary War.There is a world of difference from being protected from being jailed for exercising peaceful and legitimate gripes against the  govt;and trying to hide behind the law as an excuse to hate 

The meaning of the term has become very corrupted in modern times.We've got people that want to classify absolutely anything short of physical assault or Murder as a persons right to free speech.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

gtw1983 said:


> Wow..are you REALLY comparing you being offended by a simple comment about free speech;to a Parent being taunted maliciously after their child is murdered or commits suicide?



Where is the difference? In intent? Maybe I love freedom of speech like a child?



> The point the others are trying to make is that while 'freedom of speech' is operable,there also has to be a line in the sand drawn eventually.Other wise the Trolls and sick freaks will just continue to push their luck further each time.
> 
> There is a difference between 'freedom of free speech' and using that right to spout pure venom and hatred.I highly doubt the founding fathers envisioned that law used in the way it is nowadays.
> 
> Back in their day even dissenting against the King could land you in prison.They wrote the founding documents with the intention of the common people having power over the govt and not vice versa as it was pre Revolutionary War.There is a world of difference from being protected from being jailed for exercising peaceful and legitimate gripes against the  govt;and trying to hide behind the law as an excuse to hate



I highly doubt I give a darn what a bunch of slave owners thought about freedom of speech.



> The meaning of the term has become very corrupted in modern times.We've got people that want to classify absolutely anything short of physical assault or Murder as a persons right to free speech.



That's bullshit, pure and simple. The person in this case did not target a specific person, he merely produced material that others may or may not find offensive and then spread it across social networking sites. It would have been incredibly easy for those that are upset by his words to simply block him or report him (as it's bannable behavior on most sites).


----------



## Uchihα Itαchi (Sep 15, 2011)

That's one hell of a psycho. 

Though, arresting him shouldn't be a final conclusion. Trolling is trolling, he should be internet-banned for the rest of his life.


----------



## gtw1983 (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Where is the difference? In intent? Maybe I love freedom of speech like a child?



Do you even have a Conscience or is it all cold Vulcan logic?
You would liken a minor verbal slight to the vicious mockery of loosing your child to murder or suicide?

I can't even properly comment on the level of silliness in that statement




Saufsoldat said:


> I highly doubt I give a darn what a bunch of slave owners thought about freedom of speech.



So basically you only care for your own personal definition,and could care less for the context in which it was originally intended?You sound rather Narcissistic/Antisocial yourself there Saufsoldat 

No surprise...people have tried to pervert and twist the founding documents ever since they were wrote.BTW love how you try to basically justify your position with 'Well the founding fathers owned slaves so they were wrong about everything'.You don't say it out loud but I know this is what you are implying.




Saufsoldat said:


> That's bullshit, pure and simple. The person in this case did not target a specific person



Oh..so because he attacked all the victims friends and family instead of just a single person that makes the offense any less vile.Yeah that really makes a lot of sense.



Saufsoldat said:


> he merely produced material that others may or may not find offensive and then spread it across social networking sites.



Lol..'May or may not have been offensive'?
It was a video mocking their dead child,of course it was offensive to them.
There has to be a line drawn otherwise morons like this guy will just keep pushing.




Saufsoldat said:


> It would have been incredibly easy for those that are upset by his words to simply block him or report him (as it's bannable behavior on most sites).



They obviously did report him,otherwise he would have never been caught.Also I think the fact that he did this not once but multiple times should be taken into consideration


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Sep 15, 2011)

erictheking said:


> ..




And he's called Duffy, too.

No sympathy from me.


----------



## Kathutet (Sep 15, 2011)

what a cock


----------



## IDGabrielHM (Sep 15, 2011)

Monzaemon said:


> Given that I have friends and family with criminal record, I know very well what it means. And none of their lives were "ruined" by being in jail for couple of weeks.


Then they probably didn't have lives worth touting to begin with.
But then neither did this Patton Oswald looking creepo.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

gtw1983 said:


> Do you even have a Conscience or is it all cold Vulcan logic?
> You would liken a minor verbal slight to the vicious mockery of loosing your child to murder or suicide?
> 
> I can't even properly comment on the level of silliness in that statement



If you can't defend something with logic, then you can't defend it. Appeals to emotion don't work when you're debating legal matters. I once again ask you to point out exactly what the difference is and why the line has to be drawn there specifically.



> So basically you only care for your own personal definition,and could care less for the context in which it was originally intended?You sound rather Narcissistic/Antisocial yourself there Saufsoldat



No, I simply don't care for appeals to authority, as they're inherently fallacious.



> No surprise...people have tried to pervert and twist the founding documents ever since they were wrote.BTW love how you try to basically justify your position with 'Well the founding fathers owned slaves so they were wrong about everything'.You don't say it out loud but I know this is what you are implying.



That's not what I said, the fact of the matter is just that the founding father are 100% and absolutely irrelevant to this. I don't know why you brought them up. It almost seems like you think they're the inventors of free speech and thus they have any kind of authority on how it can be used. Well, they don't and they can't even if they were standing right in front of me and telling me that they agree with what you're saying. 

It's a fallacy and nothing more.



> Oh..so because he attacked all the victims friends and family instead of just a single person that makes the offense any less vile.Yeah that really makes a lot of sense.



He didn't attack anyone, he produced the material and they chose to give him what he wanted instead of just blocking him.



> Lol..'May or may not have been offensive'?
> It was a video mocking their dead child,of course it was offensive to them.
> There has to be a line drawn otherwise morons like this guy will just keep pushing.



How can he keep pushing when you block him? Explain it to me? If he creates dupe accounts or starts using proxies to circumvent blocks, then it's harrassment and that's an actual crime I can get behind.



> They obviously did report him,otherwise he would have never been caught.Also I think the fact that he did this not once but multiple times should be taken into consideration



They reported him to the police, yes, that's obviously not what I meant.


----------



## Kathutet (Sep 15, 2011)

IDGabrielHM said:


> Then they probably didn't have lives worth touting to begin with.
> But then neither did this Patton Oswald looking creepo.


going to jail won't ruin your life
it's what you're going to jail for that will possibly ruin your life


----------



## Toroxus (Sep 15, 2011)

It all makes sense now


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 15, 2011)

> He didn't attack anyone, he produced the material and they chose to give him what he wanted instead of just blocking him.



He did, actually. 



> He then went on to focus on Lauren Drew, a 14-year-old who died from an epilepsy attack at her home in Gloucester in January.
> 
> Duffy posted offensive and upsetting images relating to her death *and for Mother's Day created a YouTube video with a picture of a coffin saying "Happy Mothers Day".*



This bit's from another article on the same story.



> He also produced disturbing images and a video in relation to Lauren Drew who died in January this year.
> 
> The 14-year-old Barnwood Park Arts College girl suffered a suspected epileptic fit at her home in Naunton Road, Coney Hill.
> 
> ...


----------



## AtomCy (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> If you can't defend something with logic, then you can't defend it. Appeals to emotion don't work when you're debating legal matters. I once again ask you to point out exactly what the difference is and why the line has to be drawn there specifically.



I see that you try to rationalize everything and it does work in a sense that you can create your arguments in an objective way, but you should take into consideration that we are fucking human beings. We have emotions. How detached are you from reality? Yes we can block them. We can choose to plug our ears when someone is talking to us. But when someone is ridiculing your deceased loved ones, getting attacked when you are emotionally vulnerable, that just fucks you up. Have you ever been to such a state?  

It all seems so simple until it happens to you.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

AtomCy said:


> I see that you try to rationalize everything and it does work in a sense that you can create your arguments in an objective way, but you should take into consideration that we are fucking human beings. We have emotions. How detached are you from reality? Yes we can block them. We can choose to plug our ears when someone is talking to us. But when someone is ridiculing your deceased loved ones, getting attacked when you are emotionally vulnerable, that just fucks you up. Have you ever been to such a state?
> 
> It all seems so simple until it happens to you.



What is it with the appeal to emotion fallacies in every single thread about crimes? I'm getting sick of it. Why do you think judges can't rule on cases that they have personal involvement in? Precisely because we don't want emotions clouding their judgement.

If my child dies of an overdose heroin, I might want to see the dealer executed, does that mean drug dealers should get the death penalty? It all seems so simple until it happens to you, right?

That's idiocy and violates all the rules we've set up for our modern judicial system.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Sep 15, 2011)

I don't know why they just randomly dropped in a comment that he has Asperger's. It contributes nothing to the overall article and doesn't really explain anything.


----------



## AtomCy (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What is it with the appeal to emotion fallacies in every single thread about crimes? I'm getting sick of it. Why do you think judges can't rule on cases that they have personal involvement in? Precisely because we don't want emotions clouding their judgement.
> 
> If my child dies of an overdose heroin, I might want to see the dealer executed, does that mean drug dealers should get the death penalty? It all seems so simple until it happens to you, right?
> 
> That's idiocy and violates all the rules we've set up for our modern judicial system.



I should have clarified something.

I am talking about verbal offenses against a recently deceased individual and how it affected the relatives, and why it should be considered a crime.

Your example about resulting to a judgment for a crime on a trial, that should be approached objectively, no doubt.


----------



## kandiman1224 (Sep 16, 2011)

Ouch sucks for him


----------



## quizmasterG (Sep 16, 2011)

anon no more!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 16, 2011)

AtomCy said:


> I should have clarified something.
> 
> I am talking about verbal offenses against a recently deceased individual and how it affected the relatives, and why it should be considered a crime.
> 
> Your example about resulting to a judgment for a crime on a trial, that should be approached objectively, no doubt.



So then should the Bin Laden family be allowed to sue everyone in the UK who committed "verbal offenses" against Osama?

If what matter are the feelings of the relatives, then surely the character of the deceased would make no difference.


----------



## Tion (Sep 16, 2011)

Wow. He looks like my big toe.


----------



## zuul (Sep 16, 2011)

It's a dick move but it doesn't deserve jail time IMO.


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Sep 16, 2011)

oh, awesome


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 17, 2011)

Simply ridiculous, being way more ridiculous is th almost fact that if the guy was good looking he would have more supporters.

I dont support what he did, but jailing him for that? The families could have blocked him. Jail bullies at schools who do cause real damage, before jailing internet trolls.


----------



## Redshadow49 (Sep 17, 2011)

So now he will go to prison and come out a true criminal.  



> more ridiculous is th almost fact that if the guy was good looking he would have more supporters


especially since the majority of the post just in this thread are about his looks. No matter how hard we try as humans we will always judge a book by its cover. IMO

Except in this situation the book itself is nothing to talk about.


----------



## Gino (Sep 17, 2011)

Redshadow49 said:


> So now he will go to prison and come out a true criminal.





|
|
|
|
|
|
|


----------



## SoulOfTheBlade (Sep 17, 2011)

It pisses me off that they mentions "He had Asperger's Syndrome", i mean, it's not like it was because he have Asperger that he did that. What the hell do ppl have against Asperger!?!?! >8(


Anyway.. what he did is one of the fucking worst things i've ever heard in my whole life. If i could choose i would put him in jail for the rest of his life.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 17, 2011)

SoulOfTheBlade said:


> It pisses me off that they mentions "He had Asperger's Syndrome", i mean, it's not like it was because he have Asperger that he did that. What the hell do ppl have against Asperger!?!?! >8(
> 
> 
> Anyway.. what he did is one of the fucking worst things i've ever heard in my whole life. If i could choose i would put him in jail for the rest of his life.



Worse than: Genocide, crimes against humanity, murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, statutory rape, assault?

I'm glad you don't get to choose any punishment for anyone.


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Sep 17, 2011)

It's obviously not the worst thing, I agree, but people seem to think that what happens in internet is not serious, that having a screen between them and the rest of the community is a right to be as much of an asshole as they want to, and that they can mock people like that. it shouldn't be like that, so I'm glad the troll got some punishment


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 17, 2011)

ane said:


> It's obviously not the worst thing, I agree, but people seem to think that what happens in internet is not serious, that having a screen between them and the rest of the community is a right to be as much of an asshole as they want to, and that they can mock people like that. it shouldn't be like that, so I'm glad the troll got some punishment



Why not? Everyone can block everyone else, no problem about it. Why have the state restrict freedom of speech when all it takes for you is the click of a button?


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Sep 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why not? Everyone can block everyone else, no problem about it. Why have the state restrict freedom of speech when all it takes for you is the click of a button?



everyone can have the freedom to say everything they want to, okay, but if you're going to hurt somebody else with your words I'm glad that that action will have consequences

that guy probably thought he was being funny, whatever, it wasn't funny to other people at all it seems

and obviously, you can avoid a troll just by not going to the site anymore.  I suck with words and debating anyway, that's why I never visit that section, so I will let John Stuart Mills talk for me



> That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.



freedom of speech is limited when you hurt other people with it


----------



## Grep (Sep 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Look, another person with no concept of time and no idea what it means to have a criminal record.



You don't really understand anything about the legal/prison system do you? Lol.

That is an EXTREMELY short prison sentence. Nobody cares if you think it is a long time or not. That is a tiny amount of time to spend in jail compared to what most people spend. What might/will do this guy in is the public nature of what he did and all of the reporting on it.

People get decades upon decades in prison for shit like 3 strikes rule. Shit there are 'career criminals' who have gotten 25+ years and even life for 'adding up crimes' that weren't murder or anything close to murder. 

Your concept of 'emotions don't matter in court' is also entirely bullshit. Any good lawyer will play to emotions when they want to. MANY judges take emotions into consideration. If it isn't something you like that is whatever. But there is not logical reason to stifle emotions. Emotions =/= unlogic. The entire thing is an emotional issue in the first place.


----------



## AtomCy (Sep 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So then should the Bin Laden family be allowed to sue everyone in the UK who committed "verbal offenses" against Osama?
> 
> If what matter are the feelings of the relatives, then surely the character of the deceased would make no difference.





You are just being ridiculous right now.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Sep 17, 2011)

I actually think what the boy has done sure is an offensive one. Well, freedom of speech it may be but we'd have to remember, there is nothing as absolute freedom and individuals are to have responsibilities for every privilege. You get to use internet, but don't use it to abuse and harass other people. It's similar to getting to choose your religion, but learn to respect other religions. Having the freedom to go to class but you still can't destroy school properties.

There should be a limit, Hating and bashing known people could still be condone as it does not really give any damage on people's feelings nor people's image. But to intentionally insult people and harass over something that cause grieve shouldn't be tolerated.

I'm still just not sure about the proper punishment.


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Sep 17, 2011)

not a troll face


----------



## BlazingCobaltX (Sep 17, 2011)

Let this be a lesson for all trollers who take their 'hobby' way too far.


----------



## Borel (Sep 17, 2011)

AtomCy said:


> You are just being ridiculous right now.


Why is that?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 17, 2011)

ane said:


> everyone can have the freedom to say everything they want to, okay, but if you're going to hurt somebody else with your words I'm glad that that action will have consequences
> 
> that guy probably thought he was being funny, whatever, it wasn't funny to other people at all it seems
> 
> ...



So jokes about 9/11 or the holocaust should be illegal? Actually 90% of all jokes are offensive to someone, like jokes about blondes or certain ethnicities or nationalities. Should all of those be illegal?



BGtymin said:


> You don't really understand anything about the legal/prison system do you? Lol.
> 
> That is an EXTREMELY short prison sentence. Nobody cares if you think it is a long time or not. That is a tiny amount of time to spend in jail compared to what most people spend. What might/will do this guy in is the public nature of what he did and all of the reporting on it.
> 
> People get decades upon decades in prison for shit like 3 strikes rule. Shit there are 'career criminals' who have gotten 25+ years and even life for 'adding up crimes' that weren't murder or anything close to murder.



I'm not comparing his prison sentence to that of actual criminals, I'm just talking about his prison sentence, which is very long. Several weeks are a long time in case you can't tell. That other people get ridiculously long sentences for minor crimes is no excuse.



> Your concept of 'emotions don't matter in court' is also entirely bullshit. Any good lawyer will play to emotions when they want to. MANY judges take emotions into consideration. If it isn't something you like that is whatever. But there is not logical reason to stifle emotions. Emotions =/= unlogic. The entire thing is an emotional issue in the first place.



Thanks for admitting that you know shit about the judicial system of any first world country. Lawyers use emotions in countries that have juries, in an attempt to manipulate those laymen. That's all emotions are used for, to manipulate and cloud judgement. If you have logical reasons, then there's no excuse for letting emotions influence them.

Would you want a surgeon to be put away for life after a kid died during surgery? The kid's parents probably want to, should the judge give in to their demands? No, he doesn't allow emotions to cloud his judgement.



AtomCy said:


> You are just being ridiculous right now.



Your inability to counter an argument does not render it ridiculous.


----------



## hammer (Sep 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So jokes about 9/11 or the holocaust should be illegal? Actually 90% of all jokes are offensive to someone, like jokes about blondes or certain ethnicities or nationalities. Should all of those be illegal?



*Spoiler*: __ 











call the police on me I just committed a crime by their standards


----------



## Soul (Sep 17, 2011)

Shit happens.


----------



## AtomCy (Sep 18, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Your inability to counter an argument does not render it ridiculous.



Your ability to compare two completely different things and then pass it on as an argument is ridiculous.


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Sep 18, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So jokes about 9/11 or the holocaust should be illegal? Actually 90% of all jokes are offensive to someone, like jokes about blondes or certain ethnicities or nationalities. Should all of those be illegal?



hmm.... you seem to fail at seeing the different degrees in the first place. that person harrassed a dueling family, that's a really low attack, so yeah, the emotions are more important than in those jokes where you generalize. 

jokes about a terrorist attack or a genocide. well, I don't know if illegal but I don't find them funny at all. it's not the same degree as to what that person did, but people shouldn't feel comfortable about making jokes of people who died. anyway, to each their own. I won't laugh at them but I'm perfectly aware that that's about all I can do

different thing would be you looking for someone who lost a loved one ten years ago in said terrorist attack and you would hunt them making jokes about it, posting insensitive stuff about that, in threads where you know they will read it. so yes, in that case, I think that harrassing, even if just in an internet site, should be illegal

and hammer, same for you. I know that your gifs are just insensitive ones, which would tell me something about you, but it's not illegal, just that, insensitive


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 18, 2011)

AtomCy said:


> Your ability to compare two completely different things and then pass it on as an argument is ridiculous.



So what is the difference between relatives of Bin Laden and relatives of those families here? Why should those families be treated differently by the law? Why are the feelings of one of them more important?



ane said:


> hmm.... you seem to fail at seeing the different degrees in the first place. that person harrassed a dueling family, that's a really low attack, so yeah, the emotions are more important than in those jokes where you generalize.



What do you mean "generalize"? Is a single death more tragic than the death of millions? Where is the legal basis for that?



> jokes about a terrorist attack or a genocide. well, I don't know if illegal but I don't find them funny at all. it's not the same degree as to what that person did, but people shouldn't feel comfortable about making jokes of people who died. anyway, to each their own. I won't laugh at them but I'm perfectly aware that that's about all I can do
> 
> different thing would be you looking for someone who lost a loved one ten years ago in said terrorist attack and you would hunt them making jokes about it, posting insensitive stuff about that, in threads where you know they will read it. so yes, in that case, I think that harrassing, even if just in an internet site, should be illegal
> 
> and hammer, same for you. I know that your gifs are just insensitive ones, which would tell me something about you, but it's not illegal, just that, insensitive



He didn't harass or hunt down anyone as far as the article goes, they could have blocked him just like that. There is no indication of him going out of his way to continue talking to people who blocked him.


----------



## firefangz (Sep 18, 2011)

Trolling can be lulz but theres a point where its just gets retarded...


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Sep 18, 2011)

@Saufsoldat, when you talk of millions and don't outline a single person is a generalization. if you tell me about all the names of persons who died in those sad events, it stops being general talk. by the way, I never said a death is more tragic than many. 

why should they block the troll? what he did was wrong, he should have stopped doing that. he posting in a memorial site the way he did is not an innocent post


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 18, 2011)

ane said:


> @Saufsoldat, when you talk of millions and don't outline a single person is a generalization. if you tell me about all the names of persons who died in those sad events, it stops being general talk. by the way, I never said a death is more tragic than many.
> 
> why should they block the troll? what he did was wrong, he should have stopped doing that. he posting in a memorial site the way he did is not an innocent post



They made the memorial site public so that anyone could comment. If I make a public Bin Laden memorial site, can I sue everyone who posts something negative about Bin Laden?


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Sep 18, 2011)

as the street is a public place, and people can do whatever they feel like doing, but after that there may be consequences 

obviously you can make a Bin Laden memorial, and if you are offended by comments in your site you can sue people making those comments, but in your case the circunstances will be different. for starters I don't know if the emotional part will be the same in your case, but assuming you were Bin Laden's brother, still, you would have made a memorial site for a self proclaimed killer, someone who was the leader of an organization that was responsible for many deaths. as you said, a single death is not more tragic than many

in this case I think that the hurt feelings over the comments in your site would conflict with the hurt feelings of the people who would have been offended by you creating the site so I don't think you would get very far with it


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 18, 2011)

ane said:


> as the street is a public place, and people can do whatever they feel like doing, but after that there may be consequences



Can't block people on the street, a world of difference between the two.



> obviously you can make a Bin Laden memorial, and if you are offended by comments in your site you can sue people making those comments, but in your case the circunstances will be different. for starters I don't know if the emotional part will be the same in your case, but assuming you were Bin Laden's brother, still, you would have made a memorial site for a self proclaimed killer, someone who was the leader of an organization that was responsible for many deaths. as you said, a single death is not more tragic than many
> 
> in this case I think that the hurt feelings over the comments in your site would conflict with the hurt feelings of the people who would have been offended by you creating the site so I don't think you would get very far with it



I just don't see where you draw the line here and more importantly, I don't see any legal basis for drawing any line at all. Aren't people supposed to be treated equally by the judicial system? Am I allowed to insult a criminal but not an innocent person? What if the criminal has served is sentence? Is it then no longer alright to insult him? What if the person in question has hurt my feelings involuntarily? Can I still insult them or hurt their feelings?

Frankly, you're not making any sense. There need to be clear rules or no rules at all.


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Sep 18, 2011)

I'm just saying that if you get offended by people insulting a criminal other people may get offended by you making a memorial for a criminal. I don't draw any line in justice. I'm just saying that in this particular event you mentioned it may be really difficult for you getting those persons who may write offending comments in your site punished since they could as well be offended by the very actions Bin Laden commited at the time, and you know, emotions in action again  but again, I'm not supposed to draw any line, so whatever


----------



## Mochi (Sep 18, 2011)

Son of a bitch. 
Making fun of dead people is so disrespectful and disgusting.


----------



## AtomCy (Sep 18, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So what is the difference between relatives of Bin Laden and relatives of those families here? Why should those families be treated differently by the law? Why are the feelings of one of them more important?




The difference for the families? None. 

The context? A whole different world.


Bin Laden is a political criminal and has commited mass murders, being an enemy of a nation such as the US and living a life on the run, his family knew it was coming eventually, right? 

Also he is also living on a different area of the world where there is no jurisdiction practically for them to actually summon the offenders there, if there was such intetion to be examined by their authorities. If the family actually reported this on the first place, maybe they can get a case going on, who knows. And if you want to speak idealistically as if everyone is globally sharing the same rights, why did they not report all the verbal offenses, libel and such to the International court? 




Saufsoldat said:


> I just don't see where you draw the line here and more importantly, I don't see any legal basis for drawing any line at all. Aren't people supposed to be treated equally by the judicial system? Am I allowed to insult a criminal but not an innocent person? What if the criminal has served is sentence? Is it then no longer alright to insult him? What if the person in question has hurt my feelings involuntarily? Can I still insult them or hurt their feelings?



If he reports you, they might act against you. But commiting a crime that affected you personally, other factors such as shame or how serious the insults may be contribute to him not reacting and not being persecuted by the authorities.


----------



## Shɑnɑ (Sep 18, 2011)

I think he really screwed himself when he took their pictures and doctored and fucked with em, court-wise.
 He looks like butterball imo, what a douche.


----------



## Mongolia (Mar 8, 2012)

This is an indication of how little influence the modern environment has on people. 

Nobody knew what this guy was doing; if someone would they would've told him it's wrong. For a person to lose his morality to this degree, has the internet that much influence on us?

*Edit: Didn't notice that I was reviving an old thread. Sorry*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 8, 2012)

Pok?mon said:


> This is an indication of how little influence the modern environment has on people.
> 
> Nobody knew what this guy was doing; if someone would they would've told him it's wrong. For a person to lose his morality to this degree, has the internet that much influence on us?



Why. Would. You. Necro. This.


----------



## Mongolia (Mar 8, 2012)

AtomCy said:


> The difference for the families?
> 
> Bin Laden is a political criminal and has commited mass murders, being an enemy of a nation such as the US and living a life on the run, his family knew it was coming eventually, right?



What has Bin Laden possibly done to the US to be their "enemy"? What "mass murder" can you state which Bin Laden has provoked? In what way was he a political criminal?



AtomCy said:


> Also he is also living on a different area of the world where there is no jurisdiction practically for them to actually summon the offenders there, if there was such intetion to be examined by their authorities. If the family actually reported this on the first place, maybe they can get a case going on, who knows. And if you want to speak idealistically as if everyone is globally sharing the same rights, why did they not report all the verbal offenses, libel and such to the International court?



As there was a form of leadership going on there was a jurisdiction, as in that case they decide what is just or not. Whoever you may talking about.


----------



## Fran (Mar 8, 2012)

Arise from the dead, internet troll thread.


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 8, 2012)




----------



## rohanshah1 (Mar 8, 2012)

I think he did deserve to be punished but being arrested is a little too much.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Mar 8, 2012)

I guarantee you a new troll face will be made from his.

Also this punishment is arguable unjust.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Mar 8, 2012)

At most he should have gotten a fine for harassment.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 8, 2012)

KidTony said:


> I was going to say, that if he can be jailed for this, why can't the westeros baptist church also be jailed for similar reasons? Just hadn't ralized that this is the U.K.
> 
> But honestly, i don't think he should have been jailed for it. What he said, even though extrmely tasteless, is free speech.



Too much game of thrones?


----------



## Spock (Mar 8, 2012)

What kind of freedom is this ? What savage country that limits his rights to mock?

Ain't France for sure.


----------



## HolyDemon (Mar 8, 2012)

Now that I think about it, if badmouthing dead people will land you in jail, surely badmouthing living people must be a similar offense, since living people deserve at least as much respect as the dead. In fact, bad mouthing a living person has a direct effect on the victim, not just his relatives and friends.

Must be careful when I come to UK and want to swear at somebody...


----------



## Rouge Angle (Mar 8, 2012)

Got what he deserved.


----------



## Kunoichiwa (Mar 8, 2012)

I don't think "freedom of speech" counts when it's clear he just gets a sick kick out of harassing the loved ones of young women who passed away. He's not trying to make a point, he's just trying to offend for the sake of being offensive. He didn't actually have a real opinion of these girls, it's clear when you look at the number of families he harassed. Freedom of speech is all about being able to express even unpopular opinions. He didn't know these young women enough to have an opinion on them. He just wanted to upset people.



> Duffy's series of online attacks began following the death of 16-year-old Hayley Bates, from Staffordshire, who died in a car crash in September 2010.






> Among his victims was Natasha MacBryde, 15, who died instantly when hit by a passenger train near her home in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.







> He then went on to focus on Lauren Drew, a 14-year-old who died from an epilepsy attack at her home in Gloucester in January.






> Public schoolgirl Natasha MacBryde was his next target. She killed herself after she was sent a message by an anonymous bully on a social networking website. She had also been teased by members of an all-girl clique at school.



You can not tell me he knew and had a real opinion on all, or even one, of these girls.


----------



## AmigoOne (Mar 8, 2012)

Yo, NF forums are pretty active.... How the fuck do you necro a thread THIS OLD.

I swear people do this shit on purpose


----------



## Fojos (Mar 9, 2012)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> How do you even get hit by a train anyway?
> I mean... it's a train.




By being really drunk or mentally impaired (as in stupid).


----------



## Gunners (Mar 9, 2012)

Law said:


> Got what he deserved.
> 
> And to all those talking about freedom of speech as if they're high and mighty- do you even know what you're talking about, you sanctimonious blow-hards?
> 
> This guy infringed upon the rights of those families in a malicious and damaging way. Do you even know the law you seem to spout so religiously? I fucking doubt it. Read a fucking book. Free speech laws aren't as binding or strict as you seem to think.


Out of curiosity what rights do you think were infringed upon? 

Anyway you would do well to take your own advice and 'read a fucking book'. People don't need to have an understanding of the Law to argue that his rights have been unfairly compromised. Your statement makes about as much sense as telling an Middle Eastern woman to read a fucking law book if she complaints about her rights being infringed upon.


----------



## Tkae (Mar 9, 2012)

But only if there's not a lawyer in the family?


----------



## God (Mar 9, 2012)

IDGabrielHM said:


> Patton Oswald?


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Mar 9, 2012)

The "Aspergers defense" is bullshit. This guy is just a dick.


----------



## Raiden (Mar 9, 2012)

Well deserved. Pretty sure he was a Blenderite .


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Mar 12, 2012)

What he did was screwed up. But jail?

Society wants to control everything except it's own actions, doesn't it?

And you guys praising the use of law to interfere with free speech are acting like idiots.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Mar 12, 2012)

Amazing how many people don't understand the necessity of freedom of speech. Isn't it obvious that if the criteria for having the right to send someone to jail for saying or writing something are, "It's offensive" and "It doesn't express any idea that's new or good or interesting", just about any criticism can be punished by imprisonment?


----------

