UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet 898
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the glad-we-don't-have-any-of-that-here dept.
from the glad-we-don't-have-any-of-that-here dept.
Xest writes "A man in the UK has been jailed for 18 weeks for 'trolling,' and has also been given an order banning him from using social networking sites for five years. 25-year-old Sean Duffy mocked a dead teenager who had jumped in front a train by posting offensive remarks on a page dedicated to her memory, and creating a YouTube parody of Thomas the Tank with the deceased girl's face in place of Thomas. Is it about time trolling to this extent saw this kind of punishment, or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?"
Coverage from the Guardian explains that Duffy pleaded guilty to "two counts of sending malicious communications," and added that he must tell police about any phones he buys that can provide internet access.
Get the basic facts right at least (Score:4, Informative)
mocked a dead teenager who had jumped in front a train by posting offensive remarks on a page dedicated to her memory, and creating a YouTube parody of Thomas the Tank with the deceased girl's face in place of Thomas
It's Thomas the Tank Engine, not Thomas the Tank. How would it make any sense it make a parody of her as a tank?
Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong? (Score:3, Informative)
I can see how this is morally wrong. But how is it criminal?
Hardly just trolling... (Score:5, Informative)
Considering that he was a serial offender, and had received an official caution from the police in 2009 for a similar offence, it seems unlikely that he didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken.
If he'd done a similar thing by post [legislation.gov.uk], he'd still be going to prison.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Informative)
To be accurate, the phrase is "it may harm your defence if, when questioned, you do not mention something you later rely on in court".
It's not just a simple "he didn't say anything, so he's clearly guilty".
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:5, Informative)
If they get enough evidence to justify questioning someone as a suspect or person if interest and that person isn't smart enough to shut the fuck up until they have a lawyer to do the talking for them, the authorities will probably get all they need to continue prosecution from there. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is not a concept unique to the United States.
However in the UK, it's more a case of "Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law, and anything you don't say may harm your defence". The right to remain silent can be used to make "adverse inferences", unlike the US. So unfortunately "shut the fuck up" doesn't always work too well.
Incorrect. In the US, your testimony counts as evidence for the prosecution, hearsay for the defence. Anything you say can be used against you in America, never for you. In the UK, your testimony has equal weight for both prosecution and defence. ("Anything you say can be used as evidence.") If you bring up some mitigating evidence during trial which you should have mentioned during questioning, that can cause issues for your defence ("It may harm your defence if you fail to mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court.")
In any case, your appropriate response to being placed under arrest is "I'm sorry, Officer. I do not understand the legal consequences involved in being under arrest. I will need to speak to a solicitor before I can answer any of your questions." If it's a minor offence, you can probably get advice over the phone. If it's serious, insist that they be present for interview.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Informative)
Yea like anything you say will be used to drop the case. You can say nothing that helps your case, only things that can hurt your case.
Re:Morally wrong vs Criminally wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
I can see how this is morally wrong. But how is it criminal?
It's criminal because it contravened a criminal law on the statute books. And it is a criminal law on the statute books because society has decided that such offences are seriously anti-social enough to warrant punishment.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:3, Informative)
There is no "It may harm your defence if you fail to mention...". Up here, you're perfectly within your rights to, and cannot be punished for, remaining completely silent till your lawyer arrives.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think there's a parallel here - Atkinson's court case related to a newspaper publishing articles containing falsehoods that would actively harm his career. (Reading the article, it was that he was suffering mental illness, having to take time off from acting, his family was afraid for his life). And not a word of it was true. (Also worth mentioning that he donated his "payout" to mental health agencies).
I don't know if jail time was the appropriate response for 1st degree Trolling - getting kicked off the internet strikes me as a far more appropriate punishment.