Man Gets 18 weeks prison for trolling facebook memorial pages. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25725631]This reminds me of the guy who posted pics of an FBI tracking device on his car he found on reddit - within hours the fbi were at his door asking for it back. Simply because he was from the middle east.[/QUOTE] How is this relavent?

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25725631]This reminds me of the guy who posted pics of an FBI tracking device on his car he found on reddit - within hours the fbi were at his door asking for it back. Simply because he was from the middle east.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm sure there was nothing more than that to it. I saw that too, but I doubt he was only being tracked because "he was from the middle east".

[QUOTE=R3mix;25724583]OS System?[/QUOTE] operating system system

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25725624]Yeah, there's nothing like reading hateful letters after a family member / close friend / loved one has just passed away. What a wuss.[/QUOTE] You're a horrible reader. He was saying that, basically, insulting people on a forum is not grounds to be arrested. He said nothing about obsessively harassing a grieving family.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25725432]To get any sort of damages, you have to prove a wrong. If it be negligence, libel, slander or any other civil wrong. There's no civil wrong for "emotional trauma". It only comes into play in determining the amount of damages to be awarded, otherwise, it has no purpose (of which general damages are only one type of damages).[/quote] Okay so then the guy has done absolutely nothing wrong and there should be no case at all. Congrats on fighting to prove your side of the argument invalid. [quote]I have no idea about the US, but I know a fair amount about Australia (and most likely the UK, due to very similar legal systems) - a civil case would not be heard on an issue like this.[/QUOTE] Australia is generally not a good analog for legal comparison. Australia has heavily twisted the legal system it adopted from the UK. It isn't necessarily wrong or right, it's just not the same.

Also, we're talking about the internet guys. There is NO mercy on the internet. People should suspect by now that if you advertise yourself/others, people are there to fuck with you because you don't know them.

Its relevent because it shows a trend on political policies that the governments are paying attention to what is being said on the net, I'm sure the UK is part of that too. Look up the ECHELON system on how they do it. I think the guy from reddit had recently moved with his family or something.

And of course the culprit is from Manchester. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;25725357]This is bordering on fascism. Should have been a civil case.[/QUOTE] Is it so terrible that the govt. steps in to protect bereaved families from some fucking asshole? I don't understand why people keep downplaying this as trolling, trolling is calling people ricers in the "Cars Thread", trolling is calling Gunfox, Gunfurry. What this guy did was nothing short of malicious harassment.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25725624]Yeah, there's nothing like reading hateful letters after a family member / close friend / loved one has just passed away. What a wuss. What about trolling on Facebook?[/QUOTE] um I was actually responding to faze's dumb proposition to imprison facepunch trolls not the situation in the article thanks for playing try again

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;25725711]um I was actually responding to faze's dumb proposition to imprison facepunch trolls not the situation in the article thanks for playing try again[/QUOTE] Ever hear of sarcasm? That's what that was.

[QUOTE=GunFox;25725684]Okay so then the guy has done absolutely nothing wrong and there should be no case at all. Congrats on fighting to prove your side of the argument invalid.[/quote] What? I proved that a civil case doesn't pertain to this issue, which is my point. The only way possible to seek retribution is to criminally punish, which is what has happened here. [QUOTE=GunFox;25725684]Australia is generally not a good analog for legal comparison. Australia has heavily twisted the legal system it adopted from the UK. It isn't necessarily wrong or right, it's just not the same.[/QUOTE] This is true to a fair degree, but then in this case it's not necessarily wrong or right that criminal measures were sought rather than civil on this issue. Legal systems are different all around the world.

[QUOTE=d3450;25724356]Possibly the stupidest reason to go to jail :colbert:[/QUOTE] Nah, a guy went to jail because he yawned.

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;25725711]um I was actually responding to faze's dumb proposition to imprison facepunch trolls not the situation in the article thanks for playing try again[/QUOTE] I will play again, just let us know. [editline]30th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Arvuti;25725743]Nah, a guy went to jail because he yawned.[/QUOTE] Nothing like the ridiculous reach of contempt charges in the US: [url]http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/weird/Yawn-in-Court-Earns-Prison-Time-52880012.html[/url]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25725740]What? I proved that a civil case doesn't pertain to this issue, which is my point. The only way possible to seek retribution is to criminally punish, which is what has happened here.[/QUOTE] Except even the United States doesn't use a retribution based legal system (Punitive). Much less the United Kingdom . Criminal law isn't about revenge. Retributive justice has long since been shunned. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice[/url]

[QUOTE=GunFox;25725836]Except even the United States doesn't use a retribution based legal system (Punitive). Much less the United Kingdom . Criminal law isn't about revenge. Retributive justice has long since been shunned. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice[/url][/QUOTE] Uhh what? Retribution is one of the main aims when it comes to enforcing criminal sanctions. While the aim of criminal law doesn't necessarily include retribution, it's certainly a major part of it, with a large weight placed on in UK, as seen by a large sentence over a non-violent crime. When I said retribution, I merely meant criminal sanctions, or some punishment to deter (which is also another aim). And honestly, retributive justice has not been shunned. Infact a new importance was placed on it in the US with the reintroduction of capital punishment...

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25725919]Uhh what? Retribution is one of the main aims when it comes to enforcing criminal sanctions. While the aim of criminal law doesn't necessarily include retribution, it's certainly a major part of it, with a large weight placed on in UK, as seen by a large sentence over a non-violent crime. When I said retribution, I merely meant criminal sanctions, or some punishment to deter (which is also another aim). And honestly, retributive justice has not been shunned. Infact a new importance was placed on it in the US with the reintroduction of capital punishment...[/QUOTE] No, you are confusing the system with punitive systems. Retribution is about revenge. It is a combination of a punishment which matches the crime in some fashion, as well as revenge for the injured party. Punitive is about punishment. This system uses heavy punishments as a deterrent for crimes, but does not consider the injured party in any official capacity. Criminal law cases are always the government vs the Defendant. The injured party has no place in criminal law outside of determining the guilt or innocence of the suspect.

[QUOTE=GunFox;25725990]No, you are confusing the system with punitive systems. Retribution is about revenge. It is a combination of a punishment which matches the crime in some fashion, as well as revenge for the injured party.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? Although I'm not a fan of doing this, have a look at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law#Objectives_of_Criminal_Law]Wikipedia[/url]: [quote]Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each.[/quote] [QUOTE=GunFox;25725990]Punitive is about punishment. This system uses heavy punishments as a deterrent for crimes, but does not consider the injured party in any official capacity. Criminal law cases are always the government vs the Defendant. [/quote] Man, any criminal sanction involves one or more of the aims. One of them is retribution. While you may not like to see it, as it goes against your beliefs, which may be well founded or not, they don't match what happens in the courts today. Also, criminal law cases are the People (normally represented by State, County or Country) or the Crown vs the Defendant. The Government shouldn't be involved in the judiciary, and they are not. If you see "The State of California vs. F. Johnson", don't think it's the Government, because it's actually the "People of the State of California". [QUOTE=GunFox;25725990]The injured party has no place in criminal law outside of determining the guilt or innocence of the suspect.[/QUOTE] Nah, infact they do in what's called "Victim Impact Statements" - as part of the aim of retribution, the victim's suffering is brought into consideration to help determine how sever the criminal sanctions will be. See [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4202618.stm]here[/url]. [quote]Judges already take into account the affect on victims. A victim impact statement - a written statement from relatives taken by police - is presented to the judge before sentencing.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;25725710]Is it so terrible that the govt. steps in to protect bereaved families from some fucking asshole? I don't understand why people keep downplaying this as trolling, trolling is calling people ricers in the "Cars Thread", trolling is calling Gunfox, Gunfurry. What this guy did was nothing short of malicious harassment.[/QUOTE] I mean I understand why they did it, the dude was an asshole. I just don't like the precedent it sets. Before the Iraq war started the Bush administration called the anti-war protestors traitors, just imagine if they could arrest them for trolling. It's just a door you don't want to open for them.

This is grade 1 trolling, wait till 4chan gets hold of this...

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;25726566]I mean I understand why they did it, the dude was an asshole. I just don't like the precedent it sets. Before the Iraq war started the Bush administration called the anti-war protestors traitors, just imagine if they could arrest them for trolling. It's just a door you don't want to open for them.[/QUOTE] If "Freedom of Speech" doesn't exist, something along the lines of "Freedom of Political Communication" normally does. It's a similar right, as in, you could protest about the war, but you couldn't go around saying "Black people are stupid", and be safe from prosecution.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25724744]No, I'm not talking about defamation. I'm talking about criminal action - [B]something American's wouldn't understand[/B]. It's wrong to allow anything to be said under "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is generally an out of date practice. Freedom of political communication should be your right, not freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] You know. This has to be one of the best posts of 2010, because clearly being American turns you into this:. [img]http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3715/redneck.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Fatman55;25726744]You know. This has to be one of the best posts of 2010, because clearly being American turns you into this:.[/QUOTE] What does a Redneck have to do with rights between two different countries?

[img]http://i54.tinypic.com/1zczj10.jpg[/img] I am so sorry.

i dont give a damn, he doesn't deserve fucking jail time. what they should have done was threatened him with jail time if he continued it and sent him to some fucking counseling. not just 4 and a half months of jail time, as if that would solve the fucking issue.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;25727275]i dont give a damn, he doesn't deserve fucking jail time. what they should have done was threatened him with jail time if he continued it and sent him to some fucking counseling. not just 4 and a half months of jail time, as if that would solve the fucking issue.[/QUOTE] You've never heard of deterrence?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25727361]You've never heard of deterrence?[/QUOTE] Jail time as a deterrence is incredibly dumb.

[QUOTE=Doriol;25727372]Jail time as a deterrence is incredibly dumb.[/QUOTE] Why? That's a pretty outlandish statement.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25727480]Why? That's a pretty outlandish statement.[/QUOTE] For things such as this, more specifically. This won't stop anybody.

[QUOTE=Doriol;25727497]For things such as this, more specifically. This won't stop anybody.[/QUOTE] If you knew about it, and the decision affected you (i.e. you being in that country), you'd be pretty stupid to go and do what they were doing. [editline]30th October 2010[/editline] I.e. a deterrence.