Internet Troll Sentenced to Jail

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

At least 200 Tennessee school children were his victims,

The children were not victims. They're the winners. They got out of school.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

however.. so many more people were directly effected by this man's posting. Schools were closed. Children were kept home from school. People missed worked. This man's threats disrupted society, and there is a real punishment for disrupting society.

They were affected by the excessive response. Since they didn't have enough time to assess whether or not there really was a legitimate threat, they overreacted.


Regardless, I'm not saying that he did nothing wrong. I'm only saying that a 2 year prison sentence is extreme, and in no way is it a just punishment. If he sits in prison for a couple years, how is that going to compensate those people in a different country who missed out on a little bit of work?

This isn't a law that was written for him. These were laws on the books. As the saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

This isn't a law that was written for him. These were laws on the books.

What law?
and on whose books is it written?

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

This isn't a law that was written for him. These were laws on the books.

What law?
and on whose books is it written?

The law that he was prosecuted under. I live in a country that adheres to the Rule of Law. If you are so interested in the specific penal code that he was charged with, do the research.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

The law that he was prosecuted under. I live in a country that adheres to the Rule of Law. If you are so interested in the specific penal code that he was charged with, do the research.

You brought it up, not me.
You're missing my point though:

This alleged threat was directed towards the U.S. He was charged and arrested in the UK. If he does end up serving time in prison, it will be in the UK.

....so whose law did he actually break?
The Law of the Internet?

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

The law that he was prosecuted under. I live in a country that adheres to the Rule of Law. If you are so interested in the specific penal code that he was charged with, do the research.

You brought it up, not me.
You're missing my point though:

This alleged threat was directed towards the U.S. He was charged and arrested in the UK. If he does end up serving time in prison, it will be in the UK.

....so whose law did he actually break?
The Law of the Internet?

edit on 7/13/13 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)

Not alleged threat. This person has been convicted and sentenced. If you are interested in knowing what laws he broke, do the research.

reply to post by winofiend

The problem is this is why we have intent laws.

Interesting. The only intent laws I've heard of involves inciting a crowd to riot and threatening the president. Other than those two things I didn't know that saying something negative proves anything more than an intent to say something negative.

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Aaaaaaaaah....Remember the good old days when "sticks and stones" was the rule of thumb and the law agreed with it? You were free to say what you wished- so long as it didn't cause injury (like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater) and thoughts and words were not a crime. You could say "I'm gonna whip your behind" but as long as your actions didn't carry the threat out you were safe from prosecution. Now even a bad joke or empty threats made on a rough day are considered "terroristic" and you can be sent to prison and have a record for life just for exercising what used to be your right to free speech. Might as well throw the Constitution on the bonfire kiddies!

You get it!
In no way does saying something prove intent. We say stupid stuff all the time. If we can be held criminally responsible for what we say, what's next? We'll be calling the police because we know that our neighbor is 'thinking' about doing harm to someone even though he didn't actually say it out loud.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by badgerprints

Not getting into a hair splitting contest over it.

You can go ask the police but they wouldn't divulge that as the people he threatened to kill were children.

Nice try, but no. There is nothing to divulge, because he didn't actually make a direct threat towards anyone in particular.

They even stated in the video that police later determined that he actually posed no physical threat to any children, neither in America nor the UK.

Posing no physical threat and threatening to kill people is still a crime.
He's in jail for a reason.

reply to post by winofiend


First of all,the TWO OF YOU (sorry, i´m somewhat NOT-OKAY-TO-DRIVE) JIggerjwinofiendwhatnot, i respect your views, your contribution to ATS demands nothing less.
Nevertheless, you are wrong.

I do not call for any more intrusion for anybodys privacy,
i just have too much personal experience on this stuff.
Make no mistake; I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG about my views,
but as for now, respectfully,
it is YOU with your kind of view that actually IS THE PROBLEM.

I doubt it,

But as i said, I COULD BE WRONG.

Is this worth it?

Some convicted child-molester complains about their treatment, gets moved into a minimum security prison, with the possibility to go to work OUTSIDE of the prison, to shop at the local grocery-store, to participate with the activities within the community, IS THIS ACCEPTABLE?
My opinion, democracy does not work, nor is it the least of all evils.
It is the death-warrant you all signed with a smile on your face.

I have no intetion of offending anyone,
but if it happens, well boo-effin´-hoo.
Better you than me.

reply to post by jiggerj


No one should be sentenced to prison for writing words.

Physically intimidating and threatening someone is one thing, but symbols and words are harmless. People should look at his words and laugh at his stupidity, but instead we arrest him for conjuring letters, giving him and his stupidity power over us, so much so that we feel the need to put them behind bars to protect us. It's absurd. What does this do but make us more superstitious to language? Only a culture who prays to marketing and imagery would fear such a meaningless display of verbal dog-food.

His words have only harmed himself, showed his true colors, letting everyone know the idiocy at work in this person. He does nothing but shame himself. By putting him behind bars, we in turn shame ourselves, and prove that we are weaker than the mere words of some inexperienced teenage angst.

What is this world coming to...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by jiggerj

 

What is this world coming to...

The world is coming to the realization that criminals should be dealt with.

Nice speech by the way.
"Verbal dog food." was my favorite.

reply to post by badgerprints

The world is coming to the realization that criminals should be dealt with.

If writing words is a crime, we're all criminals. Luckily, not all of us fear symbols and scratches on paper. It's superstition.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by badgerprints

 

The world is coming to the realization that criminals should be dealt with.

If writing words is a crime, we're all criminals. Luckily, not all of us fear symbols and scratches on paper. It's superstition.

What a load.
Is a legal document superstition?
Is a sworn affidavit superstition?
Is a binding contract superstition?
Is a handwritten note that incriminates a murderer superstition?

No.

He wasn't drawing occult symbols or writing out a voodoo curse.
He threatened to kill someone.

It's a crime.

reply to post by badgerprints


Where's all the guns and ammo he had stored ready for this massacre? Where's his plane tickets? He turned himself in and was remorseful—what a suicidal maniac. Maybe you can show me where offending someone is a crime, because that is all he has done and intended to do. But it seems you have him pegged before you gave it a rational thought.

What a load, but not surprising.

reply to post by LABTECH767

There is a time and a place for free speech and trolling is not that

LOL Either there is free speech or there isn't. Can't say that free speech occurs on Tuesdays between the hours of 3 AM to 4 PM, behind the gas station on Bullfinch Ave.

I DO NOT like defending this guy, but I still don't see it. He's a total moron, but as far as I know being a moron isn't against the law. He didn't wave a gun at anyone and wasn't even in the same country.

If there are certain statements considered to be illegal, then we have to stop calling what we have as free speech. 'Free' is supposed to mean FREE. Not Free with limitations.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Where's all the guns and ammo he had stored ready for this massacre? Where's his plane tickets? He turned himself in and was remorseful—what a suicidal maniac. Maybe you can show me where offending someone is a crime, because that is all he has done and intended to do. But it seems you have him pegged before you gave it a rational thought.

What a load, but not surprising.

Your guns and ammo-massacre-plane ticket-suicidal-offended has nothing to do with it.
Irrational, but not surprising.

Once again.
The criminal has broken the law.
He has been tried and found guilty and sentenced to two years in jail.

He's pretty much pegged himself.

My RATIONAL thought is that there's something irrational about defending someone's supposed "right" to threaten others lives.

Why would he turn himself in and be remorseful?
Because he offended someone?
No.
Because he threatened to kill people and knows he faces jail time.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by LABTECH767

 

There is a time and a place for free speech and trolling is not that

LOL Either there is free speech or there isn't. Can't say that free speech occurs on Tuesdays between the hours of 3 AM to 4 PM, behind the gas station on Bullfinch Ave.

I DO NOT like defending this guy, but I still don't see it. He's a total moron, but as far as I know being a moron isn't against the law. He didn't wave a gun at anyone and wasn't even in the same country.

If there are certain statements considered to be illegal, then we have to stop calling what we have as free speech. 'Free' is supposed to mean FREE. Not Free with limitations.

The Supreme Court of the United States begs to differ.

Schenck v. United States

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent

You can't yell fire in a theatre causing panic, even if there isn't a fire. This guy caused a panic with his words, and as such, was held accountable for his actions.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by jiggerj

 

What is this world coming to...

The world is coming to the realization that criminals should be dealt with.

Nice speech by the way.
"Verbal dog food." was my favorite.

I've read books where the plot is to assassinate or execute someone. Though the books are called fiction doesn't this make the writer guilty of inciting people to do such things? Doesn't this type of book promote murder? Of course not, unless you want to delve into intent. What is written even in fiction is a tell-all on what is in the writer's mind. Again, saying something is in NO WAY proof of intent.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Hi, Michael. I really enjoyed your input in my other thread.

You can't yell fire in a theatre causing panic, even if there isn't a fire. This guy caused a panic with his words, and as such, was held accountable for his actions.

This goes with my idea that maybe we shouldn't be calling it free speech. Hey, this no yelling fire in a theater makes sense, but it does limit free speech. So, maybe we should call it Reasonable Speech or Responsible Speech. I dunno.

As for this guy causing a panic, I don't think a bunch of people scrambled to get off the internet and in-so-doing trampled on other people.