Dead baby taunting troll feels wrath of law

[klr]

Interesting ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/15/jane_troll/

Trolls, beware: the moderatrix has teeth

Opinion Do not piss off the moderator – or a jail sentence could await you. In fact, do not generally piss people off on the net, or the same may apply, as unemployed Colm Coss of Ardwick, Manchester is likely very soon to be finding out.

Mr Coss is a troll, with the particularly unpleasant habit of seeking out online tribute sites – and leaving vicious or obscene messages about the deceased. His targets have included Facebook memorials to victims of high-profile tragedies around the world, which he then set about attacking with sexual innuendo.

Also singled out for Coss’ attention were a car crash victim in Australia, a dead baby in the US – and a Facebook page dedicated to the late UK Big Brother star, Jade Goody.

The means to his downfall lay in s127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it an offence to send messages that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

The offence occurs whether those targeted actually receive the message or not (since the core of this offence is about the sending of the message): and in the case of DPP vs. Collins in 2006 the House of Lords determined that a message is "grossly offensive" if it was likely to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates (in that case ethnic minorities).

Prosecution in such cases was deemed not to be a breach of the Human Rights Act. According to a report in the Mail, Matthew Siddall, prosecuting, said: "The defendant told police that he finds the comments amusing. He said it causes reaction."

His downfall came about only after he distributed photos of himself to residents on his street, saying he was an internet "troll". His neighbours rang police.

According to District Judge Khalid Qureshi: "This crosses the custody threshold". Coss was granted bail and will return to court for sentencing later this month.

Bootnote:

While we are sure that none of our own readers would engage in such bad behaviour, the use of this legislation in this way is yet one more strand of regulation that is increasingly likely to be used to tame the net in future – and it may have repercussions not just for trolls, but also for the entire slashdot genre.

Last year, we reported on the "Girls Scream Aloud" trial, which looked set to become a landmark case in the evolution of Obscenity Law in the UK – but which was abandoned when the CPS decided that there was no case to answer. Had the police gone for the lesser charge under the Electronic Communications Act, the content of the story may well have been considered grossly offensive to members of that band and the author could have ended up in prison after all.

[Trolldor]

Oh, wonderful, let's all make laws as generic as to punish that which is "offensive" or "menacing".

...but wow, that is a hell of a lot of people they're going to have to bring under the law then. Christ, just starting with youtube comments would fill up the prisons.

[klr]

Oh, wonderful, let's all make laws as generic as to punish that which is "offensive" or "menacing".

...but wow, that is a hell of a lot of people they're going to have to bring under the law then. Christ, just starting with youtube comments would fill up the prisons.

"The thin end of the wedge" indeed. But it's the possible "offence to religion" angle that I'm worried about.

This guy was obviously being a world-class dick, but all the more so for giving the authorities an opening to restrict free speech on the internet.

[Trolldor]

Good with the bad.
Free expression of opinion, and the freedom to challenge those opinions.
The last thing we need is censorship of the internet, the only place left on Earth where 'freedom of speech' really is absolute.
Plenty of countries have censorship, and it is disgusting.

[Feck]

I'm offended .

[cowiz]

I'm offended .

Your post offends me greatly, I have informed the police.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Westboro Baptist, take note.

[Thinking Aloud]

Westboro Baptist, take note.

They're allowed to, because they're religious, and religious is exempt from stuff.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Westboro Baptist, take note.

They're allowed to, because they're religious, and religious is exempt from stuff.

And I'm allowed to counter-express myself.

[Bella Fortuna]

Westboro Baptist, take note.

They're allowed to, because they're religious, and religious is exempt from stuff.

And I'm allowed to counter-express myself.

No you're not - that's not showing them the inherent respect they deserve!

[Thinking Aloud]

Westboro Baptist, take note.

They're allowed to, because they're religious, and religious is exempt from stuff.

And I'm allowed to counter-express myself.

Yo not religion man you can't not allowed no religion fags god kill america hate.

[Bella Fortuna]

That made much more sense than mine.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Westboro Baptist, take note.

They're allowed to, because they're religious, and religious is exempt from stuff.

And I'm allowed to counter-express myself.

No you're not - that's not showing them the inherent respect they deserve!

Actually, I would be treating them in the manner they deserve. I just need a judge who would look at it that way.

[mistermack]

I'm not convinced by the "thin end of the wedge" or "slippery slope" argument.

It's illegal to make offensive or threatening phone calls, or send similar letters. It hasn't led to overbearing censorship of that kind of communication.
Common sense dictates how far people can go, before they need a legal slap.

I can't see any reason why the same principles can't work well on the net. Common sense should prevail. Someone like this guy should pay for going too far, and taking pleasure in causing distress. We shouldn't make them immune, just in case of the danger that censorship would gradually creep in.
You just make sure that it's restriced to the worst cases. We make it work all the time, perfectly well. It's not rocket science.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is no such thing as "common sense". If there were, we wouldn't need traffic laws.