Triggering (Suicide): Man jailed for 18 weeks for "trolling" insults concerning dead teenagers

[dr2005]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14894576

Thoughts?

[TheNumber42]

I think 18 weeks is a b it harsh for a bit of trolling. I mean, they had to know that making a public memorial page on Facebook was a bad idea. Kind of their own fault for leaving the door open.

On the other hand, his own fault for getting caught. This should've been him:

[blumemusik♫]

I think he deserved it.

Hopefully it'll kick some sense into him.

What he did was disgusting and uncalled for. I feel a bit ill after reading that article.

[Aletheia*]

I also think he deserves it?

Why do people go out of their way to post indecent and hurtful things about a teenager who took her own life? It doesn't even have to be under those circumstances. I also seen provoking messages on other Facebook memorial pages for people who died of cancer, or natural causes. People go out of their way to 'Like' these memorial pages just to rial someone up. It's not fair to the grieving friends or family to be put through this when they are already dealing with the loss of a loved one.

[Sythan]

He deserved it.

[Pelios]

I agree with everyone he deserved it you really have to be messed up to go out of your way and make fun of a death person.

[Anthropomorphic]

It's cases like this that make me sometimes wonder if America's "Freedom of Speech" clause is too broad and too vague. Most courts here in the U.S. wouldn't consider trolling to be hate speech, therefore it would still be protected.

This man in the U.K. fully deserves his sentence, and frankly, I think he should have gotten more. It's not just distasteful; it's downright disgusting. Even if this man has Asperger's or alcohol issues, he hardly has an excuse for this.

[Guile]

I think it's wrong to sentence someone for being rude, so are we forcing politeness with the law now?

[Le bonheur*]

I think he deserves every single week in jail and he probably deserves more. A family dealing with the loss of a loved one shouldn't have to deal with some moron going out of their way to trash a memorial site with hurtful names toward the victims. It's a memorial site, to remember the victims and share feelings about such situation. NOT to trash the poor girls. He didn't even know the girls, which makes it so much worse. It's completely wrong and sickening.

[dancinfool]

I guess I do agree that its wrong and should be stopped;maybe in this case a prison sentence was appropiate, but where do we draw the line? A quick facebook search tells there is a 'I hate Justin Bieber' page with over a million likes, and a 'Thank f*ck Jade Goody's dead' page with (more hopefully for the human race) 160 likes. But thats still 160 who may well have been just as offensive (I haven't read the group because obviously I'm not joining it) and obviously won't be spending any time in jail.

[Snufkin]

I think he deserved it. Bullying and the effects of it aren't taken seriously enough, so I would say this is a step in the right direction.

[Marguerite]

Good, he deserved it.

I know a few people who will definitely comment that though he's an idiot, we need to protect free speech, and maybe use a slippery slope arguement or two.

But free speech has always had limitations. It doesn't mean we can say whatever we want and it certainly isn't there to protect douche bags who harass families of dead children. If you really stoop to this level you deserve to be punished.

[TigerTank77]

I hope the ACLU picks up his case and he sues the shit out of everyone.

Seriously. It's JUST FUCKING TROLLING. By throwing him in jail, HE WINS.

[Guile]

I just wanted to clarify my prior post. I think he is an absolute asshole, disrespecting the dead is a very poor way to carry oneself. The issue though is that we're punishing him for being offensive, and sure, he did this for the sheer pleasure of making others miserable, but what if we use this as judicial precedence. Imagine "Your honour, he was being rude, he disagreed with my political stance and I am offended, and because of that, he should be jailed". Being jailed based on thought and non-threatening words alone, is reminiscent of the "thought police" and censorship of Orwell's 1984.

[MegaMadness]

Let's arrest everyone for trolling and giving out insults. Really? I mean like sure he was being awful, but come on. If we were to lock up everyone who did those types of things there would be no room in jail for the real criminals, who actually do worse things. You get less jail time for more serious things.

[Ellie]

It's disugsting, but I think is one of the worst things about this case is that a girl who was wrongly accussed of this by other people actually attempted suicide as a result.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fy-jailed.html

[BDF]

He got what he deserved. It makes me think though why him? There's hundreds of pathetic fucks like him in the UK doing that same shit. There's no room for all of them.

And I feel like saying... just because someone's dead, doesn't mean they should be respected. There are plenty of dead people such as Osama Bin Laden, and I'd happily piss on his grave if he had one.

[Aletheia*]

Originally Posted by BDF

He got what he deserved. It makes me think though why him? There's hundreds of pathetic fucks like him in the UK doing that same shit. There's no room for all of them.

And I feel like saying... just because someone's dead, doesn't mean they should be respected. There are plenty of dead people such as Osama Bin Laden, and I'd happily piss on his grave if he had one.

Someone finally took a stand against him. I'm sure family members or friends altered the police about his 'trolling' on the memorial page, and that's how they traced his information back to him (if I remember correctly, reading the article it said they used his internet service provider and other things to track him down).

Now, while I completely agree with you on the Osama Bin Laden and other disrespectful people who've died, this young girl committed suicide for bullying, and it's continuing on after she has died. In no way is that fair to her grieving family and friends for this guy to be so disrespectful.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by ShannonPants

Now, while I completely agree with you on the Osama Bin Laden and other disrespectful people who've died, this young girl committed suicide for bullying, and it's continuing on after she has died. In no way is that fair to her grieving family and friends for this guy to be so disrespectful.

I understand, was just trying to make a separate point.

[Paix et Amour]

i think jail is a bit much. sure its fucked up, but maybe just a site ban would have gotten the point across without the troll getting what he wanted - attention.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Boohoo, his comments were mean and hurtful, let's lock him up for a bit. Come on, it's harmless trolling and people whined about it enough to get him to court. He cant even be blamed in any way for the deaths. Being an asshole isn't a crime. The result of this implies that only polite language is tolerated, otherwise, you're at risk for being charged. It's one step closer to having "thought police" and making George Orwell's novel "1984" come true.

Originally Posted by Ellie

It's disugsting, but I think is one of the worst things about this case is that a girl who was wrongly accussed of this by other people actually attempted suicide as a result.

There's only one person to blame for the fact she tried to commit suicide: herself.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Boohoo, his comments were mean and hurtful, let's lock him up for a bit. Come on, it's harmless trolling and people whined about it enough to get him to court. He cant even be blamed in any way for the deaths. Being an asshole isn't a crime. The result of this implies that only polite language is tolerated, otherwise, you're at risk for being charged. It's one step closer to having "thought police" and making George Orwell's novel "1984" come true.

Two things I would say in response:

1) The posts caused clear and reasonable harm to the families of those he targeted, so claiming it is "harmless" is with respect a bit wide of the mark (and probably contributed to his sentence, knowing the guidelines);

2) Some of the posts he made, including allegations regarding sexual conduct, would qualify as defamation were the target still alive.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

There's only one person to blame for the fact she tried to commit suicide: herself.

Read J.B. Priestley's "An Inspector Calls", and you may find yourself challenging that claim. You may not of course, but on the whole that is a rather simplistic statement.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I hope the ACLU picks up his case and he sues the shit out of everyone.

Seriously. It's JUST FUCKING TROLLING. By throwing him in jail, HE WINS.

I wouldn't say a criminal record counts as a "win" by any definition, and in any event the ACLU does not have rights of audience in the English courts.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by dr2005

1) The posts caused clear and reasonable harm to the families of those he targeted, so claiming it is "harmless" is with respect a bit wide of the mark (and probably contributed to his sentence, knowing the guidelines)

If you play that card, then when I call little Joey a "useless piece of shit", it should cause harm to him. Furthermore, it puts me at risk of getting sued because in simple terms, I hurt his feelings with unkind words. For the sake of simplicity, assume little Joey is a legal adult and is alive. If he truly felt hurt by my words, he would sue me, not his parents. It's understandable that the girl's parents were emotionally harmed by the comments but the comments were aimed at the girl more so than the parents. In fact, if the girl's uncle's twice-removed daughter read the comments and felt harmed, could she also sue? You can see where this is going.

Originally Posted by dr2005

2) Some of the posts he made, including allegations regarding sexual conduct, would qualify as defamation were the target still alive.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume defamation cannot be applied to a dead person. If my assumption is correct, I fail to see the point you're making as your point is purely hypothetical.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Read J.B. Priestley's "An Inspector Calls", and you may find yourself challenging that claim. You may not of course, but on the whole that is a rather simplistic statement.

When most people on here tell me to read something without providing a summary themselves, I generally think they don't understand the reference. I don't believe you fall in the first category as you're well educated at a higher level than I am. Could you summarize the points made in J.B. Priestley?

[Baxter]

Originally Posted by Devil

It's cases like this that make me sometimes wonder if America's "Freedom of Speech" clause is too broad and too vague. Most courts here in the U.S. wouldn't consider trolling to be hate speech, therefore it would still be protected.

Freedom of Speech does not mean you are allowed to harass someone. He didn't post this on his own Facebook page. He went out of his way to post these on the tribute pages the families made.

In the US, he would have had a restraining order filed against him, and if he did it again, then he would have been sent to jail. That's what should have happened.

[Beetbox]

I honestly think he is an asshole to say what he said however I think that at the end of the day they are internet comments. You turn off the internet and delete the facebook page and report the youtube video his account is banned and voila problem solved. He doesn't deserve jail anymore than any other troll and I don't see anyone doing that anytime soon. Don't you think America has enough people in jail already? Just let idiots go be idiots and don't let them affect you, turn off the internet.

[ShimmeringFaerie]

Well, if we can arrest and charge people for creating graffiti, isn't this basically the internet version of that? If he had spray painted those comments on their house, he would be fined, possibly given a jail sentence for that. If he had called up the family or emailed those messages to them, it would most likely be considered harassment and he could be jailed for that. The fact that he chose to use the internet shouldn't make his actions more acceptable.

I also think there's a major difference between being rude and what this man has done.

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Boohoo, his comments were mean and hurtful, let's lock him up for a bit. Come on, it's harmless trolling and people whined about it enough to get him to court. He cant even be blamed in any way for the deaths. Being an asshole isn't a crime. The result of this implies that only polite language is tolerated, otherwise, you're at risk for being charged. It's one step closer to having "thought police" and making George Orwell's novel "1984" come true.



There's only one person to blame for the fact she tried to commit suicide: herself.

I definitely understand the point you're making and I think it's a valid one, but the first half of this comment leaves me scratching my head. He didn't go tell someone on the street that they were a meanie.

A guy at my school died recently, I didn't know him very well. They had a facebook memorial page and some idiot wrote something about how he only had himself to blame as he jumped off the bridge himself (not that this is important but it wasn't a suicide- he was mucking around with his friends and had jumped off the same bridge before).

I wouldn't have really cared if I had just heard that guy say it in school, but a facebook memorial page were friends and families who are grieving can reach out to each other is not the place for that. Do I think the guy who posted about the bridge should be arrested? No. It was insensitive and innapropirate, but not worthy of jail. You can't arrest someone for making hurtful comments. What this guy did though was totally different.

You said something about how no one but she had herself to blame for her suicide. For the sake of argument, lets say I agree.

1) the facebook page wasn't for her, it was for her family. People weren't upset that he may have offended her by calling her a slut and making youtube videos about her, it was about the effect what he did had on her family.

2) I don't know if you read the article, but he also commented on several other facebook pages were suicide was not involved:

A 14 year old who was stabbed to death, a 14 year old suspected to have died after an epileptic seizure and a 16 year old who died in a car crash.

It wasn't just throw away comments like bitch or whore either. It says in the article that on mothers day he wrote on the memorial wall of the girl that died from the seizure: "Help me mummy, it's hot in hell".

He also made videos and photoshopped pictures of the teenagers.


Think what you want, but don't act like people are being oversensitive. It wasn't 'harmless trolling', and I would 'whine' too if a guy was making disgusting and intentionally hurtful comments about my 14 year old sister then coming on to me. What this guy did was sick and it obviously wasn't a one time thing. He needed someone to put a stop to it. Freedom of speech has always had its limitations. Just because some douche bag has been stopped from harassing the families of dead kids doesn't mean society is going to crumble.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

If you play that card, then when I call little Joey a "useless piece of shit", it should cause harm to him. Furthermore, it puts me at risk of getting sued because in simple terms, I hurt his feelings with unkind words. For the sake of simplicity, assume little Joey is a legal adult and is alive. If he truly felt hurt by my words, he would sue me, not his parents. It's understandable that the girl's parents were emotionally harmed by the comments but the comments were aimed at the girl more so than the parents. In fact, if the girl's uncle's twice-removed daughter read the comments and felt harmed, could she also sue? You can see where this is going.

Again, two points to bear in mind here. One, the nature of the comments was going above and beyond hurting someone's feelings - this was wilful, deliberate smearing of a person's reputation after their death in a manner intended to inflict psychological harm. If it were not, he would not have gone to such lengths as he did. Two, the actions were very much directed at the deceased's family and friends - he did not know the girl, so how could it be said he was targeting her? I understand what you're trying to say but from a legal perspective it's not an accurate depiction of the situation.

On a side note, it may be of interest to note that the manner in which he chose to carry out his actions was what led to his prosecution - in other contexts, he may be facing a civil suit instead.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume defamation cannot be applied to a dead person. If my assumption is correct, I fail to see the point you're making as your point is purely hypothetical.

Yes, that is correct - the point I was trying to make therefore was questioning why his conduct should be excusable when the target is deceased when it would be considered both immoral and unlawful were she alive. That does not make much sense to me.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

When most people on here tell me to read something without providing a summary themselves, I generally think they don't understand the reference. I don't believe you fall in the first category as you're well educated at a higher level than I am. Could you summarize the points made in J.B. Priestley?

In brief: the novel opens with a young woman committing suicide and a police inspector arriving at the doorstep of a wealthy family who are celebrating their daughter's engagement. Over the course of the novel, it is demonstrated that all of those present - including the girl's fiancee - contributed to the circumstances which led to her death, either by wilful act or omission, starting with the father firing the young woman on frivolous grounds, then to his daughter getting her fired from another job (again on frivolous grounds), then to both her fiancee and her brother having affairs with the girl and leaving her high and dry and finally her mother directing the charity she works for not to give her aid. The basic point of the novel is that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions and cannot merely break the causal chain when they deem it appropriate to do so. Hence, those who attacked the girl accused of trolling cannot claim their actions did not lead to her suicide attempt.

[thebigmole]

I'd like to start by saying I think what the guy did was kinda evil. However there really is no basis for the jailing. If the Westboro Baptist Church gets to do what they do and not get any penalties for it this guy certainly shouldn't have been jailed.

Originally Posted by dr2005

In brief: the novel opens with a young woman committing suicide and a police inspector arriving at the doorstep of a wealthy family who are celebrating their daughter's engagement. Over the course of the novel, it is demonstrated that all of those present - including the girl's fiancee - contributed to the circumstances which led to her death, either by wilful act or omission, starting with the father firing the young woman on frivolous grounds, then to his daughter getting her fired from another job (again on frivolous grounds), then to both her fiancee and her brother having affairs with the girl and leaving her high and dry and finally her mother directing the charity she works for not to give her aid. The basic point of the novel is that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions and cannot merely break the causal chain when they deem it appropriate to do so. Hence, those who attacked the girl accused of trolling cannot claim their actions did not lead to her suicide attempt.

Now I am familiar with Inspector Calls, I've seen the play. Great play, however that family wasn't responsible for that girl killing herself. They were responsible for making her life crap, and they did. But killing herself, there is only one person responsible for suicide and that's the person who commits it. Plenty of people's lives suck, they don't all choose to kill themselves.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Now I am familiar with Inspector Calls, I've seen the play. Great play, however that family wasn't responsible for that girl killing herself. They were responsible for making her life crap, and they did. But killing herself, there is only one person responsible for suicide and that's the person who commits it. Plenty of people's lives suck, they don't all choose to kill themselves.

I see what you're getting at; however, while they may not actually have caused the event which ended her life, they practically did everything short of handing her the means to do so. Between them, the family got her fired from two jobs for frivolous reasons (thereby destroying any chance she had of advancing beyond bar work in a theatre), used her for sexual gratification, got her pregnant and then denied her the last remaining form of help available at that time. While it is certainly true that the final act of suicide was her decision, it does not in any way excuse or mitigate the significant role they played in bringing events to that point, nor the responsibility they bear therein. It's simple causation; but for their actions, Eva Smith would not have committed suicide as she did, and as such they cannot wash their hands of the consequences of their actions. That is the point I was trying to make.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

It wasn't just throw away comments like bitch or whore either. It says in the article that on mothers day he wrote on the memorial wall of the girl that died from the seizure: "Help me mummy, it's hot in hell".

He also made videos and photoshopped pictures of the teenagers.

I feel awful for saying so, but I almost died laughing at the "Help me mummy, it's hot in hell" comment. I mean you have to at least give the man credit, he did at least take some pride in his work.

Now sure, he was a jerk for defacing Memorial Pages on the internet, but he has the right to share his personal opinion, even when it is not desired to be heard. I find that punishing someone for being offensive is a quick way to break down that right of freedom of speech, as we slowly chip away at what is allowed. Anyway, it really is just harmless trolling, if you don't want to see it, just ignore it, you choose to go to Facebook, now it would be different if he was coming to their house to do as such.

[ShimmeringFaerie]

Originally Posted by Guile

Now sure, he was a jerk for defacing Memorial Pages on the internet, but he has the right to share his personal opinion, even when it is not desired to be heard.

But he wasn't expressing any kind of opinion; he was just flat-out harassing the family. If he had just posted something like "people who commit suicide are stupid" or even just called her a slut, I doubt he would have even been fined. But photoshopping their daughter's face on to a cartoon train, sending explicit messages to girls, and posting comments as the daughter in hell is not "sharing an opinion".

Originally Posted by Guile

...now it would be different if he was coming to their house to do as such.

How would it be different? What makes that kind of behaviour acceptable on FaceBook, but not in person?

[TheBabyEater]

By making this thread all about him, he wins.

Congrats =]

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

He didn't go tell someone on the street that they were a meanie.

I never said he did. By impolite language, I meant going on the Internet and having a go at the dead teenagers, instead of supporting their memorial page with sympathy.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

You can't arrest someone for making hurtful comments. What this guy did though was totally different.

You could try to arrest someone for the harassment (which I don't quite agree with in this case but moving along) based on the frequency and duration of his negative comments, not on the nature of the the comments.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

1) the facebook page wasn't for her, it was for her family. People weren't upset that he may have offended her by calling her a slut and making youtube videos about her, it was about the effect what he did had on her family.

This goes back to questioning who was the intended target. For some comments, it's clear the parents were, such as, "help me mummy, it's hot in hell". However, the other comments were directed specifically at the teenagers. The parents may have felt hurt but they weren't the targets, otherwise, the deceased's grandparents can sue also as they are part of the family.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

Think what you want, but don't act like people are being oversensitive. It wasn't 'harmless trolling', and I would 'whine' too if a guy was making disgusting and intentionally hurtful comments about my 14 year old sister then coming on to me. What this guy did was sick and it obviously wasn't a one time thing. He needed someone to put a stop to it. Freedom of speech has always had its limitations. Just because some douche bag has been stopped from harassing the families of dead kids doesn't mean society is going to crumble.

I agree it was sick and that he was an asshole, no two ways about it. You're right, society won't crumble from one isolated case but when it's numerous cases piled one on top of the other, eventually it can spark something in society.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Again, two points to bear in mind here. One, the nature of the comments was going above and beyond hurting someone's feelings - this was wilful, deliberate smearing of a person's reputation after their death in a manner intended to inflict psychological harm. If it were not, he would not have gone to such lengths as he did.

This point seems to rest on the premise that there is a known benchmark for what it takes to inflict psychological harm in such a fashion by going "above and beyond hurting someone's feelings". Suppose he toned his videos, photoshopped pictures and trolling comments down, while still preserving the negativity, such as instead of calling the teenagers a bitch or whore, he just said, "help me mommy, I miss you" or even, "I miss you mommy", instead of, "help me mommy, it's hot in hell".

Originally Posted by dr2005

Two, the actions were very much directed at the deceased's family and friends - he did not know the girl, so how could it be said he was targeting her? I understand what you're trying to say but from a legal perspective it's not an accurate depiction of the situation.

I don't understand this point because he didn't know the parents either, unless by "know", you mean, "know they are alive and capable of reading his trolling comments". If not, then I don't understand how it is any different from him not knowing the girl.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Hence, those who attacked the girl accused of trolling cannot claim their actions did not lead to her suicide attempt.

Interesting novel.

I agree, the various attacks would have increased the likelihood of suicide but ultimately did not cause it. For example, if Timmy is bullied at school by Tod, John and Sam, and Timmy shoots someone else, would Tod, John and Sam be held responsible? Or, would those who didn't intervene be held responsible? In fact, would the makers of a movie involving a bullied teen killing 5 people Timmy watched the night before he went out shooting be held responsible? My point is, if you say everyone who contributed is in some way responsible, should they all be held accountable in court or should only certain ones be held?

Also, if only certain ones are held, this means certain comments can be dismissed. However, this is exactly the opposite of what the book is suggesting. If it's just one person who was commenting and one of their comments is deemed responsible, then obviously the finger can be pointed at them but things aren't always so simple. For example, in Inspector Calls, although each family member did contribute, were their contributions of equal weight? If not, then only the "heaviest" would be charged. Again, going back to Timmy, if Susan contributed by only once saying, "I hate you Timmy, fuck off elsewhere", whereas Tod, John and Sam harassed Timmy with harsher comments, you're implying Susan's comment cannot be dismissed even if it was the "lightest" of the lot and occurred before the comments from the 3 boys did.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

This point seems to rest on the premise that there is a known benchmark for what it takes to inflict psychological harm in such a fashion by going "above and beyond hurting someone's feelings". Suppose he toned his videos, photoshopped pictures and trolling comments down, while still preserving the negativity, such as instead of calling the teenagers a bitch or whore, he just said, "help me mommy, I miss you" or even, "I miss you mommy", instead of, "help me mommy, it's hot in hell".

There are actually legal and medical guidelines as to whether something is classed as inflicting psychological harm - I won't go into them in detail because it would take forever, but suffice it to say they exist in the law of tort. One important factor is that it is not the content of the actions or omissions that is important, but the effect upon the target - as such, the fact that they may be toned down would likely be ruled irrelevant if it still caused harm which met the threshold.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I don't understand this point because he didn't know the parents either, unless by "know", you mean, "know they are alive and capable of reading his trolling comments". If not, then I don't understand how it is any different from him not knowing the girl.

The point is quite simple - before she committed suicide, he had no knowledge of this person at all (this was established at trial). However, the existence of the memorial pages and comments therein provides inter alia knowledge of the existence of family members and friends, and therein a target which would react to the comments he made and actions he took.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Interesting novel.

I agree, the various attacks would have increased the likelihood of suicide but ultimately did not cause it. For example, if Timmy is bullied at school by Tod, John and Sam, and Timmy shoots someone else, would Tod, John and Sam be held responsible? Or, would those who didn't intervene be held responsible? In fact, would the makers of a movie involving a bullied teen killing 5 people Timmy watched the night before he went out shooting be held responsible? My point is, if you say everyone who contributed is in some way responsible, should they all be held accountable in court or should only certain ones be held?

Firstly (and this is admittedly my fault for not clarifying, for which I apologise), it's a play and not a novel. Secondly, causation is not an on-off switch-like mechanism - it occurs to varying degrees, but those degrees do not negate its existence therein. Thirdly, you are conflating moral and legal culpability in a manner which is ill-advised and not what I was aiming for in the first place. Legal causation has particular guidelines under the so-called remoteness test which would apply to the situations you describe above, and under those guidelines most of the examples you give above would likely not pass as legal causation. That does not, however, prevent moral culpability which is in fact what Priestley was aiming at in the first place. In terms of moral culpability, the three boys would bear some responsibility for what happened (and could well be punished by their school with some justification) and the film maker would likely bear little, albeit there would still be backlash over the choice of subject generally.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Also, if only certain ones are held, this means certain comments can be dismissed. However, this is exactly the opposite of what the book is suggesting. If it's just one person who was commenting and one of their comments is deemed responsible, then obviously the finger can be pointed at them but things aren't always so simple. For example, in Inspector Calls, although each family member did contribute, were their contributions of equal weight? If not, then only the "heaviest" would be charged. Again, going back to Timmy, if Susan contributed by only once saying, "I hate you Timmy, fuck off elsewhere", whereas Tod, John and Sam harassed Timmy with harsher comments, you're implying Susan's comment cannot be dismissed even if it was the "lightest" of the lot and occurred before the comments from the 3 boys did.

Again, this is to misinterpret causation - the fact that more substantial causes exist does not eliminate the role that other causes play. It is a cumulative process, not a competitive one, hence why all of the family were held responsible in the play. Without each of them acting in the way they did, the outcome would not have been the same and the Inspector's speech at the end of the play makes it clear all bear responsibility for what happened. Under that principle, no, Susan's comment would not be dismissed - it may bear a diminished role compared with the later comments, but it is hardly an insignificant remark and to try and draw a "line in the sand" excluding it is totally arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Mr. Gir

By making this thread all about him, he wins.

Congrats =]

Does he? Right now, he's sitting in a prison cell, with a criminal record hanging over his head for at least 10 years following his release and an order banning him from using the Internet for 5 years after his release, with the threat of prison should he breach that. Sounds like a peculiar kind of victory in my view.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

How would it be different? What makes that kind of behaviour acceptable on FaceBook, but not in person?

Facebook is a location in Cyberspace, and you CHOOSE to visit it, as such, you CHOOSE to accept that not everyone will be friendly. While you MUST be at home.

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Does he? Right now, he's sitting in a prison cell, with a criminal record hanging over his head for at least 10 years following his release and an order banning him from using the Internet for 5 years after his release, with the threat of prison should he breach that. Sounds like a peculiar kind of victory in my view.

We're not talking about you. We're talking about him and his goals.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Mr. Gir

We're not talking about you. We're talking about him and his goals.

And? He should just as much right to express his thoughts as the rest of us, how would you feel if I criminalized Liberal ideas because I found their basis offensive?

[ShimmeringFaerie]

Originally Posted by Guile

Facebook is a location in Cyberspace, and you CHOOSE to visit it, as such, you CHOOSE to accept that not everyone will be friendly. While you MUST be at home.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. If I go to the grocery store and a guy starts harassing me there, is it okay for him to do that because I chose to go to the grocery store? Of course not - security would happily remove him. If I choose to send my children to school, is it acceptable that they are bullied there? No - it might be expected, but the children who bully would still be punished.

And once again, there is a huge difference between "not being friendly" and what this guy did.

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by Guile

And? He should just as much right to express his thoughts as the rest of us, how would you feel if I criminalized Liberal ideas because I found their basis offensive?

What the hell are you going on about? All I said was that by talking on and on about him, you are giving him what he wanted: attention. But go ahead and turn this into something else so you can throw in debates no one ever opened, I find it quite amusing.