Don't feed the trolls... just jail 'em?

[Nick Armstrong]

As we are all by definition denizens of the world of internet communications, I wondered what folk thought of this thoughful commentary on the 56 days prison sentence passed on an internet troll:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9171470/The-curse-of-the-internet-trolls.html

I have trouble reaching a conclusion. Is the wrecking of this student's career appropriate? And yet it may be effective as a declaratory warning to a breed of troll which is sufficiently moronic to require something shocking in order to take any notice. On balance I'm inclined to think it was the right thing to do.

Thoughts?

[MrGongGong]

On balance I'm inclined to think it was the right thing to do.

Like jailing someone for saying "lets have a riot" you mean ?

[vinteuil]

David Aaronovitch has a good piece on this; he doesn't think the gaol term appropriate -

"The district judge, John Charles, said in sentencing: “Not just the footballer’s family, not just the footballing world, but the whole world were literally praying for Muamba’s life. Your comments aggravated this situation. I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done.”
I read those words and at first thought they were a bit over the top (when someone misuses “literally” in that way it is an almost certain sign of exaggeration). I reread them and felt they were slightly worrying. The third time I read them, I decided that they were both wrong and ridiculous.
In what possible way could Stacey’s stupid and nasty comments be said to aggravate the situation of Fabrice Muamba’s health — which was surely the situation referred to? Would they stop Muamba’s heart beating? Prevent him from waking up from a coma? And how can a judge have “no choice” over sentencing simply because of “public outrage”? Of course he had a choice. He chose to propitiate the fashionable gods of outrage."

[MrGongGong]

Indeed .........

It's more than a little worrying that the law seems to be being decided by public opinion. I don't follow football, have no interest in what racist bigots might write online BUT that doesn't mean that this idiot should be sent down. A bit like what happened with those jailed for posting "lets have a riot" things on Stalkerbook. The public SHOULD be outraged at some of the dreadful things that have been done in our name but I don't see any of those people responsible in court ?

[eighthobstruction]

If judge felt so inclined he could have got the same media attention by making it a 'suspended ' sentence....

....agree whole-heartedly with vint's Aaronovich piece and Gong Gong....

....if only things could get the same 'shaming' attention without such a drastic sentence....quite out of proportion....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it was a tweet .... not an internet 'troll' an altogether other form of pernicious behaviour

we are told the tweet was racist, i do not agree with the judges view or commentary .... but 56 days is a deterrent to racist tweeters innit

[MrGongGong]

On the same basis I think we need to put the Scottish Cardinal behind bars
and I would hazard a guess , but at least 50% of tory party members

come to think of it, it's starting to sound like a good idea

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

we still have stocks here in the middle kingdom .... mebbe we should start using them again ..

[aeolium]

This is a bad sentence but not as bad as some of those handed out to opportunists during last year's riots, e.g. the person who licked a stolen ice cream. When one compares this with the absence of criminal charges against banking executives and brokers responsible for stealing billions and effectively plunging societies into recession and decades of austerity, it really does seem like a world turned upside down.

[Nick Armstrong]

come to think of it, it's starting to sound like a good idea

I'd just been told about the Aaronovich article and am about to read it in full. I agree with his view that the words of the judge in the extract posted by vindepays above are pretty woolly and unconvincing as a basis for depriving an individual of their libery.

Interesting to read views here.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

or indeed their bibery ....

[Serial_Apologist]

we still have stocks here in the middle kingdom .... mebbe we should start using them again ..

You're bound to be pilloried for suggesting such a thing...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

On the same basis I think we need to put the Scottish Cardinal behind bars
and I would hazard a guess , but at least 50% of tory party members

Why limit it to 50%?
First in should be the one who started the panic buying for fuel. And we voted for him to be Prime Minister?

Oh, no. We didn't, did we. That happened when one of his opponents turned inside out.

But I digress. I actually think the law should come down heavily on really offensive internet comments. Freedom of speech does carry an element of responsibility.

[MrGongGong]

But I digress. I actually think the law should come down heavily on really offensive internet comments. Freedom of speech does carry an element of responsibility.

As a pinko lefty Guardian reading Birkenstock wearing ex resident of Totnes I have no time for racist bigots like this person appears to be
BUT it's a big jump to putting someone away for writing something that is offensive........ was it inciting an offence ? If I write (as I have before) that i'm sick of the whole "all soldiers are heroes thing" I would guess that "most" people would find it something that they disagree with. They might find it "outrageous" therefore using this as a guide should I be sent to prison ? This does smack of the kind of behaviour that we used to castigate the Soviet Union for ?

I agree freedom of speech does carry a huge element of responsibility BUT do we really want to lock people up for saying things we disagree with ?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

do we really want to lock people up for saying things we disagree with ?

you tempt us MrGongGong you tempt us ......................