Convicted Internet Trolls Gets 12 Weeks

On November 19 2014 22:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I found court documents from the case http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conten...ts/Judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley.pdf relevant quote: Isabella Sorley, you have admitted, on a full fact basis, posting 16 tweets as summarized by prosecuting counsel, Alison Morgan, in her opening note. Between 10.14 and 14.46 on 28TH July you posted 10 tweets in an account your own name and traceable to you. These are a background, and not the subject of the charge. Between 02.25 and 02.55 (so in the early hours) of 30TH July 2013 you posted six more tweets on another account, Ayekayess (presumably based on your initials). In summary these tweets said: “Fuck off and die...you should have jumped in front of horses, go die; I will find you and you don’t want to know what I will do when I do... kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried; seriously go kill yourself! I will get less time for that; rape?! I’d do a lot worse things than rape you.” John Nimmo, you have admitted, also on a full fact basis, posting 20 tweets on the topic. They started on 27TH July at 22.31 and continued until 29TH July at 11.50. Five different accounts were used. Among the messages were: “ Ya not that gd looking to rape u be fine; I will find you; come to geordieland (Newcastle) bitch; just think it could be somebody that knows you personally; the police will do nothing; rape her nice ass; could I help with that lol; the things I cud do to u; dumb blond bitch.” Some of the tweets were menacing Ms Criado Perez; others were directed at Stella Creasy. There were many other tweets from other accounts unconnected to these defendants. It is not said that the defendants in this case knew each other. " I seriously don't have a problem with this being illegal..

on a site like twitter, you're going to have people with multiple accounts. it's very common, actually. there are sleeper accounts and all sorts of other accounts. not only that, tweets were tweeted over a three day period. not only that, there were many other tweets from other people, so these two were made examples of, yet the rest let go.

Caroline Criado-Perez made a victim statement dated 6 th January 2014. I am told she is content that I should read her statement rather than hear from her in person. That is entirely understandable. She describes how th e effects of the harassment she has received have been life-changing. Her personality has changed long-term. She describes panic and fear and horror. She feared the abusers would find her and carry out the threats. She felt hunted. She remembers feeling terror every ti me the doorbell rang. She has had to spend substantial time and money ensuring she is as untrackable as possible. She gives a detailed and personal account of the physical effects of the fear on her. The emails from Sorley and Nimmo (she says) are imprinted on her mind – “I don’t think I will ever be free of them”. It is a moving, detailed, and entirely understandable account of the effect of these crimes on her. These offences have caused seri ous and entirely predictable harm to her. The effect on Stella Creasy has also been substantial. She became concerned for her safety to the extent that she had to alter he r behaviour. She had a panic button installed in her home. She describes the e ffect of the crimes on her pub lic duties, on her staff, and on her family. Again the offences have caused serious and entirely predictable harm to her.

Isabella Sorley, you admit you were drunk at
least some of the time. That is a well
recognised aggravating feature, consistently referred to in the generic sentencing
guidelines.

KEK SHE WAS DRUNK
such bullshit! she can't consent to having sent those tweets!!

On November 19 2014 22:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I found court documents from the case http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conten...ts/Judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley.pdf relevant quote: Isabella Sorley, you have admitted, on a full fact basis, posting 16 tweets as summarized by prosecuting counsel, Alison Morgan, in her opening note. Between 10.14 and 14.46 on 28TH July you posted 10 tweets in an account your own name and traceable to you. These are a background, and not the subject of the charge. Between 02.25 and 02.55 (so in the early hours) of 30TH July 2013 you posted six more tweets on another account, Ayekayess (presumably based on your initials). In summary these tweets said: “Fuck off and die...you should have jumped in front of horses, go die; I will find you and you don’t want to know what I will do when I do... kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried; seriously go kill yourself! I will get less time for that; rape?! I’d do a lot worse things than rape you.” John Nimmo, you have admitted, also on a full fact basis, posting 20 tweets on the topic. They started on 27TH July at 22.31 and continued until 29TH July at 11.50. Five different accounts were used. Among the messages were: “ Ya not that gd looking to rape u be fine; I will find you; come to geordieland (Newcastle) bitch; just think it could be somebody that knows you personally; the police will do nothing; rape her nice ass; could I help with that lol; the things I cud do to u; dumb blond bitch.” Some of the tweets were menacing Ms Criado Perez; others were directed at Stella Creasy. There were many other tweets from other accounts unconnected to these defendants. It is not said that the defendants in this case knew each other. " I seriously don't have a problem with this being illegal..

Yeah that is definitelly harassment, using multiple accounts sending threats like I will find you and kill you is not "trolling"

Its still scary what this could lead to because of the topic we were discussing earlier, more anti-offense laws are being passed and hopefully it doesnt reach the internet one day

it's actually very common nowadays. most people i know have multiple twitter accounts just to say things they normally wouldn't say. that's quite literally the point of anonymously posting stuff like that: it's an outlet. granted, the other person may not realize that someone just wants to vent some anger. so, accordingly, it would be wiser not to punish these people but to find out if there's some help they can use. you can't just go around blaming the victim.

I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me.

Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked".

lol lol

looks like so called "free world" is not that free

On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me. Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked".

you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/124...-after-jailing-abusive-internet-troll
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/124585/mp-welcomes-jail-term-hate-tweeter

Ms Berger said the four-week prison term handed to Garron Helm sent "a clear message that hate crime is not tolerated in our country".

On November 20 2014 14:43 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me. Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked". you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts.

You are failing to diferenciate trolling from harassing, nobody is going to jail for having some "lulz" they are going to jail for threatening to find and kill people over and over, that is not trolling.

On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me. Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked".

yes we arent already fucked, but it looks like we are going there.

And I think its more important to NOT go there than to imprison guys threatening over the internet, thats why despise this being a rightful conviction this scares me.


and on the topic about freedom of speech and hate speech I agree 100% with this quote:

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

On November 20 2014 18:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2014 14:43 Gnarly wrote:   On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me. Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked". you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts. You are failing to diferenciate trolling from harassing, nobody is going to jail for having some "lulz" they are going to jail for threatening to find and kill people over and over, that is not trolling.

in the case of the woman, she had alcohol problems, so while she might've come to impulsively follow through with her tweets, the problem of that is to be blamed on what fuels her addiction. (ie: she needs therapy and rehabilitation rather than punishment and fine paying. it is rather irresponsible of the government to further push down this person who has already been pushed down by their society. she will have a harder time getting a job, she's probably in debt, and to sooth that up, she's going to certainly want to feed her addiction at an ever increasing rate.

also, here in america, there was a kid that was jailed for making a joke about shooting up an elementary school, and then immediately typed jk and something along the lines of never would do that. i forget how, but some oldish lady decided it was a real threat, and called it in. where do we draw the line at? three days and 50 tweets from 5 accounts? should we not consider intent such as a bad tasting joke? or even posting a hastag that paints hitler in a better light?

On November 20 2014 18:48 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me. Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked". yes we arent already fucked, but it looks like we are going there. And I think its more important to NOT go there than to imprison guys threatening over the internet, thats why despise this being a rightful conviction this scares me. and on the topic about freedom of speech and hate speech I agree 100% with this quote: If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

the simple fact that one can not express themselves by killing the person they despise proves that society doesn't believe in freedom of expression. after all, what is more passionate and intimate than that? either way, im guessing that means you don't believe in freedom of expression.

^this is what I was talking about when I said "absolute freedom of speech" baalim.

Gnarly, Your definition of 'freedom of expression' is a state of affairs that exists in precisely no human civilization on this planet. and thats a good thing.

Gnarly if we lived in such society i am sure you wouldn't have been able to write this post :D
Pure freedom of expression doesn't mean you should neglect human rights. If we re-arrange Maslow's pyramid to those things im pretty sure human rights will stand on the very bottom of it

http://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/types-of-troll-youll-meet-on-the-internet

On November 21 2014 13:14 Spitfiree wrote: Gnarly if we lived in such society i am sure you wouldn't have been able to write this post :D Pure freedom of expression doesn't mean you should neglect human rights. If we re-arrange Maslow's pyramid to those things im pretty sure human rights will stand on the very bottom of it

pure freedom of expression means exactly that: neglecting human rights. how can one purely express themselves when there are restrictions? you place restrictions on things like murder, because art can take any form: either a blank canvas for oil painting, or using a dead body as a canvas. after all, it's considered art to lose your gay virginity in front of a class.

also, if we lived in a society like that, this site and poker wouldn't exist most likely. that's like saying if my mom aborted me, i wouldn't be able to post.

On November 21 2014 00:18 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2014 18:45 Baalim wrote:   On November 20 2014 14:43 Gnarly wrote:   On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me. Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked". you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts. You are failing to diferenciate trolling from harassing, nobody is going to jail for having some "lulz" they are going to jail for threatening to find and kill people over and over, that is not trolling. in the case of the woman, she had alcohol problems, so while she might've come to impulsively follow through with her tweets, the problem of that is to be blamed on what fuels her addiction. (ie: she needs therapy and rehabilitation rather than punishment and fine paying. it is rather irresponsible of the government to further push down this person who has already been pushed down by their society. she will have a harder time getting a job, she's probably in debt, and to sooth that up, she's going to certainly want to feed her addiction at an ever increasing rate. also, here in america, there was a kid that was jailed for making a joke about shooting up an elementary school, and then immediately typed jk and something along the lines of never would do that. i forget how, but some oldish lady decided it was a real threat, and called it in. where do we draw the line at? three days and 50 tweets from 5 accounts? should we not consider intent such as a bad tasting joke? or even posting a hastag that paints hitler in a better light?

why do people keep saying thats its soooo difficult to differentiate harassment from free speech, for the 5th time its fucking not.

Directing many tweets to a person with multiple accounts, with personal threats about finding and killing her = harassment, "ill bomb school lulz jk" not harassment, is that clear now?

Who gives a shit if she is a drunk? drinking alcohol is not an excuse to anything, oh I killed some kids because i was driving drunk... I need rehab not jail! your arguments are always so stupid.

On November 21 2014 19:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 21 2014 00:18 Gnarly wrote:   On November 20 2014 18:45 Baalim wrote:   On November 20 2014 14:43 Gnarly wrote:   On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me. Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked". you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts. You are failing to diferenciate trolling from harassing, nobody is going to jail for having some "lulz" they are going to jail for threatening to find and kill people over and over, that is not trolling. in the case of the woman, she had alcohol problems, so while she might've come to impulsively follow through with her tweets, the problem of that is to be blamed on what fuels her addiction. (ie: she needs therapy and rehabilitation rather than punishment and fine paying. it is rather irresponsible of the government to further push down this person who has already been pushed down by their society. she will have a harder time getting a job, she's probably in debt, and to sooth that up, she's going to certainly want to feed her addiction at an ever increasing rate. also, here in america, there was a kid that was jailed for making a joke about shooting up an elementary school, and then immediately typed jk and something along the lines of never would do that. i forget how, but some oldish lady decided it was a real threat, and called it in. where do we draw the line at? three days and 50 tweets from 5 accounts? should we not consider intent such as a bad tasting joke? or even posting a hastag that paints hitler in a better light? why do people keep saying thats its soooo difficult to differentiate harassment from free speech, for the 5th time its fucking not. Directing many tweets to a person with multiple accounts, with personal threats about finding and killing her = harassment, "ill bomb school lulz jk" not harassment, is that clear now? Who gives a shit if she is a drunk? drinking alcohol is not an excuse to anything, oh I killed some kids because i was driving drunk... I need rehab not jail! your arguments are always so stupid.

>what i say is what actually is

But the US govt defined that the boy was in fact a terrorist. They defined that what he typed was harassment. It doesn't matter what YOUR personal opinion on the case is, what happen is BASED ON REAL EVENTS THAT OCCURRED. A BOY WAS LABELED A TERRORIST FOR A JOKE MADE ONLINE IN A YOUNG PERSONS GAME. Is that clear, now?

>me le opinion is le law
>me le face when

If she's drunk, she'll have lesser control over herself. She'll be more impulsive, and if there's a reason why she drinks along the lines of having a very abusive parents, then it's clear that her being drunk and angry increases her chances of actually doing something she thinks. Considering that she was drunk during the tweets, I would also dare to assume she wouldn't be of any treat or danger when sober. Why do you think there's always bar fights happening, but when people are sober, fights are extremely rare? Alcohol can make that woman dangerous, but to say that she's not a possible threat to anyone is asinine, and quite contradictory for what you've been saying. (im not saying that nothing should happen to her because she was drunk. someone driving a car while drunk could've made plans to have someone else pick them up BEFORE they got drunk, but they chose to fly without a safety net)

If a person killed some kids while drunk, it also depends on other factors. If a person is habitually driving around drunk, then they are either suicidal or a deadbeat drunk. Either way, rehabilitation rather than punishment would seek to improve their lives. "Oh, so you've had a rough life, and you decided to say fuck it and drown your sorrows in alcohol? well, better punish the fuck out of you, increasing the chances that you'll only increase your alcoholic consumption rate when you get out, also it's gonna be harder to find a job, so get on welfare so that you'll have all day to drink without fear of being fired."

They are still being punished, because if they can't show they are rehabilitated, they won't be allowed back into society. Most people won't be able to forgive someone killing their kids, and rightfully so. However, there are also many times when things do accidentally happen, yet people still want blood. Why do you want blood?

On November 21 2014 19:45 Baalim wrote:

this is very sad to see someone like you resorting to things like that

>smh

Your ways are the right ones