wrote:

Yeah, they're taking away our most basic liberties, like the freedom of speech, excellent. Lazery highfives!xD

cool story bro C:

wrote:

wrote:

Yeah, they're taking away our most basic liberties, like the freedom of speech, excellent. Lazery highfives!xD

cool story bro C:

Figures you can't present an argument. Carry on.

wrote:

wrote:

Yeah, they're taking away our most
basic liberties, like the freedom of speech, excellent. Lazery
highfives!xD

"My freedom ends right where another man's nose begins" you shuld know it man!

Exactly my point. I'm not defending the guy who got nabbed, he's a dick, but is being a dick a crime? Would your first reaction to someone offending you on the net (or someone you know) be to run to the cops? Where do you draw the line on what does and what does not constitute trolling, anyway? What are the laws, exactly, that regulate this kind of thing? Why couldn't they just click a few times to ban this guy from their memorial sites?

I see this as a precedent for future streamlined censorship across the board on the net. The freedom to speak your mind is one of the best things about the internet, and this is clearly one of the first steps for the governments to take that away from us.

wrote:

Of course, everyone has a right to have their views on this matter. Moreover, my point is not that much different from yours.
But both of us and every citizen have to respect the laws and realize the certainty of punishment (in theory). And the case is not in your attitude and is not about would you run to the cops or not.
The case was formed by private individual who found violations of his rights (in Russia its the constitutional right to defend your honor, reputation and degnity)

He(the troll) was convicted on the basis of legislative acts (in this case - Malicious Communications Act 1988 y.) and will be punished by the frustration of normative legal act.

Wiki gave me this: "The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a British Act of Parliament
that makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters
or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety"."

My problem is not with the act itself, but with it's application. The definition was clearly not revised for modern communication standards, as it stands it's much harder to avoid aggravation via traditional mail and/or phone than via internet interaction, especially if you're getting abused through a public medium (you can ban, filter and ignore pretty much everything anyone can send your way). Point being - he's getting tried and charged based on archaic laws with little relevance in today's world and the case at hand, laws that do not take into consideration the specifics, possibilities and limitations of internet communication.

What really strikes me as odd in this case is not that they chose to pursue legal action, but that they allowed this guy to wreak havoc on their sites at all. I might be missing something, but from what i can see he basically just left a few messages and troll pics here and there, hardly a significant problem for any semi-competent administrator to take care of, like i said earlier, in but a few mouse clicks. This case would make more sense to me if he actually got in contact personally with those families.

I'm a little iffy about the punishment in this case as well, it hardly seems reasonable considering the magnitude of his "crime".

wrote:

As for precedent, then a lot depends on the country and its legal system (to recognize precedent, doctrine, and the custom of trade as a source of judicial decisions)
At this stage of the legal system in Russia and Poland there are zero chances that we may face similar cases, but who knows.
The bottom line is that there is a law and not you and neither I should decide - observe it or not.

Not much to add here, i agree, and i'm glad we're not at the point yet where we have to worry about such things on our turf.

And ye, I would like to add, before I gonna be back to work, about controlling the electronic mass media.
Skype, ICQ, Social networks and a variety of resources including forums undertake to provide information to security agencies in case of a violation (possible violation of) human community or state rights.

I see there no fault of administrative resources.

Will we talk about proportionality of punishment to the offense? Yes, maybe, but we shouldnt decide. You have to know what penalties were introduced in China or in Belarus for the fact of corruption. Or, in countries where was implenmented the death penalty for importing drugs into the territory of this country.

This preventive measure formed by certain state politic. Perhaps the British wanted to show that even in the Internet everyone must respect and observe the rights of others people. And in our 21 century, even more accurate to say not "even in the Internet" but "especially in the Internet."

But we're not in England and we dont give a shit now, we can troll and spam anyone until we recieve penalties from administration team.