Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Internet Troll gets three years

Options
1…1314151618

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    riclad wrote: »
    he left his home about once every 7 years ,

    That's not a proven fact it was part of his defense.

    Sounds like BS to me.

    I can see why certain ne'er-do-wells on here relate to him though.


  • Options
    #513
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Or

    Public: We want Nolan to give out harsher sentences

    Nolan gives out harsher sentences

    Trolls: no, not for something we dont care about.

    That is some grade A trolling right there.


  • Options
    #514
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So 3 years for this is an appropriate sentence.

    OK then.. Here's some proportional sentencing based off that.

    Bullying someone in school - 10 years juvenile detention.
    Falsely accusing someone of rape - 10 years.
    Actually harassing someone in person - 500 lashes in the town square and 10 years in prison.
    Harassing someone online who isn't a celebrity in the public eye with massive privilege - 6 years.
    Actually raping someone - raped by 4 big hairy men, castration and then the death penalty.
    Murder - prolonged torture and then the death penalty.
    Being mentally ill - 10 years in prison.
    Getting pregnant out of wedlock - shipped off to a laundry to work as a slave for the nuns, your baby sold and your parents paying for the privilege.

    Ah yes... The good old days..


  • Options
    #515
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,592 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That is some grade A trolling right there.

    If you have a problem with a post or poster report it and leave the modding to the mods

    Any questions PM me


  • Options
    #516
    victor8600
    Registered Users Posts: 1,642 ✭✭✭victor8600


    riclad wrote: »
    To be clear he was not a stalker, he left his home about once every 7 years....

    What if the judge acted in mercy and actually gave Mr. Doolin this long sentence so that there is time for him to socialise in a controlled environment?

    Think about it, 3 years of interacting with a wide variety of people including lawyers, violent offenders, crooks and fraudsters. Mr. Doolin will surely come out of this experience with new ideas about his future behaviour.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    Scarinae
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    paleoperson wrote: »
    He didn't find out where they lived at all. The only thing like that was that he said that he'd "be over later" on twitter, he didn't know where they lived at all. Permabear claims he found those pictures of her online in within seconds.
    No, Permabear claims to have found a picture of her at her debs. This man found old pictures of her where she wasn't even named.
    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    It took me about 14 seconds on Google to locate an image of Ms. Bohan at her debs, which I assume was more than 10 years ago. Old images of her are not hard to find, and it's not a criminal offense to look for them.
    What the article said about the pictures was:
    Christine Bohan, who got more than 450 messages from Doolin, also received a 10-year-old political leaflet from him which carried a photograph of her on it. She was also sent an image of her from a dinner at her old college.

    Both of these images caused concern to Ms Bohan as she was not named in either and it worried her that the person had “scoured the internet looking for her image


  • Options
    #518
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Hmmm...
    Both of these images caused concern to Ms Bohan as she was not named in either and it worried her that the person had "scoured the internet looking for her image"

    What does she think he did, exactly? Looked at all the pictures on the Internet until he found one of her?


  • Options
    #519
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,306 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Hmmm...



    What does she think he did, exactly? Looked at all the pictures on the Internet until he found one of her?

    Doubtful. Perhaps she thought he searched the names of her friends and associates looking for photos with her in them. Completely normal and not sinister at all to go to those lengths though I'm sure. She shouldn't have friends if she doesn't want that to happen I guess. Brought it on herself etc etc


  • Options
    #520
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Perhaps she thought he searched the names of her friends and associates looking for photos with her in them.

    Is there no end to this depravity? It's probably a good thing he's in jail to protect innocent women from being Googled.


  • Options
    #521
    Scarinae
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Is there no end to this depravity? It's probably a good thing he's in jail to protect innocent women from being Googled.
    So why do you think his aim was finding and sending her these old images that she wasn't identified in by name? Or did he just happen to find a political leaflet from 10 years ago and it coincidentally included an image of a person he had been bombarding with messages for years?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,306 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Is there no end to this depravity? It's probably a good thing he's in jail to protect innocent women from being Googled.

    I know. Women can't expect to have any kind of public or online presence, even tangentially through friends and family, and not be stalked and harrassed for years. As I said, brought it on themselves.

    Is there no end to the downplaying and victim blaming? Clearly not. Go you for being so invested, keeps you busy I suppose


  • Options
    #523
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Scarinae wrote: »
    So why do you think his aim was finding and sending her these old images that she wasn't identified in by name?

    I'm really not sure what he was trying to prove. But I'm pretty certain it doesn't warrant three years behind bars.
    Or did he just happen to find a political leaflet from 10 years ago and it coincidentally included an image of a person he had been bombarding with messages for years?

    Per the text you quoted, she got 450 messages over the six-year period in question. That works out to around 75 messages per year, or about six per month. "Bombarding"?


  • Options
    #524
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Women can't expect to have any kind of public or online presence, even tangentially through friends and family, and not be stalked and harrassed for years.

    Indeed. He looked up images that were part of her public online presence. If she hadn't wanted anyone to see those images, she should have taken them down — that's only common sense. Regardless, he didn't commit a crime by Googling her.


  • Options
    #525
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    ^
    You'll snap your spine if you keep bending over backwards to defend your hero like this.

    He's gone to jail. Deal with it.


  • Options
    #526
    Scarinae
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    I'm really not sure what he was trying to prove. But I'm pretty certain it doesn't warrant three years behind bars.
    If this was the only thing he had done, then I would agree. But it was not one action in isolation - it was one example of the many ways he had harassed six different people over several years.
    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Per the text you quoted, she got 450 messages over the six-year period in question. That works out to around 75 messages per year, or about six per month. "Bombarding"?
    I'm not sure why you have fixated on the numbers, perhaps because your other arguments don't hold up? You know full well that he was not spacing these messages out at even intervals of six per month. Other posters have already replied to this point.


  • Options
    #527
    Scarinae
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Indeed. He looked up images that were part of her public online presence. If she hadn't wanted anyone to see those images, she should have taken them down — that's only common sense. Regardless, he didn't commit a crime by Googling her.
    The article states that she wasn't named in the images, so he clearly went to a lot more effort than merely googling her.


  • Options
    #528
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Scarinae wrote: »
    The article states that she wasn't named in the images, so he clearly went to a lot more effort than merely googling her.

    Regardless of how much effort he may have gone to, is it a criminal offence to locate images of someone on the internet?


  • Options
    #529
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,306 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Indeed. He looked up images that were part of her public online presence. If she hadn't wanted anyone to see those images, she should have taken them down — that's only common sense. Regardless, he didn't commit a crime by Googling her.

    That's on a par with "well if she didnt want to be raped/sexually assaulted/groped she should have covered up/stayed sober/stayed home etc". Its her fault for not removing every trace of herself from the internet. Good work.


  • Options
    #530
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Scarinae wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you have fixated on the numbers, perhaps because your other arguments don't hold up? You know full well that he was not spacing these messages out at even intervals of six per month.

    The numbers are important. No matter how you look at it, this can hardly be described as a six-year "bombardment."

    450 messages over six years isn't all that many.


  • Options
    #531
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    The numbers are important. No matter how you look at it, this can hardly be described as a six-year "bombardment."

    450 messages over six years isn't all that many.

    they are important only in that they establish that the harassment was sustained over a number of years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    That's on a par with "well if she didnt want to be raped/sexually assaulted/groped she should have covered up/stayed sober/stayed home etc".

    Looking up old pictures of someone on the Internet is now "on a par" with rape and sexual assault?

    The lengths people will go to justify this sentence!


  • Options
    #533
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Beasty wrote: »
    If you have a problem with a post or poster report it and leave the modding to the mods

    Any questions PM me

    That was meant as a joke, not as modding. It was trolling in a thread about a troll. Or rather with that title, as this guy wasn't a troll, he was a stalker.

    I don't believe I've ever reported anyone to a mod, it would take something like someone inciting violence for me to do that.


  • Options
    #534
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,306 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Looking up old pictures of someone on the Internet is now "on a par" with rape and sexual assault?

    The lengths people will go to justify this sentence!

    Nope, not what I said. Read it again. I said the defence of it as being their fault for existing online is on a par with people similarly blaming sexual assault victims as somehow being to blame for their assaults because what they were wearing or how they behaved.


  • Options
    #535
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,532 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

    The lengths people will go to justify this sentence!

    And the lengths some will go to downplay the crime...

    You are way out in front in terms of posts in this thread, with nearly double that of your nearest competitor.

    Defending this guys right to troll these women seems very important to you.


  • Options
    #536
    Tacitus Kilgore
    Registered Users Posts: 2,128 ✭✭✭Tacitus Kilgore


    Some creeps in here.

    Jesus Christ.


  • Options
    #537
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    Looking up old pictures of someone on the Internet is now "on a par" with rape and sexual assault?

    The lengths people will go to justify this sentence!

    No nuance anymore.


  • Options
    #538
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,306 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    No nuance anymore.

    Yeah except that's not what I meant, but keep running with it anyway.


  • Options
    #539
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Arghus wrote: »
    And the lengths some will go to downplay the crime...

    You are way out in front in terms of posts in this thread, with nearly double that of your nearest competitor.

    Defending this guys right to troll these women seems very important to you.

    It really is a strange hill to choose to die on.


  • Options
    #540
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Nope, not what I said. Read it again. I said the defence of it as being their fault for existing online is on a par with people similarly blaming sexual assault victims as somehow being to blame for their assaults because what they were wearing or how they behaved.

    How exactly do we get from:

    a) If you post images of yourself online, don't be surprised if people Google them and find them

    to

    b) You went out wearing a short skirt and low-cut top, so it's your fault you got raped

    :confused:

    Claiming that (a) and (b) are somehow equivalent confounds all logic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,306 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »
    How exactly do we get from:

    a) If you post images of yourself online, don't be surprised if people Google them and find them

    to

    b) You went out wearing a short skirt and low-cut top, so it's your fault you got raped

    :confused:

    Claiming that (a) and (b) are somehow equivalent confounds all logic.

    It's the same logic. The person is to blame for the illegal actions of another person because of their behaviour .

    Also, she wasn't named in the pictures he found online. Does that suggest she wanted them to be "googleable" or that she posted them herself?

    I haven't even made any comment about the sentencing and whether I think its justified. I just think the insistence that she was to blame and he did nothing wrong is weird


Advertisement