Internet Troll gets three years

Raconteuse

I know all avenues would have been exhausted until the final resort of jail time was decided upon, but three years does seem excessive. Something had to be done to stop him harassing people but he'll be an absolute martyr and hero now unfortunately.

BarryD2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I just don't engage any more with people who just spout the same snide one-liners over and over again. It really is just a waste of time.

And that's just what these complainants should have done. There's an old expression 'if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, etc etc'. The problem with this sort of case is that the complainants opt to put themselves in the public eye. And with that territory comes a level of crap.

Same for politicians, I hear Brid Smith and the like, both male & female politicians complaining about online abuse. These politicians love social media when they can use it to promote whatever their current policy is. But they don't like it when it works in reverse and the public actually have the neck to use social media to let them know they disagree.

Overheal

an absolute martyr and hero now unfortunately.

I shudder to think who will idolize him

Raconteuse

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Indeed. Those who behave obnoxiously online aren't just right-wing.

Raconteuse

Overheal wrote: »

I shudder to think who will idolize him

You don't have to look far!

LoughNeagh2017

That reminds me, I am IP banned from the journal.ie for calling one of the journalists out on a spelling mistake, I think I also called her a pretentious Dublin swine

RabbleRouser2k

Overheal wrote: »

I shudder to think who will idolize him

Creeps beget creeps, unfortunately. You'll probably see more people using vpn's to hide their IP addresses.

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

That reminds me, I am IP banned from the journal.ie for calling one of the journalists out on a spelling mistake, I think I also called her a pretentious Dublin swine

That site's long become a 'safe space'. But the pretentious thing.... yeah, I think that was a bit uncalled for.

Raconteuse

BarryD2 wrote: »

And that's just what these complainants should have done. There's an old expression 'if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, etc etc'. The problem with this sort of case is that the complainants opt to put themselves in the public eye. And with that territory comes a level of crap.

Same for politicians, I hear Brid Smith and the like, both male & female politicians complaining about online abuse. These politicians love social media when they can use it to promote whatever their current policy is. But they don't like it when it works in reverse and the public actually have the neck to use social media to let them know they disagree.

A lot more to this than mere disagreement. Don't know why you're downplaying this behaviour.

Anyone who gets upset over people just civilly arguing/disagreeing with them online is a sap.

But that's nothing to do with a prolonged campaign of obsessive harassment and intimidation.

wiggle16

BarryD2 wrote: »

And that's just what these complainants should have done. There's an old expression 'if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, etc etc'. The problem with this sort of case is that the complainants opt to put themselves in the public eye. And with that territory comes a level of crap

Seafóid.

They were in the public eye. Being a woman in the public eye should not make you a target for some sexually frustrated weirdo. Their being visible does not make him less culpable.

This is the exact same sort of argument as "Mrs X was sexually assaulted - but sure what did she expect, going out tarted up like that?"

I hate the term victim-blaming, I never use it - but that's all this is.

They had zero, ZERO responsibility for what this man did to them. Why in the world can you not accept that?

nkl12xtw5goz70

wiggle16 wrote: »

You're picking a legal case from a different country, with a different legal system and different sentencing guidelines, and comparing the two... to make what point exactly?

The point — as I've been arguing all along — is that Doolin's sentence is inconsistent with sentences for serious violent crimes in Ireland, as well as for sentences handed out in the UK for people making death threats to MPs online.

It's hard to see how it serves anyone to lock up a 37-year-old nonviolent offender who has left his house twice since the age of 20.

I agree with the poster above who said that Judge Nolan, currently in the public eye for his lenient sentencing, is trying to prove that he too can be tough on offenders. But when some criminals are walking away with suspended sentences for rape, assault, and possession of child pornography, it's glaringly inconsistent to give a nonviolent offender three years for harassing journalists on Twitter.

Salary Negotiator

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

The point — as I've been arguing all along — is that Doolin's sentence is inconsistent with sentences for serious violent crimes in Ireland, as well as for sentences handed out in the UK for people making death threats to MPs online.

It's hard to see how it serves anyone to lock up a 37-year-old nonviolent offender who has left his house twice since the age of 20.

I agree with the poster above who said that Judge Nolan, currently in the public eye for his lenient sentencing, is trying to prove that he too can be tough on offenders. But when some criminals are walking away with suspended sentences for rape, assault, and possession of child pornography, it's glaringly inconsistent to give a nonviolent offender three years for harassing journalists on Twitter.

So give the others longer sentences and quit complaining when tough sentences are handed down.

Fritzbox

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

The issue is with a broken judicial system that routinely lets actual violent criminals off with a slap on the wrist, while imprisoning a mentally ill recluse for three years because he repeatedly sent messages calling journalists wannabes, nobodies, bigots, lefties, and pseudo-intellectual narcissists.

Here's a case of a man who assaulted his former partner in a hospital, in front of their child, punching her repeatedly, breaking her nose, and leaving her with double vision. His sentence was 3 years with 18 months suspended, meaning that he'll do half the prison time of the internet troll.

Sentencing in Ireland seems purely capricious and random. That needs to be fixed.

And let's not forget Garlic Man.

BarryD2

wiggle16 wrote: »

They were in the public eye. Being a woman in the public eye should not make you a target for some sexually frustrated weirdo. Their being visible does not make him less culpable.

This is the exact same sort of argument as "Mrs X was sexually assaulted - but sure what did she expect, going out tarted up like that?

I'm sympathetic to the argument but I don't agree with it fully. None of these issues are b/w. A man or woman does not have the right to walk down the street half dressed and not expect comment. A journalist/ column writer expressing opinions does not have a right to expect freedom from adverse opinion in social media. This chap certainly went overboard but there's a very vague line between what is acceptable and not acceptable. It would vary from person to person, hence why 'if you can't stand the heat.....'

splinter65

Faugheen wrote: »

No, but this woman did a completely different crime and only got this amount.

But the man here was hard done by and the women brought it all on themselves.

Just for a minute forget the genders of all the parties in these 2 crimes.
Imagine trying to earn your living and proceed with your career in journalism and having a “hater” bombarding you night and day for years with 1000s of abusive messages and frightening threats to kill.
The hater is eventually brought to face the music and it appears that they don’t accept at all that they have done anything wrong at all, and indeed their entitlement to “comment” in public has been scandalously denied.
Imagine discovering that your teenage child, being brought, by you, to school every day to be supervised by suitably qualified adults in a safe, child friendly environment has been taken, several times, by one of those adults, away from the school, given alcohol and cigarettes and other presents, and had sexual intercourse with that adult not just once, but repeatedly.
The adult is eventually brought to justice, their defence says that they don’t understand fully how they have behaved badly in any way, and they sit sobbing in court, consumed with self pity.

Which case warrants the longer sentence?

Faugheen

splinter65 wrote: »

Just for a minute forget the genders of all the parties in these 2 crimes.
Imagine trying to earn your living and proceed with your career in journalism and having a “hater” bombarding you night and day for years with 1000s of abusive messages and frightening threats to kill.
The hater is eventually brought to face the music and it appears that they don’t accept at all that they have done anything wrong at all, and indeed their entitlement to “comment” in public has been scandalously denied.
Imagine discovering that your teenage child, being brought, by you, to school every day to be supervised by suitably qualified adults in a safe, child friendly environment has been taken, several times, by one of those adults, away from the school, given alcohol and cigarettes and other presents, and had sexual intercourse with that adult not just once, but repeatedly.
The adult is eventually brought to justice, their defence says that they don’t understand fully how they have behaved badly in any way, and they sit sobbing in court, consumed with self pity.

Which case warrants the longer sentence?

So he should have got a smaller sentence then, is that what you’re saying?

Fritzbox

Thing is, Doolin had sent hundreds of messages over a period of 6 years - why did it take so long for the Garda to investigate and locate him? An IP address can be located almost instantly surely?

RabbleRouser2k

wiggle16 wrote: »

Seafóid.

They were in the public eye. Being a woman in the public eye should not make you a target for some sexually frustrated weirdo. Their being visible does not make him less culpable.

This is the exact same sort of argument as "Mrs X was sexually assaulted - but sure what did she expect, going out tarted up like that?"

I hate the term victim-blaming, I never use it - but that's all this is.

They had zero, ZERO responsibility for what this man did to them. Why in the world can you not accept that?

Nobody is blaming the victims-far from it.

We're comparing sentencing to the seriousness of the crime. When I even mentioned statutory rape where the sentence was incredibly lenient, I made sure to discuss as such in comparison to the crime. (Nobody said 'the schoolboy brought it on himself' regarding that incident).
There are long lasting repercussions either way.

My sympathies are most definitely with the people he harassed. But will a strong sentence actually help anyone in this case?
Shouldn't think so. One could easily have banned him from owning an electronic device (as has happened with hackers in the past). Anything would stop him from harassing other individuals.

He's mentally ill. If he goes to prison, he's hardly likely to get proper treatment there.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Fritzbox wrote: »

Thing is, Doolin had sent hundreds of messages over a period of 6 years - why did it take so long for the Garda to investigate and locate him? An IP address can be located almost instantly surely?

Very good question. I had wondered this myself.

Unless he was using a VPN or Tor, a recluse posting consistently from the same location should have been very easy to track down.

Faugheen

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Nobody is blaming the victims-far from it.

Confirmed - you haven’t read this thread.

If you want to bitch about a sentence that you thought was unfair, do so in that relevant thread instead of bringing it over here.

Calhoun

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, won't argue that he's not living his best life-but this might actually make things worse.

Someone with severe mental health problems might actually find their condition worsening in prison.

The resources for mental health are disastrous outside of prison-in prison they're bound to be more under-resourced.
Couple that with when he gets out, a criminal record will only make him more isolated.

Sustained harrasment would also have taken it's toll on his victims and really impacted their mental health. Due to this I feel that he should have a criminal record.

I feel that had there been a case for mental health they probably would have taken it but they didn't.

I get what your saying though and I know the law in this space is relatively new and he could have been made an example of but people need to appreciate the damage he was doing to the victims.

RabbleRouser2k

Fritzbox wrote: »

Thing is, Doolin had sent hundreds of messages over a period of 6 years - why did it take so long for the Garda to investigate and locate him? An IP address can be located almost instantly surely?

IP addresses are not locked in stone-a MAC address is, an IP address is fluid. If you're using a vpn, or logging into the internet from other locations, such as a library or somewhere else, your IP address will be different.

But also, there are ways to hide your IP address, like the aforementioned VPN.

RabbleRouser2k

Faugheen wrote: »

Confirmed - you haven’t read this thread.

If you want to bitch about a sentence that you thought was unfair, do so in that relevant thread instead of bringing it over here.

I can't speak for anyone else-I can only speak for myself. I read the post, thought it was directed at my comment, as it seemed to be, re-read the thread and saw that some 'do' blame the harassed.

I don't agree with that.

And I discuss what I wish to discuss in the relevant forum-I don't see a moderator tag next to your name, so maybe set the rules in your D n D campaign, and not here.

Fritzbox

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

IP addresses are not locked in stone-a MAC address is, an IP address is fluid. If you're using a vpn, or logging into the internet from other locations, such as a library or somewhere else, your IP address will be different.

But also, there are ways to hide your IP address, like the aforementioned VPN.

I doubt if any police agency worth its salt would have a problem with such anti-detection measures - give it some time. The impression I get is that he done most the online harassment from his own home for those 6 years - he wasn't moving around.

pinkyeye

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

That reminds me, I am IP banned from the journal.ie for calling one of the journalists out on a spelling mistake, I think I also called her a pretentious Dublin swine

And?? Are you looking for sympathy for this?

pinkyeye

What I think is a load of crap about this story is saying that he hadn't been outside in 17 years except for twice which is bs.

I presume a saddo like this is living on social welfare, therefore no way would his payments continue for 17 years if he had never gone out to sign on. Even if he is on disability benefit (for what disability?) he would have to go to a doctor to have this certified.

bfa1509

Is there no option to block people on these things? I have no sympathy for anyone who continues to use any form of social media that leaves them exposed to abuse. Just turn it off for christ's sake...

Faugheen

bfa1509 wrote: »

Is there no option to block people on these things? I have no sympathy for anyone who continues to use any form of social media that leaves them exposed to abuse. Just turn it off for christ's sake...

He was blocked, he used loads of different email addresses and accounts.

Again, someone who hasn’t read past the headline.

And these women ‘exposed themselves to abuse’ did they?

Another person who doesn’t get it and thinks these wimmins are ruining the internet for men.

Calhoun

Faugheen wrote: »

He was blocked, he used loads of different email addresses and accounts.

Again, someone who hasn’t read past the headline.

And these women ‘exposed themselves to abuse’ did they?

Another person who doesn’t get it and thinks these wimmins are ruining the internet for men.

Its also 2019, social media is part of the make up of society whether we like it or not.

It doesn't matter who it is nobody deserves the kind of sustained harassment.

splinter65

Faugheen wrote: »

So he should have got a smaller sentence then, is that what you’re saying?

You can’t answer the question. You see everything through the optic of gender only.
For you any crime where a woman is the victim, is, for some reason, more reprehensible then any crime where the victim is a man.
Any crime where a woman is the aggressor is to be excused, at least to some degree.
Can’t you see that this is sexist, anti-equality, and pointless.
Why isn’t the woman doing as long a sentence as the man?

Irish Guitarist

He deserves to be punished but three years seems too much especially when the same judge gives suspended sentences to people who have committed real life sexual assaults, rapes and even murders. This is the same judge who gave a man six months for sexually abusing his infant daughter over the course of two years and said he's unlikely to reoffend. And just a few days ago he gave a suspended sentence for distributing child pornography.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/suspended-sentence-for-man-28-who-viewed-and-distributed-child-pornography-964520.html

Before anyone gets enraged I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, just that three years is too much and there should be some consistency in sentencing. If he had actually raped one of these women he probably would have gotten a lesser sentence or been ordered to pay money to her.