Internet Troll gets three years

sameoldname

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Seriously... Do you use Twitter? If high-profile journalists and columnists tried to "shop" everyone who called them a self-absorbed lefty seven times a month, they'd be in court every day of the week.

You say there's a clear line between criticism and abuse. There isn't. Indeed, many excel at strategically redefining legitimate criticism as abuse, harassment, or hate speech, so that they can conveniently shut down their critics.

Criticize Travellers, for instance, no matter how legitimately, and see how long it takes for someone to call you a racist.

The stuff that was quoted about him calling these journalists pseudo-intellectual lefties who are part of a Twitter thought bubble -- they might not have liked it, but a lot of the Irish media is that way. There's truth in that description that makes it a valid criticism.

How about you post your phone number and let the good people of boards debate with you in a more personal manner? I mean, you're willingly posting on here, putting yourself out there so surely that would be acceptable to you?

nkl12xtw5goz70

sameoldname wrote: »

How about you post your phone number and let the good people of boards debate with you in a more personal manner? I mean, you're willingly posting on here, putting yourself out there so surely that would be acceptable to you?

If anyone wants to debate with me personally, just send me a PM. That's happened many times.

sameoldname

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

If anyone wants to debate with me personally, just send me a PM. That's happened many times.

But you won't post your phone number, why not?

wiggle16

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Seriously... Do you use Twitter?

I don't. Can't stand it. Miles of drivel.

You say there's a clear line between criticism and abuse. There isn't. Indeed, many excel at strategically redefining legitimate criticism as abuse, harassment, or hate speech, so that they can conveniently shut down their critics.

Yes there is. There is a clear difference between me saying "I disagree with you, Permabear, because of XYZ" and saying "I disagree with you, Permabear, because you are a ______ing ______". The difference is civility.

Criticize Travellers, for instance, no matter how legitimately, and see how long it takes for someone to call you a racist.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring Travellers into the thread.... :rolleyes:

The stuff that was quoted about him calling these journalists pseudo-intellectual lefties who are part of a Twitter thought bubble -- they might not have liked it, but a lot of the Irish media is that way. There's truth in that description that makes it a valid criticism.

Then you don't understand the difference between criticism and abuse. Abuse may be accurate, but that doesn't make it criticism, and it doesn't make it warranted - and therefore not valid.

Overheal

I only use twitter when it slaps me in the face, like one or two embedded in an article or i need to moan to customer service.

nkl12xtw5goz70

wiggle16 wrote: »

I don't. Can't stand it. Miles of drivel.

Well, if you used Twitter, you'd see that many people, especially political commentators, get called idiots, morons, and worse every hour of every day. That just goes with the territory.

Yes there is. There is a clear difference between me saying "I disagree with you, Permabear, because of XYZ" and saying "I disagree with you, Permabear, because you are a ______ing ______". The difference is civility.

It isn't a crime to be uncivil, though. I can say that Ryan Tubridy is a useless, overpaid, narcissistic blabbermouth who has no clue what he's talking about most of the time — and I don't think anyone would see that as criminally actionable abuse.

Then you don't understand the difference between criticism and abuse.

I understand that the difference between criticism and abuse is often in the eye of the beholder, and is often manipulated for strategic or political ends. It certainly isn't as clearcut as you're making it out to be.

Bigboldworld

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here is a guy who clearly has mental health issues - he even said he was suicidal during the abuse - whose threats were exclusively made online gets 3 years :

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/his-campaign-of-harassment-against-us-went-on-for-years-female-writers-and-journalists-speak-out-after-internet-troll-jailed-for-three-years-38692690.html

Yet people with multiple violent assaults get suspended sentences? Is the lesson here that if he actually physically assaulted his victims he would have gotten a lesser sentence?

This is not some misguided defence of free speech, I totally agree he should have faced sanction, preferably in a mental health unit, but THREE YEARS is a murder level sentence.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, in my opinion three years is fitting for this crime however when one sees consistent lenient sentences handed out for manslaughter/murder where on many occasions the perpetrator doesn’t serve any time whatsoever due to suspended sentences etc one is left baffled as to why a perpetrator who verbally abuses a victim gets three years yet on the other hand a criminal who beats someone to death either serves less time or none at all can only lead to questioning the judiciary as a whole.

It’s not consistent and far too lenient on violent criminals. A pattern emerges that the sentences passed are heavily influenced by the personality of the judge handing down the sentence rather than being proportionate to the severity of the crime which is deeply flawed.

wiggle16

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Well, if you used Twitter, you'd see that many people, especially political commentators, get called idiots, morons, and worse every hour of every day. That just goes with the territory.

As I say, i don't use it. Just because the denizens of twitter call one another idiots, morons and worse and hide behind anonymity to call public figures names does not make it okay and does not make any difference to the distinction between abuse and criticism.

It isn't a crime to be uncivil, though. I can say that Ryan Tubridy is a useless, overpaid, narcissistic blabbermouth who has no clue what he's talking about most of the time — and I don't think anyone would see that as criminally actionable abuse.

You're moving the goalposts again. That's an opinion, because you are not talking to Mr Tubridy or addressing your comments to him. If you were, it would be abusive, but not criminal - if you were PMing him constantly saying that, it would be abuse and harassment and he'd be well entitled to take you to court to get you to leave him alone.

Do you think he should not be able to do that?

I understand that the difference between criticism and abuse is often in the eye of the beholder, and is often manipulated for strategic or political ends. It certainly isn't as clearcut as you're making it out to be.

This man did not get jailed for criticism.

There is a difference between abuse and criticism. As I have said, the distinction between the two is that of civility. You keep ignoring/minimising the other, and primary, factor, which is the level of contact. It doesn't matter what you are saying to a person, you could be telling them they're wonderful - if you keep contacting someone when they tell you to leave them alone, then you're harassing them.

That's what happened to these women. It was unwanted contact from someone who knew he was contacting them against their wishes, for a long time.

wiggle16

sameoldname wrote: »

How about you post your phone number and let the good people of boards debate with you in a more personal manner? I mean, you're willingly posting on here, putting yourself out there so surely that would be acceptable to you?

It would certainly give it that personal touch.

sameoldname

wiggle16 wrote: »

It would certainly give it that personal touch.

I noticed he still hasn't posted it up which makes me think that despite his puerile argument, it's almost like he understands the difference between receiving nonsense on a public account and receiving it on your private phone number.

Raconteuse

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

Also I read this week that Bagel guy took a stroke, the same scum who laughed at him are the same who would be wishing him well now, makes me sick to my stomach, disgusting.

Are they definitely the same people?

Because I'm willing to bet that they're not.

Better Than Christ

I can't say I'm surprised that a poster of Eric Cartman's calibre would identify so strongly with a man who spent six years harassing women online. The less said about that poster, the better. But I am somewhat surprised at Permabear's willful obtuseness in downplaying his crimes.

Maddux Modern Rule wrote:

The stuff that was quoted about him calling these journalists pseudo-intellectual lefties who are part of a Twitter thought bubble -- they might not have liked it, but a lot of the Irish media is that way. There's truth in that description that makes it a valid criticism.

I find it hard to believe that you don't know the difference between perception and truth. But even if we were to accept that it's a valid criticism - as opposed to an ad-hominem attack - there is also a difference between criticising someone and harassing them over a period of six years.

Using your Ryan Tubridy example - if I was to tell him on Twitter (if he was still on it) that he was a 'useless, overpaid, narcissistic blabbermouth', I wouldn't be guilty of harassing him. If I was to obsessively email him, ignoring his requests that I cease doing so, going so far as to wish physical injury upon him and implying that I'll call around to his house when he's alone, I think it's fair to say that my behaviour would have gone well beyond mere criticism.

RabbleRouser2k

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I can't say I'm surprised that a poster of Eric Cartman's calibre would identify so strongly with a man who spent six years harassing women online. The less said about that poster, the better. But I am somewhat surprised at Permabear's willful obtuseness in downplaying his crimes.

There's no need to get personal or insulting on this thread. Just because you disagree with Eric Cartman, doesn't mean you can choose to insult them.

It's uncalled for. Highly uncalled for.

Better Than Christ

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There's no need to get personal or insulting on this thread. Just because you disagree with Eric Cartman, doesn't mean you can choose to insult them.

It's uncalled for. Highly uncalled for.

He literally defended someone who spent six years harassing various different women. It's absolutely called for. But it seems that he's been banned from this thread and therefore doesn't have any right of reply, so I'll delete it.

kowloon

Fine with the length of the sentence handed out, but would it not be better to hold people somewhere more suited to their mental condition than a regular prison? Maybe somewhere where the population doesn't regularly get access to mobile phones.

He left his house twice in 17 years? Jesus. A normal person may deserve prison but someone that reclusive is in need of something more helpful.

I mean, all we really want is for him to stop abusing people online. There's better ways than three years in prison. A week would do it.

Bizarre story.

ebbsy

Hopefully we will all be safe after the 3 years is up .

Better Than Christ

The sentence might not do him any good, but it should act as a deterrent to other weirdos who feel like harassing people online.

RabbleRouser2k

Better Than Christ wrote: »

The sentence might not do him any good, but it should act as a deterrent to other weirdos who feel like harassing people online.

I'd love to say 'oh it definitely will'.... but, we all know it won't.

Sadly.

Tony EH

Better Than Christ wrote: »

The sentence might not do him any good,

It'll be a lot of good for the 6 women he's been stalking for the last 7 years.

up for anything

Eric Cartman wrote: »

6 months, its just words on the internet...

I suspect if it wasnt female journalists who love the victim card and turning on the crocodile tears then ut would have been more reasonable

TomSweeney wrote: »

Exactly, I'd say the just loved playing the victim.
In 2019 it seems a great way to get ahead - play the oppression Olympics.

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

A three-year prison sentence for calling them "wannabes, nobodies, whiteist, bigots, lefties and pseudo-intellectuals" seems bizarre, especially for a mentally ill recluse who left his home twice in 17 years.

It will also have the effect of chilling free speech in Ireland. People will now think twice about calling out female public figures on social media for fear of being hauled before the courts.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Regrettable to see a case of a mentally ill individual used as another vehicle to portray women as being under attack and living in a dangerous country

At no time in history have women ever had it better

Enough of the pity parties

I've forgotten what I wanted to say after wading through this thread. I think it was something about chips on shoulders... umm... no, it's not coming back to me.

pjohnson

up for anything wrote: »

I've forgotten what I wanted to say after wading through this thread. I think it was something about chips on shoulders... umm... no, it's not coming back to me.

Not a bit suprised at a single one of those crying over thier comrade getting sent to jail.

Augme

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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.

This sentence isnt too little, the problem is the others sentences aren't enough. Even if the guy in the OP got 6months in jail that still doesn't justify a suspended sentence for distribution of child pornography.

Boggles

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

As has happened with sex offenders, they are often monitored to prevent them from having access to electronic devices. In the case of someone who was convicted of posessing child pornography, they're often monitored as to whether they try to own a laptop or smartphone in order to access child pornography. (Even a secondhand laptop can be traced from the previous owner).

There are even devices that can detect or block wifi connections. It's not too difficult.

Yeah but in actual reality a 50 quid smart phone circumvents all that.

Besides he was given far stricter and more specific orders in relation to his bail.

He couldn't abide by them so his bail was revoked and he was jailed.

I imagine it was one of the main reasons he got 3 years.

The maximum sentence is 7 AFAIK so he didn't do too bad.

splinter65

Arghus wrote: »

Reads like angry abuse to be honest.

Not just abuse, but angry abuse? It’s a comment, an opinion. Where do you see abuse?

Foxy wolf

I believe this story is a fabrication and that "Brendan Doolin of Leighlin Road Crumlin" doesn't exist as there is absolutely no evidence of this story being true. If you think this story is true because it was in the papers and on RTE, you are a very stupid person.

splinter65

Foxy wolf wrote: »

I believe this story is a fabrication and that "Brendan Doolin of Leighlin Road Crumlin" doesn't exist as there is absolutely no evidence of this story being true. If you think this story is true because it was in the papers and on RTE, you are a very stupid person.

Are the victims of Brendan Doolin also telling lies?

Faugheen

Foxy wolf wrote: »

I believe this story is a fabrication and that "Brendan Doolin of Leighlin Road Crumlin" doesn't exist as there is absolutely no evidence of this story being true. If you think this story is true because it was in the papers and on RTE, you are a very stupid person.

Hello user who has definitely never been on boards before today.

You sound silly.

wiggle16

Foxy wolf wrote: »

I believe this story is a fabrication and that "Brendan Doolin of Leighlin Road Crumlin" doesn't exist as there is absolutely no evidence of this story being true. If you think this story is true because it was in the papers and on RTE, you are a very stupid person.

OOOOOH CHALLENGING

Raconteuse

wiggle16 wrote: »

OOOOOH CHALLENGING

Yeah, THEY know the score, not like the rest of us plebs.

Nothing on the papers or RTE is true ever.