Which would rather invalidate the whole point of internet boards - without which the legal case against this man , now jailed - much less this thread - would not exist...

I'm telling you, in around about way, to stick of the topic.

the proportion of rather lack of in punishmnet for other crimes or consistency, is of no interest as to the trolling case.

Then why post a latin phrase which roughly translated means - "stick to your area of expertise" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutor,_ne_ultra_crepidam

And I disagree vehemently with your second point - consistency in the absence of moral absolutes is important - some would even say "neccessary".
Perhaps you are not familiar with the phrase "blind justice" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_j...ept)#Blindfold

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

Hence justice should be "blind" to sex , age , money , race , nationality etc etc...
many an internet forum thread was started and debated on these grounds.

Consistency is of no discussing topic on this thread. that's the whole thing. As much as we are not discussing , by extension of consistency, any other crimes listed in the UK. If you can present a trolling case for a girl, like carlos said, then ok.


The point here is trolling, ruling and minding what we say . Other cases about other crimes are to no use.


the phrase is stating: Do not presume to go further than your competence, if you can't see the analogy, too bad.

It was a magistrates court, so I don't think it counts as a precedent (I agree with you though).

I'd have thought an appeal will be along soon.

I am annoyed by your behavior in this thread.

I am further annoyed that I "had" to go and look up info about laws in a country for which I have no reason to otherwise care.

I am even further annoyed that I am so annoyed that I can not be bothered to thoroughly read all of your posts in this thread to find where you called the actions of the teacher "intent of statutory rape"... the reason I was looking for it is that it is FALSE.

The age of consent in UK is SIXTEEN. The students in question were SEVENTEEN and EIGHTEEN. So, the teacher's "crime" is professional misconduct, that is all. Hence, the "light" sentence.

Although how you can compare attempts to entice 17 and 18 year old males into sex (as if they are so well known to avoid sex and alcohol ), which, even if she had succeeded would NOT have been "statutory rape" with anything actually socially disturbing is beyond me.

__________________
The Joys of Opticianry

That's an incredibly dense amount of contradiction in one paragraph to me - a mathematician :
Sentence 1. "Consistency is - in your opinion - not the topic up for discussion" - fine that's your opinion but since others including me are by discussing it - your point is at best inaccurate.
Sentence 2. Clearly not - but you could argue successfully that I've introduced a thread tangent - fair enough.
Sentence 3. Refer to comment on sentence 1.
Sentence 4. Contradiction to sentence 1 - if you can jump through my arbitrary hoop then we can discuss consistency.

That is not "THE" point - it is "YOUR" point - I merely wanted to inject "OTHER" points - clearly you are not happy with "OTHER" points and want to stick with "YOUR" point - which you claim is the "ONLY" point - I claim that your claim is simply "POINTLESS".

And again if I stuck to mathematics boards for Irish people and you to boards for "insert nationality/sex/sexual orientation/etc" then it'd go very quiet in here.

I agree o nthis, I just don't see how would that translate in generating anonymous messages to post in the dedicated site for the girl?

wouldn't he realize his behaviour would be limited to his post on the particular forum?

This is a part I don't understand either. It seems that he actually sought out memorial pages / sites dedicated to these teens who died. Where did he get that from? Even if someone doesn't understand how their words could hurt someone else, he went out of his way to say those words... that just rings very odd.

I think there is more to the story than "simple" learning / social disabilities, that behavior seems to me (uneducated as I am) to be a psychological problem - one which needs some deep investigating by those whom are properly trained.

There are moments when the solution "lobotomy" comes to mind.

I'm EFed anyway - might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb

Since years I have been saying on this forum to be careful of what we say, of what we express in a way to not offend people. Sometimes proper choice of words help a lot to say the same thing but without causing offense.

Some here battle to death on the liberty to say everything and the right to use offensive comments and opinions. On the Saint Freedom of speech.

Well, here is a case where someone used this freedom and got judged for it. Is it right?

He has mental illness and I don't even want to talk about it, let's talk just about his actions and not the reasons behind his actions.

1- It is ok and acceptable to do what he did, for the sake of freedom?
2- Assuming he has all his mind, is it acceptable from a court to condem him for using his rights of freedom of speech?

why not? i think it sometimes is good to cause offence and be offended.

Don't be annoyed by posts on an internet chatboard - that is not reasonable "behaviour".
Actions cannot be intent - although that is a minor point (my view) - as indeed one could argue the difference between a teacher having sex with a 17 year old and a 16 year old. But in any case your minor point is a valid one - and therefore I dip my hat to you and wonder if you will behave in a reciprocal manner towards me in future.

But the reasons behind the actions are extremely important- otherwise running over someone with your car accidentally would have the exact same repercussions as running over someone intentionally.

No, it is not acceptable what he did, certainly not for the sake of ''freedom''; considering there are many, many trolls out there who terrorize grieving people in hordes, I do think the punishment fits the crime BUT in the case of someone mentally sound. I don't think this particular person should be in jail, although I do think he should be punished (i don't know how to punish someone with Asperger's though..) and supervised by a social worker who can teach him proper behaviour in this society.

We already have laws in place in most countries prohibiting the use of hate speech, offensive public displays, etc; I don't think his vicious comments qualified as ''freedom of speech'', since it wouldn't qualify this way anywhere else outside of the internet.

__________________
''In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that he did not also limit his stupidity''

1-
2-

Sez who?

Obviously, the courts have said that it IS reasonable to be bothered by something someone says on the internet.

Perhaps you've failed to notice that part about the article, the judgment AND what "everyone" has been saying in this thread?

If he pleaded guilty then can he still appeal? Honest question BTW

Well, no, but these public memorial websites are set up for people who knew the deceased outside of the immediate family so they can grieve and ''support'' each other, because of the ease of finding the particular page, connecting with others immediately and sharing information on the internet.

It is a sort of virtual ''wake'', set up for people who knew the deceased but cannot attend the funeral, for example. The point is not to ''announce'' and get attention, but to include everyone who might be affected. Pasting something on a random phone booth isn't really doing the same thing.

__________________
''In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that he did not also limit his stupidity''