More bad press for aspies

Post Reply New Topic

This type of page on any website is an entity which can be accessed by the general public who are then able to leave anonymous comments. Anyone who has spent time online knows that bringing up sensitive matters in this kind of environment is a bad idea. Trolls are everywhere online, why wouldn't they be on Facebook pages too? I'm not necessarily supporting the guy, I'm just saying that being sent to jail for something so commonly seen online just because a few people were offended is overkill.



If you want to share something with friends, put it somewhere where only your friends can see it. A Facebook page is a public entity and is therefore open to comments from anyone.

In fact, can't you turn off comments on Facebook pages anyway? I'm fairly sure you can. That could be done instead of the page being deleted I guess.



Not really. Again, making a public Facebook page is a silly idea for such a sensitive subject. Trolling is predictable, and, while it's not fully justified, neither is sending someone to jail over it.

Now, had it been a case where a group of people were sending abusive messages directly to family members, I'd understand this sort of action. But for a few stupid comments on a public Facebook page? Not so much.

It isn't common to repeatedly mock specific dead teenagers online, especially if you know their friends and families will read it. He hadn't got the message and needed to be shown that we don't approve of that sort of behaviour.

Trolls troll everyone. Again, I'm not supporting this, I'm just saying it's well known that this is common online and sending people to jail for it is overkill.

As it would presumably also be overkill to send someone to jail for defacing gravestones?

Well, if you think about it logically, a gravestone is just a stone. The crime in this case would be the vandalism.

On a Facebook page, if the admins of the page have allowed comments, they're inviting people to say things on that page. It's the equivalent of keeping spray cans next to the gravestone.

Just because it happens doesn't mean we should accept it.

Very few people troll in this way. It isn't common at all. Someone I knew made national news and nobody trolled his death, quite surprised this guy didn't given that we live in the same town. Several people I knew online have died as well and there was no direct trolling of them.

This is extreme trolling behaviour. Just as if someone would be jailed if they used racially offensive language to someone's face or sent them a letter containing death threats or gloating about the death of their child, they should be sent to prison if they put loads of effort into trolling people on FB when their kid dies, especially if they do it several times. It simply isn't common behaviour, despite what you say, and it isn't acceptable.

I'm not defending the behaviour, but if you're gonna put one troll in prison, surely that means you must do the same for all of them? I mean that'll just never happen.

IMHO, "extreme trolling behaviour" would be sending messages directly to family members. As I said before, that would justify a jail sentence for harassment. But posting comments on a public page isn't the same thing. You can't make a public page on which you allow anyone to comment and expect only good things to be posted, can you?

Nonsense.

You know as well as I do that it is what that stone represents, more than it just being a stone.
Likewise with the Facebook page representing much more than just being a web page.

Allowing people to leave messages of condolence is what I'd expect on any sort of tribute or memorial and the family/relatives were correct to expect to be left in peace.
In just the same way that a family looking after a relative's gravestone would be correct in expecting to be left in peace and not find it vandalised.

They're both public and they both serve the same purpose.
It's called trolling only because it happened online - but it's still an act of vandalism in just the same way as defacing a gravestone would be.

If someone were to let any member of the public write on a relative's gravestone (which no one does, for the very reason demonstrated here), then someone would write bad things on it. I'd put £1,000 on it, I'm that confident. It's human nature that, no matter what the protocol is, if someone feels they have anonymity, they will abstain from moral norms and are more likely do things like this. There are various theories written up on it, in fact.

The point is, while the behaviour itself isn't something I support at all, I equally cannot support putting someone in jail for taking advantage of the fact that someone allowed the public to make anonymous comments about their dead family member online and expected everything they got on the page to be all sweet and rosy.

Asp-Z, you don't think this is a punishable offence, fine. That's your prerogative but it seems most people see it differently. Fact is through due legal process it was decided he would be detained at her Majesty's pleasure and I don't see many people shedding any tears about it. I think it is now safe to conclude his trolling days are over. Just maybe someone else will think twice about doing the same thing in future and spare other families the same pain.

Indeed, I'm only posting my personal opinion on the matter, nothing more.

There is already nothing stopping people from painting swastikas on gravestones, or from breaking them - and when those doing it are caught they're jailed.
It's quite disingenuous to minimise this simply because a gravestone doesn't have a handy spray can nearby or pen and notepad hanging from it. The exact method of vandalism used varies with what's being vandalised. Obviously.
The end result is still the same.

So basically they got what they deserved because (a) human nature is what it is and (b) they should have seen it coming?

My point is that, in this case, the family invited and provided tools for anyone who happens to have a Facebook account to write a message. This is the equivalent of leaving the necessary tools to vandalise something right there for people to pick up and use.



If you want to reduce it to harsh basic terms then yes, that is correct. You don't let random members of the public wander into a funeral and you shouldn't do the equivalent of that on the internet. Common sense still applies.

What the family should have done is set up a private memorial page which only other family members and friends of the family and the dead can access. That would alleviate the risk of the problem altogether.