Comment by DoubleGlazing | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoubleGlazing | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I experienced something very similar. I was living in the UK and was asked to help admin a local forum. It only had around 3000 users, but it was very active. There was one fellow who kept posting long rambling rants about all sorts, conspiracy theories, espousing racist views, taking pleasure in mocking members who lost a relative etc. After repeatedly banning him we got a plugin to make him invisible to everyone bar mods and admins.

He kept posting his long angry rants for a year before he realised what was going on. To say he was upset would be an understatement. I'm sure he tried to track down the site owners and admins, but we were very careful to maintain anonymity. So he went after regular members, he managed to figure out where some of them lived and worked by analysing their posting. One day he posted the names and address of a lot of the forums top posters.

Of course at that point the police were called in. The guy was tracked down via his IP address, he made no attempt to hide his activities. We did send occasional abuse reports to his ISP before this happened and they were always ignored.

He was charged with harassment and ended up with 100 hours of community service and a £150 fine. A pitifully small punishment given the fear he caused and that he did not show any remorse. If anything he seemed annoyed that he got caught. Apparently, in his first Police interview he argued that he was merely exercising his right to freedom of speech and was surprised when the police told him that such a right did not exist in the UK.

Some people have anger issues, some people have real mean streaks. Forums attract these kind and can encourage them to act their worst. If someone goes too far and starts to make people feel personally threatened or tries to ruin a business then I don't see the problem with them facing a severe penalty when caught.

The "freedom of speech" excuse bugs me when it is used in cases like this. Regardless of what the law is in various jurisdictions, the principle of free speech does not entitle anyone to an audience, and certainly not to harass people in order to hijack one.

> the principle of free speech does not entitle anyone to an audience

Indeed. My response in such situations is, you can say what you want, but you'll need to get your own printing press, you can't use mine.

He had no leg to stand on, using someone else's resources to say things they didn't want said.

>Apparently, in his first Police interview he argued that he was merely exercising his right to freedom of speech and was surprised when the police told him that such a right did not exist in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...

Article 10 isn't as robust as the First Amendment, but it's not really accurate to say that there is no right to freedom of speech in the UK.

Of course, harassing people isn't protected by either.

Article 10 is a bit weak as fundamental rights go.

Part 1 implies that you can say what you want. Part 2 then cancels that out with the proviso that national law can override your part 1 rights.

That's not so much a right, more of a "defined allowance".

There are restrictions on the First Amendment too (e.g. obscenity). And Part 2 doesn't mean that any arbitrary national law can override your part 1 rights. You can see a list of Article 10 cases relating to the UK here:

https://inforrm.org/2013/05/10/the-united-kingdom-in-strasbo...

The restrictions aren’t built into the text of the First Amendment. I think that makes a difference in how the courts rule on 1A cases.

I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference. The First Amendment is very vague, and there's a long precedent for many of the same exceptions applying to it. For example, the First Amendment also has national security exemptions (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1134/national-s...).

There are stronger legal protections for freedom of speech in the US than in the UK, particularly in relation to libel, but the difference can sometimes be exaggerated.

The 1A is not "very vague". The link you post to support your argument says this in its very first sentence:

> Despite the absolute language of the First Amendment

Yes, the government has found cause to argue for various limitations (and outright infringements, as in the case of the Alien and Sedition Acts). But in my comment, I was only asserting that the 1A text is very clear and simple and unlike the British law, does not have a built in caveat. To say it makes no difference is to ignore the significant differences between how U.S. and UK courts have ruled on individual speech rights. UK defamation law, for example, is significantly more in favor of plaintiffs than in the U.S.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on vagueness. “Freedom of speech” and “Freedom of the press” could mean a lot of different things, and historically these phrases have never really been interpreted by the US judiciary as conferring absolute rights. We're interested here in which rights are actually conferred by the US constitution as interpreted by the courts, not in which rights someone could potentially read into the document. Nobody is protected by their own personal interpretation of the US constitution.

>To say it makes no difference is to ignore the significant differences between how U.S. and UK courts have ruled on individual speech rights. UK defamation law, for example, is significantly more in favor of plaintiffs than in the U.S.

I didn’t ignore this - I mentioned it in my comment. But I’m not convinced that that has anything much to do with the language of the First Amendment vs Article 11. After all, the First Amendment also does not protect libel - it’s just a difference in how broadly libel is construed in Britain vs. the USA. You won’t find anything in the text of the First Amendment that tells you exactly where libel stops and First Amendment rights start. For that you have to look to prior court judgments.

Fair enough. You're right that the assertion in 1A can be broad enough as to for all intents and purposes be treated as a vague protection.

There’s also article 11 EU charter of fundamental rights [1] that still applies in GB. Possibly even after Brexit.

[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/11-freedom-exp...

I don't think forums attract these people. I think forums make them more visible and impossible to ignore when they turn up.

The Internet has no quality filter, so as all posts get equal prominence - which means that if you don't shadow-ban them, toxic idiots, kooks, and those with personality issues get exactly as much screen space as people whose words you want to read.

Before the Internet these people would write letters to magazines, newspapers, and famous people, and their efforts would be binned, possibly after some laughter at their expense.

Internet systems give them a much wider audience.

More worryingly, politics has no quality filter either. Some of the extremist parties rely on these people for their membership.

It's hard to know how to deal with this - and it's potentially far more of a problem than forum trolling.

Yep, I agree with you. There are "bigger picture" problems for us here.

> He was charged with harassment and ended up with 100 hours of community service and a £150 fine. A pitifully small punishment given the fear he caused and that he did not show any remorse.

You're not wrong, but presumably he now also has a police record. A lot of employers are doing background checks, so it may come back to haunt him.

In uk? If in France, Germany or Scandinavia maybe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com