Troll Jailed

[Camikaze]

From the Brisbane Times:

A man who vandalised Facebook tribute sites for two dead children has been jailed.

Self-confessed "troll" Bradley Paul Hampson, 29, of Tarragindi in Brisbane's south, posted pictures of penises and wrote offensive messages on the two sites in February last year.

On one Facebook tribute site for the 12-year-old boy, he wrote "woot I'm dead" across an image of the dead child.

He also morphed a photo of the boy's face inside a woodchipper and made it appear blood was coming from the machine.

On another, he wrote sexually explicit comments implying he was responsible for raping and killing the eight-year-old girl.

"My definition of pleasure ... listening to her ribs crack," he wrote. "I got mad ... so I murdered her."

To post his comments, Hampson used the name of a Bundaberg man who he claimed to have gone to school with.

Hampson said the man whose identity he used had been bullied by other students at his school.

The court was told that man told police he was distressed his name had been used to make such comments.

The court also heard when detectives examined Hampson's personal computer, they found almost 200 images that depicted children as the victims of abuse and sadism.

They also found images of missing UK girl Madeleine McCann and murdered UK boy James Bulger with penises superimposed on their faces.

Hampson today pleaded guilty to distributing child exploitation material, using the internet to menace, harass or cause offence and possessing child exploitation material.

Judge Kerry O'Brien sentenced him to three years' jail and ordered he be released after he serves 12 months.

Taking into account seven-and-a-half months Hampson has already served behind bars, he will be out of prison in September.

Now, I'm not entirely sure what 'child exploitation material' is referring to, but I assume they're photos he's edited similar to those described as posted to facebook, rather than child pornography.

Issues arising from this:

• Is this sentence fair?
• As reprehensible as it was, should what was done be a crime?
• How far should governments go in policing internet content?

 

[Luckymoose]

The guy is dumb for allowing himself to be found. Rule #1 of anonymous is being anonymous.

 

[Perfection]

What happens to him after 12 months?

 

[Bugfatty300]

There are trolls and then there is just plain sick.

 

[amadeus]

Throw the book at him. Why should we treat it any different than if he mailed harassing letters or made phone calls?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

not entirely sure what 'child exploitation material' is referring to

Neither am I.

, but I assume they're photos he's edited similar to those described as posted to facebook, rather than child pornography.

It is the message the article conveys. So photo-shopping child pictures in order to seemingly have said child give a bj is criminal? I would find that more disturbing than the actual act. I get the "sex with children is horrible"-narrative and it has a lot of merit - but extending it to doing some photo shopping seems rather like mob-rule than considerated and fair justice.

Regarding the facebook-page, I assume facebook can just ban the publisher? If not I agree that there should be a right to demand said ban. If the guy returns with other accounts, a criminal charge for coercion or something is in order IMO.

 

[Camikaze]

It would appear that 'Child Exploitation Material' in Queensland is as follows:

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 207A

207A Definitions for this chapter
In this chapter--

child exploitation material means material that, in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, describes or depicts someone who is, or apparently is, a child under 16 years--

(a) in a sexual context, including for example, engaging in a sexual activity; or
(b) in an offensive or demeaning context; or
(c) being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture.

From here.

I guess it fits under (b).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult

Such kind of obnoxiously vague phrases should only be found when looking at some antique law of the 19th century.

 

[Tani Coyote]

We should convince the WBC to move to Australia. Lessee how long they last with Australia's laws!

---

Hmm. While what he did was clearly immoral and insensitive, I dunno if it really counts as jailworthy... A fine maybe, but jail?

True freedom revolves around the idea even evil people have it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Issues arising from this:

• Is this sentence fair?
• As reprehensible as it was, should what was done be a crime?
• How far should governments go in policing internet content?

1. No, the sentence is not fair. It is not remotely long enough.
2. Yes, it should be considered a crime.
3. In cases of sexual exploitation of children, the government (any government) does not go far enough.

I should think this is causing considerable distress to the children's family members. I hope they can find a way to make sure this horrible individual is kept in jail.

 

[Camikaze]

1. No, the sentence is not fair. It is not remotely long enough.
2. Yes, it should be considered a crime.
3. In cases of sexual exploitation of children, the government (any government) does not go far enough.

I should think this is causing considerable distress to the children's family members. I hope they can find a way to make sure this horrible individual is kept in jail.

Remember that the individual in question did not sexually exploit any children; he just did something in exceptionally bad taste. So does that bad taste combined with the potential distress caused really warrant jail time?

 

[bombshoo]

I've known of this practice for a while. It's just stupid, asinine and unforgivably mean. Should it be illegal? I don't know. All I can say is...

 

[azzaman333]

This guy clearly fails to understand the subtlety of good trolling.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Every line in Philip Larkin's "This Be The Verse" perfectly explains the background and motivations of this guy. I think this sentence was fair, maybe slightly excessive, but he deserves every bit of social ostracism and undoing that he wreaks upon himself.

 

[lovett]

Such kind of obnoxiously vague phrases should only be found when looking at some antique law of the 19th century.

The concept of a reasonable person is pretty central in common law. It works rather well and has been precisely defined through hundred of years of case law. It is not obnoxiously vague nor particularly open to abuse, and to say that it should be abandoned shows a certain ignorance of common law systems.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The concept of a reasonable person is pretty central in common law. It works rather well and has been precisely defined through hundred of years of case law. It is not obnoxiously vague nor particularly open to abuse, and to say that it should be abandoned shows a certain ignorance of common law systems.

What about the concept of "offensive?" Has case law established what is "offensive" and what isn't?

 

[Camikaze]

What about the concept of "offensive?" Has case law established what is "offensive" and what isn't?

Yes. I can't remember the exact definition (or series of parameters that create the definition), but there most definitely is one. I guess it gets murky, though, when you have a whole new form of media to deal with and fit into existing definitions.

 

[Mango Elephant]

True freedom revolves around the idea even evil people have it.

As much as I love freedom, if you're going to troll dead children you deserved to be locked up for a long time in jail or a mental hospital.

 

[Masada]

* Is this sentence fair?

I'm not a judge familiar with the particularities of the case.

* As reprehensible as it was, should what was done be a crime?

Yes, it isn't materially different to sending a letter to someone threatening to kill them.

* How far should governments go in policing internet content?

As far as they would for any other form of communication.

Such kind of obnoxiously vague phrases should only be found when looking at some antique law of the 19th century.

... nuance is lost on the average bloody-minded obstinate German it seems.

 

[NovaKart]

I tend to side with the accused in many cases, I don't know why, I guess it's just my mentality. This is an exception. After carefully reading the article, it seems like this guy has a sick obsession with hurting children. Sick obsessions are not against the law but then he took it to the level of posting obscene images on the facebook page of 2 dead children. This isn't just a prank, this guy seems like a really dangerous person. I wouldn't be surprised if he really hurt a child in the future. Of course you can't put someone in jail for something they might do in the future but at least now he has a record and the police can keep an eye on him if something suspicious happens.

I do share some of Sill's reservations about the law which to me does seem a bit vague but I think in this case the man really deserves to be behind bars. I don't think I would support him being arrested just for possessing these images but since he took it to the level of making it public I think it shows he's not just sick but potentially dangerous.