Internet troll admits Facebook threats to kill 200 Tennessee students

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

A self-confessed British internet "troll" has admitted threatening to kill 200 people at a US school by posting menacing comments on a memorial Facebook page.

Thousands of pupils stayed away from the school in Warren county, Tennessee, after Reece Elliott, 24, of Fossway, South Shields, South Tyneside, left terrifying messages under an assumed name.

Elliott, a father of one, went online in the weeks after the mass shootings at Sandy Hook, the primary school in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults died.

Newcastle crown court was told that after the messages were posted, security was stepped up at schools across the area in Tennessee as the authorities implemented a "lockdown" with armed guards on duty and restricted access to sites.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/26/internet-troll-kill-tennessee-students

[MrScorpio]

1. What the fuck is wrong with people? nt

[Mojorabbit]

3. I don't know. I think it goes in cycles

In the late 60s early 70's when I was in jr hi and high school we had bomb threats almost every day for a while. As kids we enjoyed getting out of class and sitting on the lawn.
As a nurse in the 80's we had multiple bomb threats to the hospital to the point that we had to drill on it frequently.
Here we are again. I don't know if this stuff always happens but it does't make the news until after a horrible event and everyone is hyper alert?

[cyberswede]

2. FFS

"He confirmed he did post the postings on Facebook and therefore did make these threats but he didn't expect the threats to be taken seriously and didn't expect them to cause the reaction they did."

What did he think would happen?

This part is interesting:

Public awareness appears to be slow in catching up with the idea that laws governing libel, threats, hate speech and other such offences are being applied online as much as to any other area of life.

Assessing the severity of a threat made online is, nonetheless, a problematic area for the courts. The 'Twitter joke trial' involving Paul Chambers – who eventually overturned a conviction for sending a menacing tweet on the grounds that it was never meant to be taken seriously – showed that the courts must take into account the intention and impact of any message.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. If you want some background on that case:

Chambers lost his job as an accountant following an avalanche of publicity when he was convicted in May last year of sending "an electronic comunication of a menacing character", contrary to provisions of the 2003 Communications Act. He was fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs after crown court judge Jacqueline Davies, sitting with two magistrates, called the tweet "clearly menacing", with airport staff sufficiently concerned to report it to police.

Chambers had been tweeting with his girlfriend, whom he wanted to visit in Northern Ireland. One tweet in the sequence said: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" In the way of Twitter, this was shared with around 600 regular followers of his messages and came to the attention of airport security staff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/may/28/twitter-joker-airport-fresh-hearing

[southernyankeebelle]

4. I live in the county they are talking about. My son and daughter-in-law didn't send

their kids to school that day. They got a notification on the phone. I thought about that and wonder since we live in a rural town what would happen and how could we that really couldn't handle something like this on a big scale. I tell you I worry that some of the sleeper cells might do just that. Attack these small town especially in rural america. We couldn't cope on such a scale. I hope and pray and government is thinking about that. I know they can't catch everything. It is impossible.

[Sunlei]

5. Wonder what crime the Britts will charge the troll with.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. In the article: "making a threat to kill" and "sending grossly offensive messages" (nt)