Talk politics.

The freedom to be the asshole you want to be on the internet is really a remarkable achievement of human civilization and modern democracy in the 21st century. But as it usually happens in many anarchistic systems, their members soon tend to get annoyed with it and start inventing some rules. And then more rules. And then institutions to enforce them, and dispense justice, whenever someone breaks them...

In some countries, the enthralling pleasure that haters feel from the fact that they can do just about anything on the internet, is getting gradually pushed against by the other breed of people who take upon themselves the hard task of a PC police, who'll bring peace and prosperity on the internets. So the net trolls, who used to be so confident in their anonymous invincibility before, are now beginning to tremble at the sight of the invasive menace of the online authorities, and they'd probably begin to think twice before crossing those lines that they previously deemed so fun and easy to cross.

For the time being these restrictions and the subsequent punishments only work in some separate cases, but still these cases are multiplying. On September 13, a British court sentenced 25 year old Sean Duffy to 18 weeks in prison, and 6 months on probation - currently the maximum sentence for "hating on the internet". Additionally, he's banned from using the social networks for 5 years. Not sure how this will be enforced, but there it is.

As a whole, the punishment came because he used some really cruel language on the internet, and the situation became pretty serious. Basically, Duffy the troll sat on the dock for choosing the wrong victim. Instead of writing spiteful and ugly comments in various known and unknown blogs like most of his fellow trolls, or spewing venom at banks, political parties, government institutions or junk tabloids like any self-respecting professional troll would do, he decided to infest the FB site of the late Natascha McBride.

On St. Valentine's Day, the 15 year old girl from Worchester threw herself under a train and died. Lots of relatives and friends and random people expressed their condolences on her memorial FB page. The reason for her suicide? Internet bullying by a group of trolls. Now, I'm almost hearing the response: "People have the freedom to do whatever they like in their online time, and they're responsible for their own actions there". And also: "This is just the internet, why so srs"? Except this was a 15 year old teenage girl, and you know how volatile kids that age are.

Further on, it was found that Duffy never knew Natascha personally. He just heard about her suicide on the news and he apparently couldn't bear to watch the whole mourning idyll. To the sad comments of her relatives and friends he soon responded with messages the sort of "I just took a nap on the railway, lolol" and "Mum, it's a bit hot here in Hell".

The devastated parents decided to take a revenge against the troll who believed he was invincible and unreachable. They filed a complaint at the police, then everything happened pretty fast. The internet provider disclosed his IP to the authorities and they found him at home. Not surprisingly, he turned out to be just some lame 25 year old wanker with awful amounts of spare time who was living on welfare and was spending most of his time at the PC without having or even doing an effort to seek for a job.

As a mitigating circumstance, Duffy's defense stated the fact that he had alcoholism problems and also a mild form of Asperger's. But the court was adamant. They decided that he has been perfectly aware of his own actions, and he deserved no mercy.

It also became known that this wasn't Duffy's first case of insulting the memory of a deceased teenager. Before Natascha, he managed to troll the pages of 3 recently deceased girls and a 14 year old boy. Seems like he had a fetish for dead teenagers. But this time Natascha's parents didn't just stay silent, they turned to the court.

Only the parents of 16 year old Haley Bates who died in a car accident, had written an angry letter to their MP representative in the British parliament. In result, in July the parliament discussed the actions of then still anonymous Duffy. The MPs of all parties agreed unanimously that this was appalling and the fight against internet bullying should be coupled with the relevant innovative legislation. But then everything settled down and nothing was done.

But this time Natascha's parents decided to go to the end. They didn't bother writing mournful letters to Parliament, relying that the MPs would wake up this time. Duffy was prosecuted under the regular judicial system - the court case was on charges of "insult of particularly large proportions". The court was unperturbed by the fact that the insult had been done anonymously on the internet.

Actually this is the second such case in Britain. Last year Jason Goody got the same sentence, 18 weeks in prison. The 36 year old unemployed man was also writing outrageous things about deceased people. Obviously, Duffy hadn't heard of that case because he believed he was invincible. But he got it wrong this time.

It's a really controversial topic - how far does PC stretch, and how free should people be to be assholes, regardless of the consequences? One camp says that Britain has finally given a clear signal to all potential fat-skinned psychopathic trolls who feel tempted to spew their bile on the inernet and the personal pages of tragically deceased people. Some say that the question of desecrating the dead may have been almost solved; but the living would, of course, appear to be somewhat more patient, but sooner or later their patience would run out too. Just one or two such cases would serve as an example. If two trolls spend time behind bars, the rest would reconsider their behavior. Some in this camp even go further, saying they're hoping that in a few years, one of the buttons under posts and comments won't be just a "Like" button, it won't even send a signal to the admin so they could ban the troll... It will send the info directly to the police, with all the subsequent consequences.

And frankly, this sounds kind of scary. It's not a surprise that Britain is leading the way in this crusade towards a police state in the name of correctness. I'll go a bit schizophrenic here and present the other camp as well. It has been very vocal in this respect. And it has a point too: it says, let's stop for a while and think about this. Where's the line? If we decide once what's "appropriate" and "acceptable", what's to guarantee that this line won't be pushed further the next time? Wouldn't we rather prefer to live in a world populated by the occasional troll or ogre, to the prospect of having holy bureaucrats defining what's the difference between good and evil?

Cynical assholes will always exist, no matter what we do. The different, even outrageous opinion will always offend somebody, you can never please everybody. We could say that some critical line has been crossed in Duffy's case, but where's the actual line between an acceptable insult and an insult that goes "too far"? And isn't that too subjective and arbitrary? Unless cynicism turns into violence (like in Anders Breivik's case), who are we to decide what's appropriate in terms of thoughts and words?

That someone cannot be banned from a particular social network might be a software problem of that network and/or the incompetent admin. But the one who knows how to subtly tiptoe along the acceptable line without explicitly crossing it, is very aware that public online speaking is like making a lot of noise at a party. Surely you're bothering the neighbors, but can anyone say where exactly is the line beyond which they're in their right to call the police?

Everything is so relative - sometimes the punishment of a real obnoxious moron may look like a good reason for joy and triumphant clapping, but on the other hand, aren't those who are seeking for disproportionate punishment for people saying bad things, actually the ones who are having behavioral and psychological problems that are more dangerous than the troll itself? Particularly because they pass for "mainstream" and dictate the rules in general because of their numbers?

After all, a mythological troll turns to stone once the sunshine falls on it in the morning. So to speak. But the delicate, thin-skinned, chronic "PC cops" who pretend to be exemplary citizens while banging the neighbor's wife and shirking from work late in the afternoon as soon as they see their boss' back, are probably taking away something far more important from the people around them - their freedom to think.

So those are the two camps. And I'm really torn, and I don't know which side to take. So I leave this to you, guys. Go ahead and convince me!