It has been said that being an asshole is every humans god given right. I would not consider what this gentlemen did to be a crime, but I live in a Republic. Which means I live in a nation of laws not men. In the United States the right to freedom of speech is almost absolute. With very few exceptions, and to be honest about that we like it that way. To be bitterly blunt anyone thinking the United States will follow Europe's lead on this doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. You might think we are the same, but we are not. I am not saying that this court is wrong in how it interprets the laws it functions under, and if that is what the people of that nation want it is fine by me. I wouldn't like to live in such a state however.

Frankly I find internet shrines to be a form of trolling themselves. Trolling is not about getting a negative reaction. It is about getting a reaction. This gentlemen is looking for negative reinforcement, but the parents were looking for positive reinforcement. Both were about getting a reaction to satisfy a emotional need. Though a pity me troll goes about getting fed differently then the asshole troll. It doesn't mean they were not all trolling. Trolling is just another word for attention seeking, and frankly I am getting tired of it only being viewed in a negative fashion.

Trolling is very much necessary for a healthy community, and without their antics the community suffers, and if you think this community doesn't thrive from its population of trolls you are deluding yourself. Someone has to push the buttons to keep a community motivated. Implying otherwise is just stupid, and in the case of this story the irony is probably this. His negative antics probably generated a ground swell of positive retorts. Defending the targets of his attacks.

So as twisted as it may seem he probably did these people a favor. What are a few negative comments if it brings about thousands of well wishes. By the way the opposite of love is indifference not hate. So he is actually a little bit ahead of the vast majority. In that he cared enough to respond. Which spurred the community into action on the behalf of his targets. Like I said I think the action was extreme on the part of that community, but you know what he got the response.

look at the guy, he's just a fucked up anti social insecure little man. He probably thought this was his easiest way to get noticed. He didn't want to be a no-one any more but he sacrificed his dignity and respect in order to do it. Yeah , he does need help from specialists not jail. Jails are practically at bursting point what with all those rioters getting collared too. Psychiatric help and then community service.

Ummm, this case was this guy harassing the girl's parents. What do those girls have to do with this? Why can't people just understand that different cases are different cases?

So he was doing them a favor by harassing them? Nice thinking...

Oh, and the Soviet Union was also a 'Republic'. The word doesn't describe what you think it describes.

Well, you're free to talk about it. It's a pretty irrational conversation though, because they're separate cases. It's like someone getting sued for firing a woman because she got cancer from the her drinking water, and you guys complaining that the company who dumped waste in the drinking water wasn't punished. Totally different cases.

Is the article somehow suggesting that he was responsible for the pre-death bullying? Because I did not get that at all. The girl herself is only mentioned at the beginning of the article, and then they go on about this guy's actions regarding the girl's family, and similar offences he commited at other people's memorial sites. Those quotes refer to the case at hand (harassing the girls' parents), so the 'true bully' in this case is the accused. He is the main source of bullying in this case.

He is not blamed for the girl commiting suicide. Actually, the girl commiting suicide has nothing to do with the case at hand.

If you wanna go off topic with the punishing of those girls, you're free to do that. But don't trey to merge your off topic issue with the main topic. The judge who was trying this case (the harassment of the girls' parents by the accused), had no logical reason to care what happened to the girl, that she was bullied etc., because it had nothing to do with the case he was trying. The media was reporting mainly about this guy, because he was the main party involved in the case. They did another full article regarding Natasha (things like this tend to make the news), where they talked about how she was bullied by those girls, but since no one knows what was in Natasha's head, no one knows what was the main factor that drove her to commit suicide. No one also knows if the bullying she experienced was at the same level at this guy was doing, thus it's unknown if the girl clique could even be prosecuted.

A bully was prosecuted. Prosecuting such individuals is hard, because proof for conviction is hard to come by, and victims often don't speak up. Even in non-criminal cases, schools often don't have efficient rules regarding the punishment of bullies.

Yes, that's true. I myself hate bulying, and am disgusted that more isn't done about it. Sadly there are several factors at work: no accountability if the bullies are minors (both legally, at schools, and regarding how parents treat the situation), and sometimes bullying is encouraged by the school's culture (for example how jocks are allowed to bully kids in American schools).

I guess it is sad that the anti-social 'weirdo' got made an example, when people like him may not even represent the typical bully. But as I said, a complaint was actually filed against him, and there was enough proof to prosecute him, these elements being missing in most cases of bullying.

Since when has public discourse been granted the same status as private communication?  I really want to understand this twisted logic. These parents opened a public space encouraged public discourse. They invited public communication, and in doing so they voided their right to privacy in that space. They still seem to have retained their privacy outside of that space. Am I missing something in this story did he make personal contact with these people. Did he send them mail, or email. Did he in any way meet them in real life. All I see is someone who made snarky comments about a dead person in a public space. Oh and yes the likes of Face Book, and other social media spaces are public. You can always choose not to participate, or withdrawal yourself from scrutiny at any time. The only real harrassment I see here is what the parents did to themselves. By indulging, and fixating on a loud mouthed shmuck.

Forgive me on the second count I was referring to a Constitutional Republic. Which is based upon inviolable law rather then majority rule. In the United States the law is final. Where as in other forms of Republics the governing body or document can be altered.

You are aware that people can be held accoutnable for what they say in public, not what they say in private, no? And describing what he did as 'making snarky comments' is a quite minimizing what he did. Go read the article.

And the constitution can be altered through constitutional amendments.

Say for instance, the right to live, to work, and to own property?