Vile website mocks murder of Sophie Lancaster

VICTIM Sophie Lancaster

VICTIM Sophie Lancaster

First published in North West The Bolton News: Photograph of the Author Exclusive by , Reporter

A VILE website which mocks the murder of Sophie Lancaster has been slammed by her appalled mother.

Sylvia Lancaster said she was desperate for the hurtful webpage glorifying the killers of her 20-year-old daughter to be taken offline.

The site called Encyclopedia Dramatica praises Sophie’s killers Ryan Herbert and Brendan Harris, and others involved in the 2007 Bacup murder, saying they should be ‘knighted’ rather than be in prison.

It comes as a double blow to Sylvia after it was alleged that Herbert, 20, currently serving life for Sophie’s murder, has been accessing Facebook from prison.

Because the Encyclopedia Dramatica website is registered abroad the Government has no power to remove it.

But after learning of the site, Darwen and Rossendale MP Jake Berry said he would lobby the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport Jeremy Hunt to extend powers to tackle hate websites.

Sylvia said: “It is absolutely disgusting. It’s a horrible, horrible website that is deeply offensive.

“We’ve tried not to say anything about it, but occasionally people come across it and it brings everything back up every time.

“We’ve tried to have internet experts get it closed down, but haven’t had any success.

“The people behind this phenomenon of ‘trolling’ - where people deliberately post offensive material on the internet to get a reaction - have caused great upset.

“Now it has come out because of what happened with Ryan Herbert’s Facebook page.

“I’ll never understand what goes through some people’s minds. They will latch on to anything which causes maximum upset. Do they think it is funny, hiding behind their screens?

“There are pictures on there of Sophie with really offensive captions underneath. It is so unnecessary and hurtful.”

The website, in the style of Wikipedia - but not connected to the site - re-tells the story of Sophie’s murder in an attack which almost claimed the life of her boyfriend Robert Maltby.

They were targeted because of their alternative dress sense.

But in a sickening twist, the author said: “Reports say the attack was unprovoked but as with all 'alternative' weirdos, they were obviously asking for it. Nobody cared.

“After the attack she was taken to hospital, where natural selection ended what the chavs had started.

“The heroes who performed this social service were tried and convicted of murder.

“They are currently appealing on the grounds that in reality they did the world a favour, and should be knighted rather than locked up.”

It uses phrases such as ‘duly and fairly curb-stomped’ and ‘quickly dispatched’ to describe the horrific murder.

Record show the website is registered to a Netherlands address, but the domain name is Swiss and it is hosted by a San Francisco-based server. However it claims to be hosted in Ukraine which it says doesn’t recognise copywright, defamation or libel.

Jake Berry said: “I absolutely abhor this sort of website. Sophie’s murder was one of the most tragic and awful crimes to happen to East Lancashire in living memory.

“It is vital that this sort of disgraceful incitement is taken down immediately and I am calling for it to be removed.

“This phenomenon of internet trolling is something the Government should look at and I will be speaking to the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport Jeremy Hunt to see what powers the Government has already to deal with this website.

“If they are inadequate I will be pressing to extend their powers to this sort of hate crime.

A police spokesman said: “We have been made aware of the website and we will be looking into it.”

Sylvia said she was speaking out following the revelation that a Facebook site had allegedly been used by one of her daughter’s killers while he is in prison.

The account is under the name of ‘Ryan Smith’ but has a picture of Herbert, his correct date of birth and says he’s from Bacup. It has now been closed by the social networking site.

Sylvia said: “Once I found out I spoke to Lancashire Police who set the wheels in motion. From what I understand, the Ministry of Justice are now investigating.

“It is an insult to us and to Sophie’s memory.”

Having a Facebook account while in prison is not a breach of the site’s terms and conditions, but allowing others to access it or using it to intimidate witnesses is.

A Prison Service spokesperson said an investigation was on going.

He said: “Prisoners have no access to the internet and are barred from updating their Facebook accounts while serving their sentence, or asking others to do so from outside prison. If they do, their accounts will be terminated.

“If a prisoner is found in illicit possession of a mobile phone or other contraband they will be dealt with appropriately by the prison.”

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:59am Sat 15 Oct 11

HarwoodBiker says...

Sylvia, whilst I think the work you do is fantastic, I think you are missing the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica somewhat.

The content on there is intended in a satirical sense. There is content on there about 9/11 and World War II, and some of that is quite amusing. It is satire, plain and simple, and none of it is meant in a true sense.

Now, I believe you do indeed have a point that a page about the murder of one person is most definitely not funny at all, and it probably should be taken down - however, you must also remember that being a wiki-type site the content on there is *user generated*. You should not brand an entire website "vile" because of what one person posted.

Perhaps you should try contacting ED and asking them nicely to remove that one page, rather than going in all guns blazing and trying to get the whole thing blocked.

I am a proponent of freedom of speech on the internet and I believe that we shouldn't block websites, no matter how nasty - after all, decent people won't bother reading them anyway!

As I said, of course this isn't in the least bit amusing to you, nor any decent person, but I do think you may have taken the site out of context somewhat. And it is important to realise that users posts these articles.

Anyone remember Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" and its mocking of... well... pretty much everything? That was satire too...
Sylvia, whilst I think the work you do is fantastic, I think you are missing the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica somewhat. The content on there is intended in a satirical sense. There is content on there about 9/11 and World War II, and some of that is quite amusing. It is satire, plain and simple, and none of it is meant in a true sense. Now, I believe you do indeed have a point that a page about the murder of one person is most definitely not funny at all, and it probably should be taken down - however, you must also remember that being a wiki-type site the content on there is *user generated*. You should not brand an entire website "vile" because of what one person posted. Perhaps you should try contacting ED and asking them nicely to remove that one page, rather than going in all guns blazing and trying to get the whole thing blocked. I am a proponent of freedom of speech on the internet and I believe that we shouldn't block websites, no matter how nasty - after all, decent people won't bother reading them anyway! As I said, of course this isn't in the least bit amusing to you, nor any decent person, but I do think you may have taken the site out of context somewhat. And it is important to realise that users posts these articles. Anyone remember Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" and its mocking of... well... pretty much everything? That was satire too... HarwoodBiker
  • Score: 7

1:29pm Sat 15 Oct 11

Parly says...

Harwoodbiker – you’ve seen the page in question and read what’s on it right? If so, your comment that Sylvia has “taken it out of context” is even more bizarre than the page itself.
.
I get “Brass Eye” - I’m a devout fan of Sickipedia etc and the things I find below the belt and offensive are few and far between.
.
This particular page was written with the sole intention of causing offence and distress. That’s not satire.
Harwoodbiker – you’ve seen the page in question and read what’s on it right? If so, your comment that Sylvia has “taken it out of context” is even more bizarre than the page itself. . I get “Brass Eye” - I’m a devout fan of Sickipedia etc and the things I find below the belt and offensive are few and far between. . This particular page was written with the sole intention of causing offence and distress. That’s not satire. Parly
  • Score: -4

1:31pm Sat 15 Oct 11

mavrick says...

I think the sad sick person who posted this vile insensitive page should be tracked down and publicly named and shamed.
I think the sad sick person who posted this vile insensitive page should be tracked down and publicly named and shamed. mavrick
  • Score: -4

1:34pm Sat 15 Oct 11

Bat E Karen says...

I think it would have been better to just ignore the site. Now it's in the paper, others will go looking for it and I also don't see why the LT had to give us examples of the comments.

I chose not to go on the site to see what they are saying so I would rather not have seen some of its content in the above story.
I think it would have been better to just ignore the site. Now it's in the paper, others will go looking for it and I also don't see why the LT had to give us examples of the comments. I chose not to go on the site to see what they are saying so I would rather not have seen some of its content in the above story. Bat E Karen
  • Score: 3

1:51pm Sat 15 Oct 11

HarwoodBiker says...

Parly wrote:
Harwoodbiker – you’ve seen the page in question and read what’s on it right? If so, your comment that Sylvia has “taken it out of context” is even more bizarre than the page itself.
.
I get “Brass Eye” - I’m a devout fan of Sickipedia etc and the things I find below the belt and offensive are few and far between.
.
This particular page was written with the sole intention of causing offence and distress. That’s not satire.
Parly: Indeed - the page in question just isn't on. All I'm trying to say is that nobody should be talking about blocking the entire website, and branding the whole site as "vile" because of one user-posted page isn't really on either.
[quote][p][bold]Parly[/bold] wrote: Harwoodbiker – you’ve seen the page in question and read what’s on it right? If so, your comment that Sylvia has “taken it out of context” is even more bizarre than the page itself. . I get “Brass Eye” - I’m a devout fan of Sickipedia etc and the things I find below the belt and offensive are few and far between. . This particular page was written with the sole intention of causing offence and distress. That’s not satire.[/p][/quote]Parly: Indeed - the page in question just isn't on. All I'm trying to say is that nobody should be talking about blocking the entire website, and branding the whole site as "vile" because of one user-posted page isn't really on either. HarwoodBiker
  • Score: 1

2:40pm Sat 15 Oct 11

superquintendo says...

DEAR NON-INTERNET USERS,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA DRAMATICA IS RUN BY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO FREQUENT 4CHAN, A.K.A. THE A$$HOLE OF THE INTERNET. IF THEY HAVEN'T OFFENDED YOU IN SOME WAY, THEY AREN'T DOING THEIR JOB CORRECTLY. THEY ARE INTERNET TROLLS, THEIR OPINION IS INVALID AND NOBODY SHOULD TAKE IT TO HEART. to be honest, if you do contact them asking to 'take it down' they'll probably just post more hateful fuel. just don't take it seriously. use 'random page' to generate more ʇıɥs-talk about otherwise innocent people.

YOURS SINCERELY,
INTERNET USER
DEAR NON-INTERNET USERS, ENCYCLOPAEDIA DRAMATICA IS RUN BY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO FREQUENT 4CHAN, A.K.A. THE A$$HOLE OF THE INTERNET. IF THEY HAVEN'T OFFENDED YOU IN SOME WAY, THEY AREN'T DOING THEIR JOB CORRECTLY. THEY ARE INTERNET TROLLS, THEIR OPINION IS INVALID AND NOBODY SHOULD TAKE IT TO HEART. to be honest, if you do contact them asking to 'take it down' they'll probably just post more hateful fuel. just don't take it seriously. use 'random page' to generate more ʇıɥs-talk about otherwise innocent people. YOURS SINCERELY, INTERNET USER superquintendo
  • Score: -7

5:15pm Sat 15 Oct 11

jack daniels says...

Sylvia, you should have ignored the page TBH.

These sad individuals will be gloating for weeks, yet secretly, they’ll be wondering whether anybody would actually notice or care if somebody had killed them instead.
Sylvia, you should have ignored the page TBH. These sad individuals will be gloating for weeks, yet secretly, they’ll be wondering whether anybody would actually notice or care if somebody had killed them instead. jack daniels
  • Score: -2

10:13pm Sat 15 Oct 11

Shineoff says...

By being enraged by this you are doing something called "feeding the trolls", they get their fun BY offending people, you are giving them what they want.

Some things on the site are funny, some are just sick, its worth noting (I've read ED for years) that the Madeliene Mccann page was removed due to legal action, though it featured pretty slanderous allegations.

In short there are sites like this that mock other peoples pain, they will always be there, if it was taken down they would just set it up in another country, the best action is, if it offends you, don't go there.

By being on the front page of the telegraph you have actually given them what they would call an "epic win"

I remember reading the page in question a long time ago, and thought it really overstepped the mark, it is true its one thing to mock an institution or a group of people but to laugh about a murder victim is just plain wrong.

Dont give them the satisfaction....
By being enraged by this you are doing something called "feeding the trolls", they get their fun BY offending people, you are giving them what they want. Some things on the site are funny, some are just sick, its worth noting (I've read ED for years) that the Madeliene Mccann page was removed due to legal action, though it featured pretty slanderous allegations. In short there are sites like this that mock other peoples pain, they will always be there, if it was taken down they would just set it up in another country, the best action is, if it offends you, don't go there. By being on the front page of the telegraph you have actually given them what they would call an "epic win" I remember reading the page in question a long time ago, and thought it really overstepped the mark, it is true its one thing to mock an institution or a group of people but to laugh about a murder victim is just plain wrong. Dont give them the satisfaction.... Shineoff
  • Score: -5

11:13am Sun 16 Oct 11

AlexD90 says...

The site is obviously supposed to be satirical but why don't they have a site admins to review the pages when they are submitted before they put them up
The site is obviously supposed to be satirical but why don't they have a site admins to review the pages when they are submitted before they put them up AlexD90
  • Score: -3

12:38pm Sun 16 Oct 11

barbour x says...

HarwoodBiker wrote:
Sylvia, whilst I think the work you do is fantastic, I think you are missing the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica somewhat.

The content on there is intended in a satirical sense. There is content on there about 9/11 and World War II, and some of that is quite amusing. It is satire, plain and simple, and none of it is meant in a true sense.

Now, I believe you do indeed have a point that a page about the murder of one person is most definitely not funny at all, and it probably should be taken down - however, you must also remember that being a wiki-type site the content on there is *user generated*. You should not brand an entire website "vile" because of what one person posted.

Perhaps you should try contacting ED and asking them nicely to remove that one page, rather than going in all guns blazing and trying to get the whole thing blocked.

I am a proponent of freedom of speech on the internet and I believe that we shouldn't block websites, no matter how nasty - after all, decent people won't bother reading them anyway!

As I said, of course this isn't in the least bit amusing to you, nor any decent person, but I do think you may have taken the site out of context somewhat. And it is important to realise that users posts these articles.

Anyone remember Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" and its mocking of... well... pretty much everything? That was satire too...
^^^^^ IDIOT!!! wonder if you would feel like that if it was your dead daughter they were mocking,satire?? yeah really funny a young girl was murdered and her killers are being praised on some stupid "satire" as you say website,i'm all for freedom of speech too but being vile and publicly mocking a young dead girl who never hurt anyone and was murdered in such an awful way is sick not satire ...end of!
[quote][p][bold]HarwoodBiker[/bold] wrote: Sylvia, whilst I think the work you do is fantastic, I think you are missing the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica somewhat. The content on there is intended in a satirical sense. There is content on there about 9/11 and World War II, and some of that is quite amusing. It is satire, plain and simple, and none of it is meant in a true sense. Now, I believe you do indeed have a point that a page about the murder of one person is most definitely not funny at all, and it probably should be taken down - however, you must also remember that being a wiki-type site the content on there is *user generated*. You should not brand an entire website "vile" because of what one person posted. Perhaps you should try contacting ED and asking them nicely to remove that one page, rather than going in all guns blazing and trying to get the whole thing blocked. I am a proponent of freedom of speech on the internet and I believe that we shouldn't block websites, no matter how nasty - after all, decent people won't bother reading them anyway! As I said, of course this isn't in the least bit amusing to you, nor any decent person, but I do think you may have taken the site out of context somewhat. And it is important to realise that users posts these articles. Anyone remember Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" and its mocking of... well... pretty much everything? That was satire too...[/p][/quote]^^^^^ IDIOT!!! wonder if you would feel like that if it was your dead daughter they were mocking,satire?? yeah really funny a young girl was murdered and her killers are being praised on some stupid "satire" as you say website,i'm all for freedom of speech too but being vile and publicly mocking a young dead girl who never hurt anyone and was murdered in such an awful way is sick not satire ...end of! barbour x
  • Score: -4

1:42pm Sun 16 Oct 11

James-Bacup says...

Herbert and harris had better never come back to bacup bacause people here won't forget what you pair of animals did folks have long memories...We also want the rest of your extended scum bag family out of bacup because you ain't wanted here
Herbert and harris had better never come back to bacup bacause people here won't forget what you pair of animals did folks have long memories...We also want the rest of your extended scum bag family out of bacup because you ain't wanted here James-Bacup
  • Score: -4

1:45pm Sun 16 Oct 11

James-Bacup says...

There scum bag extended family ain't wanted here in bacup either....Chav trash are harris and herbert they should have hung by the state!!!!!!!
There scum bag extended family ain't wanted here in bacup either....Chav trash are harris and herbert they should have hung by the state!!!!!!! James-Bacup
  • Score: -4

4:33pm Sun 16 Oct 11

gudari says...

AlexD90 wrote:
The site is obviously supposed to be satirical but why don't they have a site admins to review the pages when they are submitted before they put them up
The problem here is that this "satirical site" is run by cretins who have no idea of what satire entails!
[quote][p][bold]AlexD90[/bold] wrote: The site is obviously supposed to be satirical but why don't they have a site admins to review the pages when they are submitted before they put them up[/p][/quote]The problem here is that this "satirical site" is run by cretins who have no idea of what satire entails! gudari
  • Score: -5

10:37pm Sun 16 Oct 11

nice person says...

barbour x wrote:
HarwoodBiker wrote:
Sylvia, whilst I think the work you do is fantastic, I think you are missing the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica somewhat.

The content on there is intended in a satirical sense. There is content on there about 9/11 and World War II, and some of that is quite amusing. It is satire, plain and simple, and none of it is meant in a true sense.

Now, I believe you do indeed have a point that a page about the murder of one person is most definitely not funny at all, and it probably should be taken down - however, you must also remember that being a wiki-type site the content on there is *user generated*. You should not brand an entire website "vile" because of what one person posted.

Perhaps you should try contacting ED and asking them nicely to remove that one page, rather than going in all guns blazing and trying to get the whole thing blocked.

I am a proponent of freedom of speech on the internet and I believe that we shouldn't block websites, no matter how nasty - after all, decent people won't bother reading them anyway!

As I said, of course this isn't in the least bit amusing to you, nor any decent person, but I do think you may have taken the site out of context somewhat. And it is important to realise that users posts these articles.

Anyone remember Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" and its mocking of... well... pretty much everything? That was satire too...
^^^^^ IDIOT!!! wonder if you would feel like that if it was your dead daughter they were mocking,satire?? yeah really funny a young girl was murdered and her killers are being praised on some stupid "satire" as you say website,i'm all for freedom of speech too but being vile and publicly mocking a young dead girl who never hurt anyone and was murdered in such an awful way is sick not satire ...end of!
@barbour x... Well said....
[quote][p][bold]barbour x[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarwoodBiker[/bold] wrote: Sylvia, whilst I think the work you do is fantastic, I think you are missing the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica somewhat. The content on there is intended in a satirical sense. There is content on there about 9/11 and World War II, and some of that is quite amusing. It is satire, plain and simple, and none of it is meant in a true sense. Now, I believe you do indeed have a point that a page about the murder of one person is most definitely not funny at all, and it probably should be taken down - however, you must also remember that being a wiki-type site the content on there is *user generated*. You should not brand an entire website "vile" because of what one person posted. Perhaps you should try contacting ED and asking them nicely to remove that one page, rather than going in all guns blazing and trying to get the whole thing blocked. I am a proponent of freedom of speech on the internet and I believe that we shouldn't block websites, no matter how nasty - after all, decent people won't bother reading them anyway! As I said, of course this isn't in the least bit amusing to you, nor any decent person, but I do think you may have taken the site out of context somewhat. And it is important to realise that users posts these articles. Anyone remember Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" and its mocking of... well... pretty much everything? That was satire too...[/p][/quote]^^^^^ IDIOT!!! wonder if you would feel like that if it was your dead daughter they were mocking,satire?? yeah really funny a young girl was murdered and her killers are being praised on some stupid "satire" as you say website,i'm all for freedom of speech too but being vile and publicly mocking a young dead girl who never hurt anyone and was murdered in such an awful way is sick not satire ...end of![/p][/quote]@barbour x... Well said.... nice person
  • Score: -5

9:17am Mon 17 Oct 11

HarwoodBiker says...

barbour x wrote:
HarwoodBiker wrote:
Sylvia, whilst I think the work you do is fantastic, I think you are missing the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica somewhat.

The content on there is intended in a satirical sense. There is content on there about 9/11 and World War II, and some of that is quite amusing. It is satire, plain and simple, and none of it is meant in a true sense.

Now, I believe you do indeed have a point that a page about the murder of one person is most definitely not funny at all, and it probably should be taken down - however, you must also remember that being a wiki-type site the content on there is *user generated*. You should not brand an entire website "vile" because of what one person posted.

Perhaps you should try contacting ED and asking them nicely to remove that one page, rather than going in all guns blazing and trying to get the whole thing blocked.

I am a proponent of freedom of speech on the internet and I believe that we shouldn't block websites, no matter how nasty - after all, decent people won't bother reading them anyway!

As I said, of course this isn't in the least bit amusing to you, nor any decent person, but I do think you may have taken the site out of context somewhat. And it is important to realise that users posts these articles.

Anyone remember Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" and its mocking of... well... pretty much everything? That was satire too...
^^^^^ IDIOT!!! wonder if you would feel like that if it was your dead daughter they were mocking,satire?? yeah really funny a young girl was murdered and her killers are being praised on some stupid "satire" as you say website,i'm all for freedom of speech too but being vile and publicly mocking a young dead girl who never hurt anyone and was murdered in such an awful way is sick not satire ...end of!
Barbour X...

You, sir are the idiot - if you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I am by no means in support of this being on there - it's not funny at all, just downright nasty. My point is merely that the Telegraph should not refer to ED as "Vile" because of one nasty page submitted by a user, and neither should Sylvia be trying to get the entire website "blocked".

Hell, if certain pieces of user-submitted content makes a website "vile", I'd think the Telegraph would be a strong contender - some of the commenters here spout some horrible, racist crap.

My belief is simply that if you don't like it, you don't have to read it, and anyone with half a brain won't read it anyway, so really it makes no difference whether it's there or not. Censoring the internet is not the answer.
[quote][p][bold]barbour x[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarwoodBiker[/bold] wrote: Sylvia, whilst I think the work you do is fantastic, I think you are missing the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica somewhat. The content on there is intended in a satirical sense. There is content on there about 9/11 and World War II, and some of that is quite amusing. It is satire, plain and simple, and none of it is meant in a true sense. Now, I believe you do indeed have a point that a page about the murder of one person is most definitely not funny at all, and it probably should be taken down - however, you must also remember that being a wiki-type site the content on there is *user generated*. You should not brand an entire website "vile" because of what one person posted. Perhaps you should try contacting ED and asking them nicely to remove that one page, rather than going in all guns blazing and trying to get the whole thing blocked. I am a proponent of freedom of speech on the internet and I believe that we shouldn't block websites, no matter how nasty - after all, decent people won't bother reading them anyway! As I said, of course this isn't in the least bit amusing to you, nor any decent person, but I do think you may have taken the site out of context somewhat. And it is important to realise that users posts these articles. Anyone remember Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" and its mocking of... well... pretty much everything? That was satire too...[/p][/quote]^^^^^ IDIOT!!! wonder if you would feel like that if it was your dead daughter they were mocking,satire?? yeah really funny a young girl was murdered and her killers are being praised on some stupid "satire" as you say website,i'm all for freedom of speech too but being vile and publicly mocking a young dead girl who never hurt anyone and was murdered in such an awful way is sick not satire ...end of![/p][/quote]Barbour X... You, sir are the idiot - if you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I am by no means in support of this being on there - it's not funny at all, just downright nasty. My point is merely that the Telegraph should not refer to ED as "Vile" because of one nasty page submitted by a user, and neither should Sylvia be trying to get the entire website "blocked". Hell, if certain pieces of user-submitted content makes a website "vile", I'd think the Telegraph would be a strong contender - some of the commenters here spout some horrible, racist crap. My belief is simply that if you don't like it, you don't have to read it, and anyone with half a brain won't read it anyway, so really it makes no difference whether it's there or not. Censoring the internet is not the answer. HarwoodBiker
  • Score: 2

1:50pm Mon 17 Oct 11

Derek M. Sheep says...

wtf? Who removed my comments? Don't you people realize that "free speech" entails things you aren't going to like or agree with?

Encyclopedia Dramatica is just a collection of things people think, but don't say IRL. Not a single person here whining about the site can deny that they have ever said or thought something like what this article is presenting.

Get over it; it's just words on a screen.
wtf? Who removed my comments? Don't you people realize that "free speech" entails things you aren't going to like or agree with? Encyclopedia Dramatica is just a collection of things people think, but don't say IRL. Not a single person here whining about the site can deny that they have ever said or thought something like what this article is presenting. Get over it; it's just words on a screen. Derek M. Sheep
  • Score: 4

8:52pm Mon 17 Oct 11

rustyray says...

There is a huge difference between "freedom of speech" and criminal & civil activity such as harassment and invasion of privacy. While there is a place for satire in our society, breaking the law in the process does not mean you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions. With great freedom comes great responsibility. "Get over it, it's just words on a screen." True, but words meant to harm or injure someone may be actionable. In fact, some states and countries have what are called "false light" laws. Even if the content you publish is true, you could still be held liable for the way in which you portray it. It's interesting Encyclopedia Dramatica, which was previously owned by alleged hacker Ryan Cleary and is now run by similar instigators, hides its true content host behind proxies and CDN's like Cloudflare to frustrate the legal process and prevent their victims from seeking justice in a proper legal forum.
There is a huge difference between "freedom of speech" and criminal & civil activity such as harassment and invasion of privacy. While there is a place for satire in our society, breaking the law in the process does not mean you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions. With great freedom comes great responsibility. "Get over it, it's just words on a screen." True, but words meant to harm or injure someone may be actionable. In fact, some states and countries have what are called "false light" laws. Even if the content you publish is true, you could still be held liable for the way in which you portray it. It's interesting Encyclopedia Dramatica, which was previously owned by alleged hacker Ryan Cleary and is now run by similar instigators, hides its true content host behind proxies and CDN's like Cloudflare to frustrate the legal process and prevent their victims from seeking justice in a proper legal forum. rustyray
  • Score: -5

9:20pm Mon 17 Oct 11

rustyray says...

One other thought. The article above says the website functions "in the style of Wikipedia." While that is what they try to portray themselves as, the truth is the Administrators exercise full control over the content. In fact, there is evidence that even when the AUTHOR of an article/page requests it to be removed, or an Administrator with proper authority removes the page, those who run the site override such a request. This clearly shows their motives and malicious nature, unlike other user-generated sites where the sites takes a neutral position on offending content. ED recently published a "retroactive" Take Down Policy, and even that policy now been altered.
One other thought. The article above says the website functions "in the style of Wikipedia." While that is what they try to portray themselves as, the truth is the Administrators exercise full control over the content. In fact, there is evidence that even when the AUTHOR of an article/page requests it to be removed, or an Administrator with proper authority removes the page, those who run the site override such a request. This clearly shows their motives and malicious nature, unlike other user-generated sites where the sites takes a neutral position on offending content. ED recently published a "retroactive" Take Down Policy, and even that policy now been altered. rustyray
  • Score: -2

11:50pm Mon 17 Oct 11

Derek M. Sheep says...

You seem mad Rusty, oh yeah, you are.

http://encyclopediad
ramatica.ch/Rusty_Ra
y

I should put it on the main page again. ^______^
You seem mad Rusty, oh yeah, you are. http://encyclopediad ramatica.ch/Rusty_Ra y I should put it on the main page again. ^______^ Derek M. Sheep
  • Score: 1

2:41am Tue 18 Oct 11

rustyray says...

For the record, Derek (aka MeepSheep) is an Admin at Encyclopedia Dramatica.

http://i56.tinypic.c
om/2j6wd5.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.c
om/2wc1yc3.jpg

Good work, Sam :)

p.s. It's "U mad bro?"
For the record, Derek (aka MeepSheep) is an Admin at Encyclopedia Dramatica. http://i56.tinypic.c om/2j6wd5.jpg http://i54.tinypic.c om/2wc1yc3.jpg Good work, Sam :) p.s. It's "U mad bro?" rustyray
  • Score: -2

2:42am Tue 18 Oct 11

rustyray says...

For the record, Derek (aka MeepSheep) is an Admin at Encyclopedia Dramatica.

http://i56.tinypic.c
om/2j6wd5.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.c
om/2wc1yc3.jpg

Good work, Sam :)

p.s. It's "U mad bro?"
For the record, Derek (aka MeepSheep) is an Admin at Encyclopedia Dramatica. http://i56.tinypic.c om/2j6wd5.jpg http://i54.tinypic.c om/2wc1yc3.jpg Good work, Sam :) p.s. It's "U mad bro?" rustyray
  • Score: -2

4:18am Tue 18 Oct 11

Derek M. Sheep says...

Wait..... are you reading WikiFur?

oh lol
Wait..... are you reading WikiFur? oh lol Derek M. Sheep
  • Score: 0

4:49am Tue 18 Oct 11

Snacks says...

rustyray wrote:
For the record, Derek (aka MeepSheep) is an Admin at Encyclopedia Dramatica.

http://i56.tinypic.c

om/2j6wd5.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.c

om/2wc1yc3.jpg

Good work, Sam :)

p.s. It's "U mad bro?"
YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG
[quote][p][bold]rustyray[/bold] wrote: For the record, Derek (aka MeepSheep) is an Admin at Encyclopedia Dramatica. http://i56.tinypic.c om/2j6wd5.jpg http://i54.tinypic.c om/2wc1yc3.jpg Good work, Sam :) p.s. It's "U mad bro?"[/p][/quote]YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG Snacks
  • Score: 1

5:43am Tue 18 Oct 11

rustyray says...

http://i52.tinypic.c
om/1z2mv7q.jpg

Now Derek, care to share with the good readers of The Bolton News why the police contacted you a few months ago? Or is that just "words on a screen?" There should be a police report of such a call, right?

And what is your "official" role at Encyclopedia Dramatica, so the victims know who to prosecute?
http://i52.tinypic.c om/1z2mv7q.jpg Now Derek, care to share with the good readers of The Bolton News why the police contacted you a few months ago? Or is that just "words on a screen?" There should be a police report of such a call, right? And what is your "official" role at Encyclopedia Dramatica, so the victims know who to prosecute? rustyray
  • Score: -2

5:43am Tue 18 Oct 11

rustyray says...

http://i52.tinypic.c
om/1z2mv7q.jpg

Now Derek, care to share with the good readers of The Bolton News why the police contacted you a few months ago? Or is that just "words on a screen?" There should be a police report of such a call, right?

And what is your "official" role at Encyclopedia Dramatica, so the victims know who to prosecute?
http://i52.tinypic.c om/1z2mv7q.jpg Now Derek, care to share with the good readers of The Bolton News why the police contacted you a few months ago? Or is that just "words on a screen?" There should be a police report of such a call, right? And what is your "official" role at Encyclopedia Dramatica, so the victims know who to prosecute? rustyray
  • Score: -2

6:51am Tue 18 Oct 11

Legato says...

No-one's going to get prosecuted. The Bolton News doesn't want to take on ED on the internet. Who's home turf would that be?

Derek does have a point though: They ARE just words on a screen. Did anyone care to notice the delicate postings that were made by one Sam Leeson? He trolls the page, and people instantly call for his death.

On the page of a girl who's just been battered to death. Is the hypocrisy lost on anyone here?

Make the call: Are you saying it's justified to call for the death of someone "being mean", or are they, too, just words on a screen?
No-one's going to get prosecuted. The Bolton News doesn't want to take on ED on the internet. Who's home turf would that be? Derek does have a point though: They ARE just words on a screen. Did anyone care to notice the delicate postings that were made by one Sam Leeson? He trolls the page, and people instantly call for his death. On the page of a girl who's just been battered to death. Is the hypocrisy lost on anyone here? Make the call: Are you saying it's justified to call for the death of someone "being mean", or are they, too, just words on a screen? Legato
  • Score: 3

12:53pm Tue 18 Oct 11

ChetParsons says...

Shineoff wrote:
By being enraged by this you are doing something called "feeding the trolls", they get their fun BY offending people, you are giving them what they want.

Some things on the site are funny, some are just sick, its worth noting (I've read ED for years) that the Madeliene Mccann page was removed due to legal action, though it featured pretty slanderous allegations.

In short there are sites like this that mock other peoples pain, they will always be there, if it was taken down they would just set it up in another country, the best action is, if it offends you, don't go there.

By being on the front page of the telegraph you have actually given them what they would call an "epic win"

I remember reading the page in question a long time ago, and thought it really overstepped the mark, it is true its one thing to mock an institution or a group of people but to laugh about a murder victim is just plain wrong.

Dont give them the satisfaction....
The Madeliene McCann article is down? You sho' 'bout dat? http://encyclopediad
ramatica.ch/Madelein
e_McCann

I agree that this article's existence is pathetic and also hilarious.
[quote][p][bold]Shineoff[/bold] wrote: By being enraged by this you are doing something called "feeding the trolls", they get their fun BY offending people, you are giving them what they want. Some things on the site are funny, some are just sick, its worth noting (I've read ED for years) that the Madeliene Mccann page was removed due to legal action, though it featured pretty slanderous allegations. In short there are sites like this that mock other peoples pain, they will always be there, if it was taken down they would just set it up in another country, the best action is, if it offends you, don't go there. By being on the front page of the telegraph you have actually given them what they would call an "epic win" I remember reading the page in question a long time ago, and thought it really overstepped the mark, it is true its one thing to mock an institution or a group of people but to laugh about a murder victim is just plain wrong. Dont give them the satisfaction....[/p][/quote]The Madeliene McCann article is down? You sho' 'bout dat? http://encyclopediad ramatica.ch/Madelein e_McCann I agree that this article's existence is pathetic and also hilarious. ChetParsons
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Tue 18 Oct 11

ChetParsons says...

Also, Bolton News, this is my first visit to your fine site. If I may make a suggestion, please add a fourth and fifth column to your layout while preserving the fixed width of your page's content. You see, skinny as this article is, it's still somewhat legible. Likewise, the comments section is rather thin and tall, like a basketball player, but still nimble enough to allow for a somewhat coherent exchange of ideas. Go the extra mile and get yourselves from "basketball player" to "anorexic with AIDS". If there is more than one word per line, the column needs to be thinner.
Also, Bolton News, this is my first visit to your fine site. If I may make a suggestion, please add a fourth and fifth column to your layout while preserving the fixed width of your page's content. You see, skinny as this article is, it's still somewhat legible. Likewise, the comments section is rather thin and tall, like a basketball player, but still nimble enough to allow for a somewhat coherent exchange of ideas. Go the extra mile and get yourselves from "basketball player" to "anorexic with AIDS". If there is more than one word per line, the column needs to be thinner. ChetParsons
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Tue 18 Oct 11

rustyray says...

Legato wrote:
No-one's going to get prosecuted. The Bolton News doesn't want to take on ED on the internet. Who's home turf would that be?

Derek does have a point though: They ARE just words on a screen. Did anyone care to notice the delicate postings that were made by one Sam Leeson? He trolls the page, and people instantly call for his death.

On the page of a girl who's just been battered to death. Is the hypocrisy lost on anyone here?

Make the call: Are you saying it's justified to call for the death of someone "being mean", or are they, too, just words on a screen?
That's a shame you feel that way. Perhaps more people need to speak out about bullying and harassment, particularly of a grieving family. Using telecommunication devices to harass, abuse, and annoy others is a crime.
[quote][p][bold]Legato[/bold] wrote: No-one's going to get prosecuted. The Bolton News doesn't want to take on ED on the internet. Who's home turf would that be? Derek does have a point though: They ARE just words on a screen. Did anyone care to notice the delicate postings that were made by one Sam Leeson? He trolls the page, and people instantly call for his death. On the page of a girl who's just been battered to death. Is the hypocrisy lost on anyone here? Make the call: Are you saying it's justified to call for the death of someone "being mean", or are they, too, just words on a screen?[/p][/quote]That's a shame you feel that way. Perhaps more people need to speak out about bullying and harassment, particularly of a grieving family. Using telecommunication devices to harass, abuse, and annoy others is a crime. rustyray
  • Score: -1

2:05pm Tue 18 Oct 11

Derek M. Sheep says...

Lol Rusty, you don't care about anyone or anything other than that article about you, which unlike the one about Sophie Lancaster, relies on facts rather than dick jokes or the shock value. As for the Sophie Lancaster article, the point is obviously to get a rise out of people, just like this Bolton article. Sam here is not too different than the author of the ED article; he wants people to be "absolutely appalled' that "someone would dare write something like that".

Also, everyone make sure to read the "Rusty Ray" page that seems to make him so mad. Rather than being an abusive article like the Sophie Lancaster one, it documents a very abusive (and most likely insane) person.
Lol Rusty, you don't care about anyone or anything other than that article about you, which unlike the one about Sophie Lancaster, relies on facts rather than dick jokes or the shock value. As for the Sophie Lancaster article, the point is obviously to get a rise out of people, just like this Bolton article. Sam here is not too different than the author of the ED article; he wants people to be "absolutely appalled' that "someone would dare write something like that". Also, everyone make sure to read the "Rusty Ray" page that seems to make him so mad. Rather than being an abusive article like the Sophie Lancaster one, it documents a very abusive (and most likely insane) person. Derek M. Sheep
  • Score: 1

2:23pm Tue 18 Oct 11

rustyray says...

Derek M. Sheep wrote:
Lol Rusty, you don't care about anyone or anything other than that article about you, which unlike the one about Sophie Lancaster, relies on facts rather than dick jokes or the shock value. As for the Sophie Lancaster article, the point is obviously to get a rise out of people, just like this Bolton article. Sam here is not too different than the author of the ED article; he wants people to be "absolutely appalled' that "someone would dare write something like that".

Also, everyone make sure to read the "Rusty Ray" page that seems to make him so mad. Rather than being an abusive article like the Sophie Lancaster one, it documents a very abusive (and most likely insane) person.
I thought your website was a "satire" site? Now it's a news site with documented facts?

Who was my victim? The guy in Florida who was facing felony charges for harassing me and my family for almost 9 months? The guy who has a criminal record and was himself abused by his troll "friends" to make me his target and stalk me on the Internet?

You should do a little more fact-checking before you rely on content published on Encyclopedia Dramatica to make your allegations.

I can put you in touch with the investigating officer to explain it to you, if you like. I tried to give you that courtesy a while back but you decided to hide behind your so-called anonymity and freedom of speech.

It's ironic you use free speech when it benefits you, but when other people turn the tables on you, you resort to threats and bullying. "Imma gonna put you on the front page!" Do it, please. It will spare this grieving family a break from your spotlight.
[quote][p][bold]Derek M. Sheep[/bold] wrote: Lol Rusty, you don't care about anyone or anything other than that article about you, which unlike the one about Sophie Lancaster, relies on facts rather than dick jokes or the shock value. As for the Sophie Lancaster article, the point is obviously to get a rise out of people, just like this Bolton article. Sam here is not too different than the author of the ED article; he wants people to be "absolutely appalled' that "someone would dare write something like that". Also, everyone make sure to read the "Rusty Ray" page that seems to make him so mad. Rather than being an abusive article like the Sophie Lancaster one, it documents a very abusive (and most likely insane) person.[/p][/quote]I thought your website was a "satire" site? Now it's a news site with documented facts? Who was my victim? The guy in Florida who was facing felony charges for harassing me and my family for almost 9 months? The guy who has a criminal record and was himself abused by his troll "friends" to make me his target and stalk me on the Internet? You should do a little more fact-checking before you rely on content published on Encyclopedia Dramatica to make your allegations. I can put you in touch with the investigating officer to explain it to you, if you like. I tried to give you that courtesy a while back but you decided to hide behind your so-called anonymity and freedom of speech. It's ironic you use free speech when it benefits you, but when other people turn the tables on you, you resort to threats and bullying. "Imma gonna put you on the front page!" Do it, please. It will spare this grieving family a break from your spotlight. rustyray
  • Score: -2

4:33pm Tue 18 Oct 11

Derek M. Sheep says...

rustyray wrote:
Derek M. Sheep wrote:
Lol Rusty, you don't care about anyone or anything other than that article about you, which unlike the one about Sophie Lancaster, relies on facts rather than dick jokes or the shock value. As for the Sophie Lancaster article, the point is obviously to get a rise out of people, just like this Bolton article. Sam here is not too different than the author of the ED article; he wants people to be "absolutely appalled' that "someone would dare write something like that".

Also, everyone make sure to read the "Rusty Ray" page that seems to make him so mad. Rather than being an abusive article like the Sophie Lancaster one, it documents a very abusive (and most likely insane) person.
I thought your website was a "satire" site? Now it's a news site with documented facts?

Who was my victim? The guy in Florida who was facing felony charges for harassing me and my family for almost 9 months? The guy who has a criminal record and was himself abused by his troll "friends" to make me his target and stalk me on the Internet?

You should do a little more fact-checking before you rely on content published on Encyclopedia Dramatica to make your allegations.

I can put you in touch with the investigating officer to explain it to you, if you like. I tried to give you that courtesy a while back but you decided to hide behind your so-called anonymity and freedom of speech.

It's ironic you use free speech when it benefits you, but when other people turn the tables on you, you resort to threats and bullying. "Imma gonna put you on the front page!" Do it, please. It will spare this grieving family a break from your spotlight.
Lol irony.

And please don't say you tried to contact "me" when you attempted to contact Ryan and then Zaiger.

I'd be happy to talk to you about it (not that the article is going down, but the divorce and other sections may be removed of your not a dick about it) and then maybe Garrett would actually remove some of the "stalker" information.
[quote][p][bold]rustyray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Derek M. Sheep[/bold] wrote: Lol Rusty, you don't care about anyone or anything other than that article about you, which unlike the one about Sophie Lancaster, relies on facts rather than dick jokes or the shock value. As for the Sophie Lancaster article, the point is obviously to get a rise out of people, just like this Bolton article. Sam here is not too different than the author of the ED article; he wants people to be "absolutely appalled' that "someone would dare write something like that". Also, everyone make sure to read the "Rusty Ray" page that seems to make him so mad. Rather than being an abusive article like the Sophie Lancaster one, it documents a very abusive (and most likely insane) person.[/p][/quote]I thought your website was a "satire" site? Now it's a news site with documented facts? Who was my victim? The guy in Florida who was facing felony charges for harassing me and my family for almost 9 months? The guy who has a criminal record and was himself abused by his troll "friends" to make me his target and stalk me on the Internet? You should do a little more fact-checking before you rely on content published on Encyclopedia Dramatica to make your allegations. I can put you in touch with the investigating officer to explain it to you, if you like. I tried to give you that courtesy a while back but you decided to hide behind your so-called anonymity and freedom of speech. It's ironic you use free speech when it benefits you, but when other people turn the tables on you, you resort to threats and bullying. "Imma gonna put you on the front page!" Do it, please. It will spare this grieving family a break from your spotlight.[/p][/quote]Lol irony. And please don't say you tried to contact "me" when you attempted to contact Ryan and then Zaiger. I'd be happy to talk to you about it (not that the article is going down, but the divorce and other sections may be removed of your not a dick about it) and then maybe Garrett would actually remove some of the "stalker" information. Derek M. Sheep
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Tue 18 Oct 11

Derek M. Sheep says...

*if
*if Derek M. Sheep
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Tue 18 Oct 11

rustyray says...

Derek M. Sheep wrote:
*if
Interesting tactic. You want to negotiate with me after I provided proof that 3 people requested the content be removed? An email from the original person who compromised my privacy, screen shots of the user/author who put the page up on your website asking it to be removed, and a request by law enforcement? Mr. Zaiger removed it in Sept. in his role as Administrator, but then it was put back up. Definitely doesn't seem like an "unbiased, neutral wiki" where user-generated content is the sole responsibility of the person who publishes it. Not only that, but the site has changed its Take Down policy numerous times, and deleted page histories and user comments in an attempt to obscure your complicity in these matters, all of which is documented.
[quote][p][bold]Derek M. Sheep[/bold] wrote: *if[/p][/quote]Interesting tactic. You want to negotiate with me after I provided proof that 3 people requested the content be removed? An email from the original person who compromised my privacy, screen shots of the user/author who put the page up on your website asking it to be removed, and a request by law enforcement? Mr. Zaiger removed it in Sept. in his role as Administrator, but then it was put back up. Definitely doesn't seem like an "unbiased, neutral wiki" where user-generated content is the sole responsibility of the person who publishes it. Not only that, but the site has changed its Take Down policy numerous times, and deleted page histories and user comments in an attempt to obscure your complicity in these matters, all of which is documented. rustyray
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Tue 18 Oct 11

Derek M. Sheep says...

I'm going to go read Jerkcity now. I find that I can take them much more seriously.
I'm going to go read Jerkcity now. I find that I can take them much more seriously. Derek M. Sheep
  • Score: 0

4:57am Wed 19 Oct 11

ChetParsons says...

rustyray wrote:
Derek M. Sheep wrote:
*if
Interesting tactic. You want to negotiate with me after I provided proof that 3 people requested the content be removed? An email from the original person who compromised my privacy, screen shots of the user/author who put the page up on your website asking it to be removed, and a request by law enforcement? Mr. Zaiger removed it in Sept. in his role as Administrator, but then it was put back up. Definitely doesn't seem like an "unbiased, neutral wiki" where user-generated content is the sole responsibility of the person who publishes it. Not only that, but the site has changed its Take Down policy numerous times, and deleted page histories and user comments in an attempt to obscure your complicity in these matters, all of which is documented.
You guys are disrespecting Sophie's memory by arguing.
[quote][p][bold]rustyray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Derek M. Sheep[/bold] wrote: *if[/p][/quote]Interesting tactic. You want to negotiate with me after I provided proof that 3 people requested the content be removed? An email from the original person who compromised my privacy, screen shots of the user/author who put the page up on your website asking it to be removed, and a request by law enforcement? Mr. Zaiger removed it in Sept. in his role as Administrator, but then it was put back up. Definitely doesn't seem like an "unbiased, neutral wiki" where user-generated content is the sole responsibility of the person who publishes it. Not only that, but the site has changed its Take Down policy numerous times, and deleted page histories and user comments in an attempt to obscure your complicity in these matters, all of which is documented.[/p][/quote]You guys are disrespecting Sophie's memory by arguing. ChetParsons
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree