Manchester's Self-Described 'Internet Troll' Jailed For Offensive Web Posts 321
noob22 writes "According to BBC Online, 'An "internet troll" who posted obscene messages on Facebook sites set up in memory of dead people has been jailed. Colm Coss, of Ardwick, Manchester, posted on a memorial page for Big Brother star Jade Goody and a tribute site to John Paul Massey, a Liverpool boy mauled to death by a dog. The 36-year-old "preyed on bereaved families" for his "own pleasure," Manchester Magistrates Court heard.'" My favorite line: "Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if he'd used a megaphone and said to their faces they wouldn't have been able to charge him?
No, they would just charge him under a different law, such as disturbing the peace. They have thousands of laws, so in most cases the police can find something with which to charge you if they put their minds to it.
...it's just another example of how free-speech laws have diverged from today's technology.
How do you figure that? He was successfully convicted under the current laws when using new technology. It seems to me that the law coped quite happily with new technology. Your problem appears to be if he had used old technology.
18 weeks? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no level of rationality to computer crime sentences because the "old people" on both sides of the bench are simply too ignorant and out of touch to really know what the crime involved or how serious it was. This case should never have wasted the UK's courts time and public money let alone the cost of keeping him in jail for any period at all.
Frankly I have a VERY low opinion of the police, judge, and state for this one. I want a million pounds spent on arrested serious criminals and keeping them locked away. Give the mugger, violent thug, or drug dealers 18 week sentences instead of saving them for the "omg computer terrurist?! he uses microsoft and word to send deadly communications of doom!"
What's more - he wasn't even punished for threatening people. It is one thing to make threats and to scare people. It is another thing entirely to offend or upset them. While I think the things he said were extremely rude and offensive - nobody felt in fear for their security.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I don't agree with what she did, and I don't like the actions of this asshat either. But twisting the law to get a prosecution? Perhaps I'm naive, but the democratic process is screwed when stuff like this happens.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy is a dick but this is ridiculous. It's not illegal to be a dick, nor should it be. Things like this make me worried for the future.
Re:18 weeks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really suppose that young Internet geeks have a better idea of "how serious" such a crime is than "old people" in the courts? This has almost nothing to do with technology, beyond the fact that technology was an enabling medium - the crime was incredibly anti-social behavior in the form of harassment. I'm not convinced this was the right law to try him under, but tossing someone in a cell for 4 months for harassing grieving families - with the sole purpose of that harassment - doesn't seem all that off to me.
Threatening someone would have made it worse, yes, but harassment is a crime itself.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:18 weeks? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:2, Insightful)
You think they aren't close to doing this in the states, too?
The 36-year-old "preyed on bereaved families" for his "own pleasure," Manchester Magistrates Court heard.'"
As opposed to the media and politicians, which prey on bereaved families for the pleasure of their viewers and ratings.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy is a dick but this is ridiculous. It's not illegal to be a dick, nor should it be.
Dickery is illegal when you cross a line which moves around a bit, but we call it "harassment" and it's definitely against the law. This is just another form of harassment and there's no moral reason not to convict him for it if that's what it takes to stop him. If you want to manipulate the mental state of others for personal gain, you must use advertising.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the biggest threat to democracy is selfish voters. Vote on principal and employ abstract thinking rather than "is this going to reinforce my beliefs or directly reward me with some goodies". You don't have to be extraordinarily empathetic to think that people like the guy in this story (or Lori Drew) are vile human beings that disgust you and make you feel awful for their "victims". It takes a little effort to step outside yourself and recognize that just because something isn't nice or doesn't directly benefit you doesn't mean it isn't right.
The Lori Drew case is a great example of that. Many people found themselves in the shitty position of wanting to see that bitch punished for being an awful human being to a little kid but also comprehending that sometimes doing the right thing means not being satisfied with some sort of retribution.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because one of the prerequisites for repeating Holocaust is getting people to forget how bad the previous one was. Your crime when you deny that Holocaust happened is not ignorance, but an attempt at social engineering conditions favorable for another Holocaust.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is there was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and so it doesn't seems like anyone has learned from it.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:2, Insightful)
As screwed up as the US is sometimes, at least it's not illegal to be ignorant.
Probably just as well
Re:The Law (Score:3, Insightful)
serious threats and harassment are one thing. Posting obscene or mean things is another.
Can you provide clear guidelines for telling those apart? E.g. in case of this guy, why do you believe that his actions did not constitute harassment?
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is, Yugoslavia was one of the "victorious" countries, so they were never subjected to strict laws about ethnic cleansing, despite history Serbia has of doing it to neighboring nations, e.g. Bulgaria.
So, you could argue that the seeds for later problems were planted by the policy that excused any and all war crimes, perpetrated by the winning parties.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not harassment?"
Who decides what is offensive and what is not? I find it shocking how many people here seem to be against freedom of speech, or at least speech that offends them. In fact, your very post is offensive to me in and of itself. You need to be jailed, and fast!
"denying it happened is to disrespect the dead"
Freedom of speech. The dead can deal with it. Oh, wait, they already have!
"and an attempt to bring about conditions to repeat the atrocity"
Might as well arrest everyone in the world, then. Someone *might* kill another person. Just like this *might* (not a chance) bring about another holocaust!
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:0, Insightful)
So, you could argue that the seeds for later problems were planted by the policy that excused any and all war crimes, perpetrated by the winning parties.
Surely the whole point of war crimes is that they're things that people on the losing side are guilty of. That's key to the whole concept.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:3, Insightful)
War crimes are violations of the laws of war, regardless of the side, which commits them.
Actually, I should correct my post above -- as ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, not a war crime.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad for him.
Re:18 weeks? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can go bottle someone (break a glass bottle over their head) and you get an average of zero days in jail (suspended for two years). You can go mug someone and get only a week of "hard time" with a year of parole. I mean heck you can go run someone down in your car and still get a lighter sentence than 18 weeks...
[Citation needed]. I think 18 weeks is fine, if there's an issue with anything you've said it's just that those sentences are obviously too light, but I've never heard of that (perhaps beyond exceptional cases).
Re:18 weeks? (Score:1, Insightful)
Looks like someone is upset that his boyfriend is going to jail for 18 weeks. You'll just have to find someone else to bugger you for a while.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:4, Insightful)
So free speech is well and good, and should be protected...until you disagree with it? Somehow I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Under your description, anyone who was offended by something said to them could claim it was 'harassment' and try to file charges. Do you really want the world to suck that bad?
It's generally expected that you will have to put up with a certain level of minor harassment on a day-to-day basis. On the internet, you should expect that level to rise by default. The anonymity of an internet message is quite appealing to people, and often results in them not self-censoring as much as they might in a real-world encounter. The fact that the police have the ability to actually act on it is frightening to say the least.
I'm very happy laws like this haven't quite made it into the US. This is the sort of threat we're facing with all of this 'Cyber Bullying' legislation they are trying to pass. Fight it. Vote it down. Do your duty to protect the constitution. It is the parents' responsibility to protect their children, not the government's.
If you're a grown-ass adult, you should have a tough enough skin that you don't need to have people ARRESTED for trolling you on the internet. If you can't manage, turn off the computer. Nobody's forcing you to surf Facebook or forums. You CHOSE to be there and read what people wrote.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
The offended parties voluntarily read his comments of their own free will, from a site which they do not own or administrate, which isn't even located in a country governed by the laws which you described.
The problem is that this sets a dangerous precedent. Pretty soon, you'll have to watch what you say on the internet for fear that it might offend someone and then the cops will come knocking. Everyone on 4chan will be screwed.
Just because the person offended was bereaved and the offense was directed at a deceased party does not mean there should be any sort of exceptional limit to what is legally acceptable. This is quickly spiraling into China-sized censorship.
Absolute rubbish.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:3, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:4, Insightful)
So free speech is well and good, and should be protected...until you disagree with it?
If you really think that's what's happened here, you need to think again.
This is the sort of threat we're facing with all of this 'Cyber Bullying' legislation they are trying to pass.
That people might be held accountable for their actions? Say it ain't so!
If you're a grown-ass adult, you should have a tough enough skin that you don't need to have people ARRESTED for trolling you on the internet.
I disagree. Where technical means are sufficient to prevent them from harassing you, you might have a point. There is functionally no difference from harassing someone online as compared to harassing them in person when they cannot avoid it. Society gains nothing by permitting this type of speech, and speech has always been regulated to some degree. If you have a message and you want to get it out, then get it out. This person admits to having engaged in this activity specifically to cause suffering and defending that is not only morally bankrupt but also stupid.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is ethnic cleansing in Palestine which is far more ironic...
You missed the *whole* point (Score:1, Insightful)
I defended the right that people have to freely express and defend their opinions, even if I disagree with them or find them offensive. I like how you used the "disagree" word yourself because that is rather important. If someone says that Stalin was a nice fellow, I can say "I disagree, but you should have the right to say that".
If someone harasses the family of a recently diseased person... How can you say "I disagree"? You can't because it is direct action, not expression of opinion. You can't disagree or agree with it any more than you can disagree with punching someone in the face.
Free speech means that you should be able to say "I think that communists should be thrown to concentration camps". Free speech doesn't mean that you should be allowed to actually commit the act.
You shouldn't defend a thing just because it is "free speech". I can say "I think murder is an act of free speech", murder someone and say "It was freedom of speech!". Rather, you should state why freedom of speech is important (I did so by stating what things are required for a functional democracy or considered human rights) and base the rest on that.
Freedom of speech isn't important for the sake of freedom of speech. It is important for a functioning democracy, etc. and the laws protecting it should be based on that. If allowing people to bully families of people who died recently has nothing to do with why freedom of speech is important, it shouldn't be protected by those laws.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
And yet, if I go around saying that MacGyver2210 kept me locked in his basement for three years while he raped me every night, I expect you will try to have me silenced. In most places, I'd even be subject to fines and possibly imprisonment if I'm vocal enough in my speech. If I shout outside your bedroom window through a megaphone all night, I expect you'll try to have me silenced.
Your quote refers specifically to political speech, especially the right to criticize government, corporation, and personal behavior. A society demands limits on speech, or it degenerates into anarchy. Prohibitions against telling lies and inciting violence are among the most common limits.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:2, Insightful)
how little it takes to get people upset enough to give away their own freedoms
So you want the freedom to shout obscenities at grieving families during the funerals of soldiers who died giving you all your freedoms?
There are exceptions to every rule. You can't shout "Fire!" in a theater. And you shouldn't be able to shout and display obscenities at and during the time of a funeral. Simple as that... we don't have to change the rule, just make rare and necessary exceptions.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone who is lonely and has an inferiority complex. He gets a feeling of importance proportional to the number of people that reply to him. And the most reliable way of getting a good number of responses is to troll. Trolls with little imagination just rely on being offensive.
Re:The Law (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument against the dick in TFA and the "god hates fags" mob is similar to the argument against graffiti, it's more about the methods they use than it is about the things they say.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that mean Gay persons can be arrested for "harassment" when they have their marches? Or maybe the Christians standing by with "god hates gay" signs in the periphery? Or maybe both?
This law seems ripe for abuse in order to suppress free speech.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:3, Insightful)
I highly doubt many people really disbelieve the evidence left behind by the Holocaust. It's too overwhelming to deny. However, many people deny it because they want a second Holocaust. The bigotry and hatred they encourage and keep alive is their reason for the denial. It's their agenda that makes them deny it happened, not lack of evidence or doubt that it really happened. IOW's their denial is a lie as they don't actually believe their own denial.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are the only people you see denying the Holocaust? I'll tell you. Bigots, that's who. People who hate Jews because they're Jews. I've never seen a denial of the Holocaust by anyone outside that group.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
It enables further promotion of bigotry against Jews, Homosexuals, and other groups. If you claim it didn't happen then you can much more easily glorify Hitler and the NAZI party...the funny thing is that this is done primarily (in the US at least) by people who really don't know much at all about Hitler or the NAZI's.
It also allows an argument that "evil Jews have completely character assassinated poor Hitler with this Holocaust nonsense and that's why they should be killed."
In my somewhat limited experience, it's a white man's version of "the man is keeping me down" which is used as a call to arms.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct. The term you are looking for is jus cogens. International law is usually laterally oriented with nobody above anyone else, even the UN, but war crimes, piracy, genocide, and torture are acts that every nation has an erga omnes obligation to follow. Being victorious allows you to defend your actions, but does not grant immunity due to sovereignty. Unfortunately, nobody ever actually holds anyone accountable for these things.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead they've had to resort to the telecoms act to catch him.
He was targeting and harassing people via a telecommunications system. Part of our telecommunications laws specifically deal with that situation.
I can't see how that is anywhere near being a technicality.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:1, Insightful)
Sir, if I want to believe the holocaust did not happen,. that's my right.
If I have reason to believe it may not have happened and we are being lied to and I want to share my theory with people, I should have the right to.
I have no duty to respect the dead of World War II. I was not even born when that happened. I also should not be punished because people one day, most likely after I am dead, may repeat history. Remembering history did not prevent the USA (who are so prone to reminding the world they are the heroes of WWII) from opening their own concentration camp at Guantanamo, nor did it prevent them to spark World War III (WW I and II were named "World Wars" because countries from all 5 continents were involved, and countries from all 5 continents are involved in the War on Terror).
People who can't be happy if some people don't believe their grand-father died in a Nazi camp are the ones with problems. Especially if they think it's OK to use the law to force people to believe (or to pretend they believe) in the holocaust.
Finally, censoring opinions and hypotheses is a very dangerous thing to do. Have you considered that if we can punish people for denying the holocaust, it's easy for a government to punish people who disagree with the government because "It creates tensions and conflict within society, it divides people" or because "the government can't function well when it is being criticized by the public. Criticism disrupts the work of the government. It's an act of terrorism and from now on it will be punished as such".
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also stemming from sheer stubbornness and lack of contact with reality sometimes. I'm reminded of the bit in Douglas Hoffstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach", where the Tortoise character gets into an infinite regression: "So if I accept A, B, and C, then I have accepted your premise? Not so fast - lets call that statement D - don't I have to include A, B, C, and D to really accept your premise? Now lets call that claim statement E - Don't I now have to accept A, B, C, D, and E to accept your premise? We can see where this is going - How dare you demand I accept your infinite series of claims without inspection!".
Part of the frustration many of us feel over, say, the climate change or abortion debates seems to be the same sort of thing. There's always some person on the side we don't agree with, taking an 'obviously impossible, absurd' stance, and the possibly more reasonable people on that same side don't distance themselves from their own fanatics. One of the things I saw during my own involvement in the abortion debate was that on the Pro-Choice side, there were a few women who claimed all sex with males was rape, so the 'except in cases of rape and incest' clause always applied anyway. Some of these wanted to do away with all men and use cloning to copy human females only. There's an odd feeling when somebody casually advocates the genocide of 3 billion people and the use of a technology we don't actually have as the solution to all the world's problems, and nobody else in the room is willing to call them crazy. On the Pro-Life side I saw people (mostly Roman Catholic priests), who saw banning abortion as only the first step in passing laws banning all extramarital sex, then banning masturbation and all pornography including the bra section of the Sears catalog, bringing back the laws that required showing all married couples in movies as sleeping in twin beds, the ones dictating skirt lengths, and on and on.
I suspect many organisations would actually be stronger if they tossed out some people who claim to be part of their coalitions, even if their overall numbers of members dropped. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to say "He doesn't speak for me, even if he claims to.".
The real key is, whether somebody is lying (as you suggest), or insane (as I suggest here), doesn't really matter, and nobody ought to be given a free pass to disrupt discourse because we can't tell if they are one or the other. I don't know if Glenn Beck is insane or mendacious, and the people who say he is crazy like a fox may be the rightist of all, but what he does sheds more heat than light, either way. I don't have to decide if he is nuts or faking it to realise he isn't contributing anything useful. That goes in spades for the holocaust denialists. A specific statement of theirs may seem insane, or a deliberate lie, or sometimes a reasonable statement, but examining a whole series of statements they make, sooner or later you realise they are not adding anything constructive to any of the processes of debate, discussion or education.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:1, Insightful)
how little it takes to get people upset enough to give away their own freedoms
So you want the freedom to shout obscenities at grieving families during the funerals of soldiers who died giving you all your freedoms?
There are exceptions to every rule. You can't shout "Fire!" in a theater. And you shouldn't be able to shout and display obscenities at and during the time of a funeral. Simple as that... we don't have to change the rule, just make rare and necessary exceptions.
One, the "soldiers who died giving me all my freedoms" died over two hundred years ago. Two, I can certainly shout "fire!" in a theater. If the fire is a lie, I pay the consequences of that action. Part of the cost of living in a free(er) society is accepting that some people are going to be royal dickheads and behave in ways that are disgusting and obnoxious. I will never, however, support any law curtailing that.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where laws regarding defamation of character, inciting violence/panic, and noise pollution come into play.
Over the long run, people who make untruthful speech or otherwise misuse their speech are generally recognized for this, at which point society can ignore them. That is why regardless of how hateful or untrue certain speech might be, I fully support the ability of a person to cry it from their soapbox. If nothing else it lets me know they can be ignored, but it also gives me the opportunity to address or refute it.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
We have come to a point where all the test cases for free speech are people being unambiguous assholes, rather than people simply stating unpopular political opinions. As a result, we are put in a situation where we have to choose between an absolute commitment to free speech and a society where people can mourn their dead in peace. The latter will win, ultimately, even if it means using the Constitution as toilet paper (hopefully, it won't come to that.) And I think, ultimately, I would rather that the latter won. I don't value free speech for its own sake: I value it as a means of checking power, of keeping discourse lively and intellects rigorous, of keeping us from getting complacent, dumb, or too obedient.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:1, Insightful)
How does this crap get modded up?
Zemran, unless you're on Hamas' RSS feed there is nothing like 'ethnic cleansing' going on in 'Palestine'. I mean, if the Israelis were trying to kill all the Palestinians ... don't you think they'd be done by now? Sorry, I didn't know offering half your country counted as 'cleansing'. You realize that 'Palestine', created by the Brits in the 20s was a lot larger? And that what the Jordanians did in 71 was a lot more like 'cleansing' (although, since they let most of them flee to Israel - not really applicable there either).
bsD, right, it's always the Jews fault, huh? (Controlling shares in what? Getting your stereotypes mixed up?) It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Holocaust affected thousands of times more people (millions of victims, and all of fucking Europe making/letting it happen). I notice you didn't mention Cambodians, Rwandans, Angolans, Zimbabweans ... But I guess you're just saying that people should forget about the Holocaust, because it happened oh so long ago, but always mourn for the Armenians.
No, I don't know why I'm feeding the trolls, but I really don't get how they're Interesting, not Flamebait.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood the movement of holocaust denial. What is the aim / benefit of teaching that it didn't happen or what world view does it enable?
Not to mention, the evidence is completely overwhelming and undeniable. The only possibly point of contention is exactly how many millions were murdered. At which point, you're splitting hairs. Does eight million fail to qualify where ten million does - or whatever the actual numbers are? I mean, where exactly is the cut off, where mass murder and genocide on an epic scale no longer qualifies as a holocaust?
And I completely agree with you - what is the benefit of splitting hairs where its a disagreement without a difference.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:4, Insightful)
So free speech is well and good, and should be protected...until you disagree with it? Somehow I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Under your description, anyone who was offended by something said to them could claim it was 'harassment' and try to file charges. Do you really want the world to suck that bad?
Make it so that no matter how intrusive, offensive, repetitive cases of harassment you can not make them stop? Sorry, there's more than two colors in my world.
It's generally expected that you will have to put up with a certain level of minor harassment on a day-to-day basis. On the internet, you should expect that level to rise by default. The anonymity of an internet message is quite appealing to people, and often results in them not self-censoring as much as they might in a real-world encounter.
What great logic, this is the same kind of logic those that say "if you dress slutty it's your fault you got raped" use.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:1, Insightful)
It is also true of Americans -- and any other nation for that matter.
How many Americans acknowledge the bombing campaigns against civilian population in Japan and Germany as war crimes - which they, undoubtedly, are? (Yes, they are, if they weren't, US would not have insisted that clauses, banning prosecution of those are included in every peace treaty signed post WWII).
Forget Germany and Japan, how about the bombings of the "allies" of Germany in Europe like Austria and Hungary, or Romania and Bulgaria, countries, that were basically forced into Hitler's arms by the distribution of military power during the war? Their cities were heavily bombed by the US and UK after 1943, although they were no military threat to any of the powers.
How about the documented thousands of documented rapes of women in Germany, France and the UK by US troops, which went unpunished? Some put the documented rapes figure at over 40,000. That means at least 10% of the US troops engaged in it. Are those accounts in your history books alongside the D-day accounts? I seriously doubt it.
Denying crimes is so common, and so done by everyone that it is ridiculous to pretend amazement.
What is amazing is most of those countries who lost WWII are still largely acknowledging their crimes 70 years down the road.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:1, Insightful)
While one is free to say whatever he or she may want, one is also responsible for that speech. This is where laws regarding defamation of character, inciting violence/panic, and noise pollution come into play.
Using THAT reasoning, you have freedom of speech in China, too. You're free to say what you want, after all, you just have to deal with the consequences when the laws regarding defamation of the party, inciting protests, and advocating democracy come into play.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you're all for the prosecution of Wikileaks then, eh?
You are a troll fuckbag. I have repeatedly spoken in defense of Wikileaks. Still zero deaths shown to be due to wikileaking.
Here's a hint: I can write a novel about how awesome it is to murder people. I can publish porn where people shit on each other. These do not contribute to society. It is speech that only amuses a few.
If it amuses a few then it contributes to society. Even if it only amuses you. And it harms no one. Clearly (to anyone with two neurons to rub together) these are not the same thing. Try again, kiddo.
I basically find your longwinded diatribe to be a rationalization for prosecuting someone for hurting someone else's feelings.
I basically find you to be too fucking stupid to understand my comments and would appreciate it if you would go respond to someone who writes simpler ones.
Grow some thicker skin, and get that boot out of your mouth.
Shut the fuck up until you get my cock out of your mouth? What?