Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime Canada

Accused Ottawa Cyberbully Facing 181 Charges Apologizes 140

Freshly Exhumed writes The day Robert James Campbell quit his job, he went home and started plotting revenge against everyone he felt had wronged him in life. He says he didn't leave his Ottawa apartment for seven months. The online campaign of harassment and hatred he's accused of launching spanned more than a decade. He is accused of creating fake online profiles to destroy reputations in short order, presenting his targets to the world as child predators, members of a Nazi party, exotic dancers and prostitutes. Police roused Campbell on the morning of July 31 and arrested him on 181 charges of criminal harassment, identity theft and defamatory libel. Campbell publicly apologized to his alleged victims and says he has instructed his lawyer to file a guilty plea.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Accused Ottawa Cyberbully Facing 181 Charges Apologizes

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11, 2014 @01:31PM (#47882749)

    sounds like the MO of any "reporter" these days, filling out the ideological biases of their employer.

  • Traditional crimes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11, 2014 @01:32PM (#47882761)

    Notice that they didn't have to invent any new charges for this just because it was on the Internet.
    Current law covers all this sort of thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by maliqua ( 1316471 )

      Canada's legal system is based on enforcing the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law which allows us a bit more flexibility for circumstances that were unanticipated when the laws were created.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Say what? Canada is common-law based, same as UK, US, Commonwealth nations etc. I guess what you mean is that the judges might look at intent more closely...

        • Common-law advises Canadian law, it does not dictate it. If anything the US has a greater obligation under treaty law though the courts often choose to ignore that part of the US constitution. maliqua was right, spirit of the law comes before common-law.

          Also, this guy is NUTS for pleading guilty - the law is a complete violation of freedom of expression rights.

          • by gatfirls ( 1315141 ) on Thursday September 11, 2014 @02:25PM (#47883207)

            Free expression includes this?

            Anonymously emailing false comments that a woman was having marital problems
            Suggesting another woman had an abortion instead of a miscarriage
            Creating a fake Facebook profile of a man whom he said was abused as a child
            Falsely suggesting a man had committed crimes and that information was sent to relatives outside the country
            Anonymously mailing false comments that a man supported the Nazi party and was a pedophile
            Making false claims that a woman had produced pornography and engaged in bizarre sexual acts
            Creating a false online profile suggesting a woman worked as an exotic dancer

            • Can't believe I have to defend this...but...
              2. Is a true statement. Abortion comes from the word abortio and aborior which both have the meaning of miscarriage. And "abortion" as people refer to in pro-choice arguments, etc is an induced abortion, i.e. an induced miscarriage.

              • by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Thursday September 11, 2014 @05:44PM (#47885133)

                2. Is a true statement. Abortion comes from the word abortio and aborior which both have the meaning of miscarriage. And "abortion" as people refer to in pro-choice arguments, etc is an induced abortion, i.e. an induced miscarriage.

                And in modern English as commonly used "abortion" means a purposefully induced miscarriage, just like you yourself state above, while "miscarriage" means an unintended one. Etymology of words is fascinating, but it does not make a statement that is false by their current meaning any less so. And it definitely does not excuse someone who's purposefully trying to deceive.

            • Freedom of expression does include this as it relates to criminal law up to the point where hate speech is involved. Civil law covers slander / libel so making false claims is not without consequence, but it's not up to criminal judges/law to determine the "truth" of a statement or the "bullying" nature of a comment. Harassment is often misunderstood as limiting freedom of expression - but it doesn't limit expression specifically, rather a pattern of behaviour that could endanger the safety of another ind

          • by geekoid ( 135745 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dnaltropnidad}> on Thursday September 11, 2014 @03:00PM (#47883541) Homepage Journal

            No, it isn't.
            Freedom of speech does not mean you have no repercussion for lying about people. It never has/

            • No, it isn't.
              Freedom of speech does not mean you have no repercussion for lying about people. It never has/

              Canada doesn't have freedom of speech.

            • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

              More simply put, freedom of speech is the right to freely express your opinion as just that and not the right to misrepresent lies as the truth. Apparently Ronny Raygun eliminated that distinction in the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org] his singular greatest achievement, if you are a lying psychopath corporate executive.

          • by dissy ( 172727 )

            Also, this guy is NUTS for pleading guilty - the law is a complete violation of freedom of expression rights.

            So if I was to repetitively punch you in the face until caving your skull in, you are perfectly OK with that and me being allowed to do it?

            After all, I am just flexing my freedom of expression rights by executing a public performance play. It's hardly my fault the plot results in your characters death :P

            • Freedom of expression is not unlimited. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." that trumps freedom of expression every time.

              • by dissy ( 172727 )

                That is what I thought too, but you were pretty clear that harming other people doesn't come into play for Robert Campbell, so naturally I assumed harming others wouldn't come into play for me either.

                • Physical harm and emotional harm are not the same and you were just being hyperbolic.

                  • Physical harm and emotional harm are not the same

                    No they're not the same, but that does not mean that the latter doesn't exist.

                    • Physical harm and emotional harm are not the same

                      No they're not the same, but that does not mean that the latter doesn't exist.

                      I never claimed it didn't exist - just that "bullying" laws violate rights while slander/libel laws are for false claim disputes between citizens where they belong. I'm not condoning the behaviour - I'm just saying that government has no place in criminalizing it.

        • Say what? Canada is common-law based, same as UK, US, Commonwealth nations etc. I guess what you mean is that the judges might look at intent more closely...

          I mean exactly what i said, common-law refers to a system of consistency basing decisions of how crimes are handled and how evidence is weighted against established president in previous similar cases, and is designed to ensure consistent and equal treatment of similar circumstances going forward.

          Common-law systems can be enforced by following the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law. In the united states the letter is followed more rigidly than in Canada. Both systems have merit and both systems ar

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Close but not quite.....

        Spirit of the law for common people.
        Letter of the law for corporations or the elite.

        Example:

        Common guy finds a way to not break any laws but get something for free. He gets arrested anyways and charged with some catch-all law. tomorrow morning a new law is created to fill the loophole. (punishment + a new specific law). Why? Spirit of the prevents screwing your neighbors.

        Big corporation finds a way to screw people right to their face by car

    • by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Thursday September 11, 2014 @02:52PM (#47883455) Homepage
      I hear he can bully someone by whistling into a phone.
  • Right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reason58 ( 775044 ) on Thursday September 11, 2014 @01:36PM (#47882795)

    Oh, he's sorry alright. Sorry he got caught.

    Remorse is possible for a bad decision made in the heat of the moment. This man, on the other hand, was deliberate and meticulous in his abuse of several people that lasted over a *decade*. These are not the actions of someone who made a mistake, these are the actions of a sociopath.

    • So... let's say he's a sociopath.

      That means the problem is one of mental health. An untreatable personality disorder, no less. How does that affect the correct course of action here?

      • So... let's say he's a sociopath.

        That means the problem would be one of mental health.

        There, fixed that for you (since we are starting from a hypothetical.)

        • I am taking the preposition offered by the grandparent as an absolute truth, and trying to use deductive logic on it for useful implications.

          I in no way am clinically analyzing this individual, and actually asserting the preposition.

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        That means the problem is one of mental health. An untreatable personality disorder, no less. How does that affect the correct course of action here?

        Quite a bit actually, of course he'll have to pay for his own psychiatric evaluation to prove it. The government will only pay for it in some cases where the person is obviously a danger to themselves or others(such the killing of Tim McLean. [wikipedia.org]) If however a recogonized individual(not a GP) states that he does have a psychiatric disorder, it can become a mitigating circumstance. This could lead to anyone of the following: Reduced sentence, confined to mental institution for the remainder of his life(basica

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Remorse is possible for any bad decision, or any series of them made over any period of time. There's no magical threshold - of either time or severity - where remorse suddenly becomes impossible.

      Maybe this guy is genuinely sorry, and maybe he's not. I don't know, and unless you personally know him, neither do you.

      • Maybe this guy is genuinely sorry, and maybe he's not. I don't know, and unless you personally know him, neither do you.

        Given the limits of what anyone can ever really know of another person's intent and thoughts, arguably true. Nonetheless, the observed evidence is a pretty good indicator.

        If he felt remorse at any point before incarceration, it wasn't sufficient to actually make him stop his bullying and harrassing. As such, it's not relevant as "remorse", unless you choose to cling to a particularly fut

        • He said he was sorry only after he was caught and brought up on charges. This is basically "death bed confession sorry" where you do a bunch of bad things, say you're sorry at the end, and assume that you're now fine. My young kids try this all the time ("You hit your brother." "Sorry! Now give me another chance?") and it doesn't work for them. They have the excuse that they're kids (who tend to test the limits of acceptable behavior in an attempt to see what they can and can't do). He has no such excu

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Or he's taking personal responsibility and accepting whatever awaits him because he knew what he did was wrong.

      Unlike the guy who deliberately put his equipment in someone else's closet, attempted to hide that equipment, then whined when he was caught and tried to claim he was the victim before he killed himself.

      • And it is a coincidence that after over a decade he suddenly comes to the realization that his actions were wrong the instant he was arrested? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it will reduce his virtually guaranteed sentence?
    • i'm not defending his actions ... But I feel, in some small way, like I can put myself in his shoes. I was physically and emotionally tormented through 6 years of my early years at school. It had a profound effect on who I am today. I remember down to the detail every one of these incidents and I have vivid memories of the perpetrators.. Over the years I have imagined who these people must have grown up to be and delighted in the fact that they probably became menial laborers... I even had one of them in

      • Agreed - I have no idea what it is about kids, but they can be the absolute worst to other kids. Maybe it's bad parenting or the lack of parenting, I don't know. Even looking slightly different from everyone else is seemingly an excuse for torment. When those bully kids grow up, I guess some of them don't magically grow out of it. I always figured most of them became cops or joined the military -- what better way to assert authority over people than having a mandate to do so? But i guess it's the parenting.

      • I get this feeling when you hear about those kids who were bullied until they snapped and went on a killing spree. I was tormented all through high school (before that too, but by a different group of people). One of the things they would do is arrive at my class before me and block the door to the classroom. They weren't in my class and they'd let everyone else through, but when I tried to get in, they'd close ranks so I couldn't get by as they hurled insults. One day, I literally saw red. And I'm not

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Well, then the bullies won.

        The children that harmed you did so because their brains didn't quite have all the wiring finished. Prefrontal lobes just didn't have the necessary growth at that point to allow them to see consequences of their actions or to really feel much empathy. All children, while described as innocent can also be thought of from the other direction. They're assholes and borderline sociopaths. That includes you as a child. Yes, you.

        Look, the reason that you remember those things ove

    • Remorse is possible for a bad decision made in the heat of the moment. This man, on the other hand, was deliberate and meticulous in his abuse of several people that lasted over a *decade*.

      People are routinely genuinely sorry for things they've spent decades doing (or more often than not, not doing). Do you think it's ever a good idea to waste a *decade* of your life plotting stupid revenge? There's so many better things you could do in 10 years, even if he didn't get caught it was a stupid waste of time.

      • If he spent 10 years doing this, had a mysterious change of heart, and apologized it would be one thing.

        Spending 10 years doing this and apologizing once you've been arrested and are facing charges, though, is something entirely different.

    • Remorse is possible for a bad decision made in the heat of the moment. This man, on the other hand, was deliberate and meticulous in his abuse of several people that lasted over a *decade*. These are not the actions of someone who made a mistake, these are the actions of a sociopath.

      We don't know that. The problem is that past decisions affect how you see the world. Admitting you made a bad decision has considerable emotional cost, which is why people try to avoid doing so. In the right circumstances this

    • by plopez ( 54068 )

      Hes so very very sorry:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

      Warning, there may be an advert

  • I've been considering the long list of artists that would laugh themselves wet over an intern reporting with "Xx_DubMaster93_xX just posted 'your just a fail poser go kill urself youre music sux' on the Youtube of your latest hit."

    "That's adorable. I'm gonna send an autographed photo signed 'To my number one fan'."

    This guy though, this Campbell passed name-calling about nine thousand miles back.
  • lure them out of their cave as the sun rises

  • by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Thursday September 11, 2014 @01:53PM (#47882955)

    So what? Crazy people do crazy stuff... Get him some psychological help. I don't see this as something you should be put in prison for. There is very little that you can do online that I'd say is worthy of jail time. Maybe if you hacked a reactor or something...

  • by Tempest_2084 ( 605915 ) on Thursday September 11, 2014 @02:13PM (#47883123)
    I'm a moderator on a popular forum and I've had something similar done to me by someone who thought I had wronged them (ironically I had nothing to do with what happened to him). Thankfully it only lasted a year or two and they did eventually get caught and stopped. But those two years were really stressful as I discovered that there really isn't much you can do without hard evidence. I can't imagine going through something like this for over 10 years. This guy needs some serious mental help and needs to make some sort of restitution to his victims. A simple "Sorry, I need help" isn't nearly enough. These days your online reputation can be your most important asset. Can you imagine if one of the people he did this to got turned down for a job because their name showed up on a child porn site or pro-Nazi group in a standard background check?
    • These days your online reputation can be your most important asset. Can you imagine if one of the people he did this to got turned down for a job because their name showed up on a child porn site or pro-Nazi group in a standard background check?

      Names aren't globally unique identifiers. So if having one like yours associated with questionable activity is enough to screw you, you're screwed.

    • A simple "Sorry, I need help" isn't nearly enough. These days your online reputation can be your most important asset. Can you imagine if one of the people he did this to got turned down for a job because their name showed up on a child porn site or pro-Nazi group in a standard background check?

      I can, but that wouldn't be his fault — at least, not entirely. That would be at least as much the fault of whoever runs the background check system, and whoever uses it and trusts it. And meanwhile, at least some of the people he did this to did likely mistreat him, and at least some of the others will have been complicit in that mistreatment, if only by cooperating with it if not directly contributing in some fashion. That obviously doesn't make what he did right, but people rarely snap without bein

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Thursday September 11, 2014 @02:17PM (#47883161)

    Especially in the US, a lot of these kinds of incidents end with the person getting a gun, going back to the office and wiping out those that have wronged them.

    It is interesting to see how much pent-up anger must have been in this guy's head to spend the amount of time and effort he did "getting his revenge." I don't have access to the case details, but that must have been a LOT of name-calling and jokes. If the guy really didn't leave his apartment for 7 months, that kind of sets a new record for obsessive behavior. I'm envisioning a whole bookshelf full of methodical notes about his tormentors.

    It doesn't excuse what he did, but it's kind of sad when stuff that should have been left behind in high school persists in the "adult" world. But it goes to show you that the quiet guy you're making fun of might be taking careful notes and biding his time. His co-workers must not have been too busy if they had all the time to crack jokes at his expense.

    • Especially in the US, a lot of these kinds of incidents end with the person getting a gun, going back to the office and wiping out those that have wronged them.

      I take it that these kinds of incident are vanishingly rare, then?

      Or is it just that your definition of "a lot" is pretty much the same as "almost noone"?

      Because, when all is said and done, the kind of shooting you describe is rare enough to make national news.

      Which is not actually the same thing as "common"....

  • "I'm sorry," and then under his breath "... that I got caught."

    Louder: "There, I said it. They can just file a Google 'Forget about me' form and then it's all better. Can I go home now?"
  • Freedom of speech, the law, yeah yeah. There's an old saying that I just made up: If you piss off enough people, you're going to get fucked up. Feel free to test and report on your findings. The nearest street corner is probably a good place to start. :)

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Working...