Consequences
I'm glad to read that there are consequences for those trolls who seek to hurt others.
I disagree. It's disgusting that a person was jailed for what he said. While his comments may have been offensive, they are by no means dangerous, and cannot be equated to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. This is a major setback for freedom of speech.
Colm was not exercising his right of freedom of speech. You seem to make a common mistake, freedom of speech is a right that exist to protect an individual who is exposing political thoughts from repercussions from government. In a wider context is the right to express and disseminate information and ideas. It's not the right to say anything that pass in your mind and surely it's not the right to insult or "troll" other people without reason or without consequences.
I hate trolls along with the next person besides me (unleashed they go to 4chan) but the Gov't has no right to arrest someone for being a asshole. This is a step backwards for freedom of speech.
As soon as you start limiting what freedom of speech covers, then it isn't freedom of speech anymore. If freedom of speech only applies to 'approved' things, then calling it freedom of speech is a joke. It either applies for everything or nothing.
Just to add a bit of information to the debate:
The freedom of speech in this case is granted through the European Convention of Human Rights. Well, locally too, but the EU law is the one usually used as it allows extra appeals etc.
The freedom of speech provision allows member states to enact legislation to limit this "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
The emphasis has been added by me. It would appear to be applicable here. The question, of course, remains whether these restrictions are appropriate or not.
"... the protection of ... morals .." That could cover almost anything! I see very bad things coming from this law.
Perhaps I should have started my quote slightly earlier in the passage; I have omitted the word necessary which is actualy quite important. The law states that when limiting under these provisions it must be necessary in order to ensure these things are maintained.
Therefore, the, eh, 'hero' of this story could argue that this is not necessary to protect morals. He could point out that even if the court feels the offence is reasonable and necessary, the sentence is beyond what is necessary and perhaps a fine would be more appropriate.
Whilst I can lay out this argument happily enough, assessing its chances before the European Court of Human Rights (or indeed the UK Supreme Court) is beyond me, however.
Rekov by your definition nowhere in the world exist freedom of speech because every country put some limits on it. And to be honest your dualistic idea of "It either applies for everything or nothing" is a bit naive. It has been a great conquest for humankind the development of the concept of freedom of speech but like everything it has to be applied with some common sense not with a everything go attitude. In your interpretation what would happen to stalking victims? The stalker would have the right to continue to telephone, to text or to speak to his victim saying whatever please him, he's just exercising his freedom of speech. To conclude there is the right to freedom of speech but there is also the right to not be the subject of abusive behaviour and they have to be carefully balanced. Both of them if applied to their extreme consequences would bring more bad things than good.