I agree that there is a distinction between harassment and trolling. However, I disagree that every act the kid did was harassment under the MPC.
Model Penal Code Section 250.4
A person commits a petty misdemeanor if, with purpose to harass another, he:
(1) makes a telephone call without purpose of legitimate communication; or
(2) insults, taunts or challenges another in a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response; or
(3) makes repeated communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language; or
(4) subjects another to an offensive touching; or
(5) engages in any other course of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose of the actor.
MPC 2.02:
(1) Minimum Requirements of Culpability. Except as provided in Section 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.
(2) Kinds of Culpability Defined.
(a) Purposely.
A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and
(ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.
The MPC requires the offensive conduct PLUS the
purpose to harass another. The article linked in the OP gives only one instance of what I think qualifies as harassment:
The day after Natasha's death in February, Duffy posted comments including "I fell asleep on the track lolz" on the Facebook tribute page created by her brother James, 17.
On the official memorial page set up by her brother James he wrote: "I fell asleep on the track lolz," and posted images of her with text saying she was spoilt. Other trolls joined the abuse.
Since those postings were on a page that was in memoriam to natasha/tasha, I can see the act being considered as purposefully harassing another. However, the kid's creation of mock-memorial pages, although repulsive, is not directed at any person. If the kid had sent links to family members or some such, I would accept harassment. 250.4(5) goes a long way, but I dont think it should reach far enough to convict someone for setting up a facebook page mocking a deceased person. The MPC requires that the conduct be purposeful and harassing to another. That, to me, reads that the actor must intend his victim. Again, in the case of natasha, his intended victim could very reasonably be James (creator of the memorial page). However, in the other cases, the actor (the kid) lacks a target. His target is generally "the world wide web," but he does not intend to harass everyone that is online. I can see harassment if he sent links (or whatever) of his mock-pages to the survivors of the deceased kids, but the article doesnt state that.
It seems somewhat analogous to the Westboro Baptist douche bags. They don't intend their message of hate directed at any specific person, but at society as a whole (which is somehow OK). However, I recognize that their speech is protected on religious grounds, as it should be.
