Gregory Elliott's Twitter Harassment Trial

-1=e^ipi · July 22, 2015

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

Well the degradation of free speech in Canada continues. Human rights commissions were bad enough. Now if you disagree with someone politically on twitter and they 'feel offended' you may go to jail.

I recommend you read the article, but basically a guy called Gregory Elliot didn't want to join in on a public shaming campaign on twitter with two feminists. This later developed into a political discussion, which later developed into the two individuals 'feeling offended' by his comments and therefore charging him with 'criminal harassment'. This has huge implications for online discourse, maybe even this website. The ruling of the trial will occur on October 6th. Although in Gregory Elliot's case damage is already done (lost his job).

Michael Hardner · July 22, 2015

Euler,

It sounds like you're right, but for two points:

- They don't actually say what exactly Elliot tweeted, unless I missed that

- The case is still out

Still needs a few links on this thread...

Black Dog · July 22, 2015

You should do us all a favor and follow your own suggestion.

Uh, I'm not the one making any claims requiring attribution. :rolleyes:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

Well the degradation of free speech in Canada continues. Human rights commissions were bad enough. Now if you disagree with someone politically on twitter and they 'feel offended' you may go to jail.

I recommend you read the article, but basically a guy called Gregory Elliot didn't want to join in on a public shaming campaign on twitter with two feminists. This later developed into a political discussion, which later developed into the two individuals 'feeling offended' by his comments and therefore charging him with 'criminal harassment'. This has huge implications for online discourse, maybe even this website. The ruling of the trial will occur on October 6th. Although in Gregory Elliot's case damage is already done (lost his job).

We've covered this on page one. Anyway, suffice to say your characterization of this case is grossly inaccurate. Quelle surprise.

Here's another Post piece on the subject that corrects some of the inaccuracies of Blatchford's while still balancing the sides.

Elliott is regarded by many as a notorious Twitter “troll” – an online commenter who deliberately, often profanely, seeks to provoke a hostile reaction. Elliott strongly disagreed with Guthrie’s tactics, and said so, crassly, numerous times. Guthrie took steps to block Elliott from accessing her tweets, but he was able to largely circumvent them and continue engaging with her and her online compatriots. It is those online activities that constitute the alleged stalking and harassment. (Elliott has also been charged with breaking a peace bond in relation to his sustained tweeting.)

Edited July 22, 2015 by Black Dog

Boges · July 22, 2015

If dude was trying to circumvent her efforts to block him, then that's really creepy.

I'm unsure that courts are the proper way to solve this however. Does he really stand to see jail time for E-stalking someone?

waldo · July 22, 2015

We've covered this on page one. Anyway, suffice to say your characterization of this case is grossly inaccurate. Quelle surprise.

an MRA characterization, no less

.

Here's another Post piece on the subject that corrects some of the inaccuracies of Blatchford's while still balancing the sides.

wow! Other than Blatchford attempting to click-pump her recent articles, how else can one explain the sudden reversal she has taken over past empathetic statements she's made toward the plaintiffs!

.

-1=e^ipi · July 22, 2015

After reading it I simply can't see how he can be found guilty.

You have too much faith in our justice system.

- They don't actually say what exactly Elliot tweeted, unless I missed that

It's based on 7 tweets without context apparently.

They did an interview with the son of Gregory Elliot at Rebel Media. It's long and I only listed to part of it, but the part about how Gregory Elliot was initially in jail and was only allowed out on bail 3 years ago under the agreement by the accuser that he couldn't use a computer or device connected to the internet. Given that he was a graphic designer, this means he couldn't work in his field, and he couldn't even research to build a case or defend himself properly. I guess our justice system is guilty until proven innocent if accused by a feminist.

Here is the issue covered by Karen Straughan:

Michael Hardner · July 22, 2015

It's based on 7 tweets without context apparently.

Without context we can't say anything about this case either way. It seems that the status of the case means nobody can say anything about it until the evidence is entered. We therefore can't make a judgment on our own, or maybe we can but we really shouldn't.

Black Dog · July 22, 2015

It's based on 7 tweets without context apparently.

Says who?

They did an interview with the son of Gregory Elliot at Rebel Media. It's long and I only listed to part of it, but the part about how Gregory Elliot was initially in jail and was only allowed out on bail 3 years ago under the agreement by the accuser that he couldn't use a computer or device connected to the internet. Given that he was a graphic designer, this means he couldn't work in his field, and he couldn't even research to build a case or defend himself properly. I guess our justice system is guilty until proven innocent if accused by a feminist.

Doesn't he have, you know, a lawyer?

Here is the issue covered by Karen Straughan:

Ah yes, the Kapo of the MRAs.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Charles Anthony
removed superfluously re-copied video

-1=e^ipi · July 22, 2015

Says who?

The son of Gregory Elliot.

Black Dog · July 23, 2015

The son of Gregory Elliot.

And why should we believe him?

Do you honestly think that seven tweets would be sufficient grounds for charges of criminal harassment, violating a peace bond laid and brought to trial?

-1=e^ipi · July 23, 2015

And why should we believe him?

That's what he was told by the prosecutors. This isn't just his opinion.

Do you honestly think that seven tweets would be sufficient grounds for charges of criminal harassment, violating a peace bond laid and brought to trial?

Morally or legally? Nether matters to SJWs. They are fighting the evil patriarchy and anyone that opposes them is a racist/sexist/bigot. So ends justify the means.

Black Dog · July 23, 2015

That's what he was told by the prosecutors. This isn't just his opinion.

So he says.

Morally or legally? Nether matters to SJWs. They are fighting the evil patriarchy and anyone that opposes them is a racist/sexist/bigot. So ends justify the means.

It would probably matter to the Crown, who wouldn't take a case they were sure they couldn't win.

-1=e^ipi · July 24, 2015

The crown isn't an infallible entity. It is represented by people, some of which are SJWs.

waldo · July 24, 2015

The crown isn't an infallible entity. It is represented by people, some of which are SJWs.

any of your brother-in-arms MRA's?

Big Guy · January 22, 2016

A Toronto man has been found not guilty of criminal harassment on Twitter — a case that was widely viewed as the first test of how Canadian courts would handle harassment on the social media website.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/22/verdict-in-alleged-harassment-of-toronto-feminists-could-change-the-twitterverse.html

Looks like what is harassment to one person is debate to another.

Throughout the trial, Elliott’s lawyer, Chris Murphy, argued Elliott was simply disagreeing with Guthrie and Reilly — both are advocates of women’s rights — and engaging in an ideological debate.

Do you agree with this precedent?

bush_cheney2004 · January 22, 2016

I love this part....something I have to repeat often here on MLW:

“Canadian politicos who decide to dish insults out to their opponents cannot reasonably be fearful if their political opponents decide to dish it right back,” lawyer Chris Murphy argued.

If you can't handle American social media, don't use it.

TimG · January 22, 2016

A Toronto man has been found not guilty of criminal harassment on Twitter — a case that was widely viewed as the first test of how Canadian courts would handle harassment on the social media website.

The case should have never gone to trial. The crown is guilty of serious misconduct.

Boges · January 22, 2016

Twitter is pretty awful.

I think these women were playing ball and if he didn't directly threaten her, the case shouldn't have gone to trial.

I hope he has some civil recourse for his legal costs against these women.

The_Squid · January 22, 2016

Twitter is pretty awful.

I think these women were playing ball and if he didn't directly threaten her, the case shouldn't have gone to trial.

I hope he has some civil recourse for his legal costs against these women.

Why would "the women" have to pay a cent? Do you even know how our legal system works? "The women" didn't charge this clown with a crime, The Crown did.

Edited January 22, 2016 by The_Squid

Boges · January 22, 2016

Why would "the women" have to pay a cent? Do you even know how our legal system works? "The women" didn't charge this clown with a crime, The Crown did.

They didn't press charges?

The_Squid · January 22, 2016

They didn't press charges?

Of course they didn't "press charges". They reported him to the police, the police collected evidence and made recommendations to Crown and Crown charged him with harassment.

I don't disagree with the judge's decision, although I don't know much about it... the guy sounds like a complete douchebag, but I guess that's not illegal.

TimG · January 22, 2016

They didn't press charges?

The Crown has a duty to filter cases and tell people with bogus claims to go pound salt. The Crown failed in its obligation in this case. Unfortunately, the bar for malicious prosecution suit is fairly high so I don't think Elliot has a chance against the crown (proving incompetence is not enough).

The_Squid · January 22, 2016

The Crown has a duty to filter cases and tell people with bogus claims to go pound salt. The Crown failed in its obligation in this case. Unfortunately, the bar for malicious prosecution suit is fairly high so I don't think Elliot has a chance against the crown (proving incompetence is not enough).

Everyone who is found not guilty doesn't suffer a malicious prosecution. Just because the complainants were feminists doesn't mean that the case shouldn't have been brought forward.

Obviously, the Crown thought they had a good case.

Edited January 22, 2016 by The_Squid

ReeferMadness · January 22, 2016

The case should have never gone to trial. The crown is guilty of serious misconduct.

I find myself agreeing with Tim. Kinda.

Gotta run outside and watch the pigs fly.

Big Guy · January 22, 2016

Everyone who is found not guilty doesn't suffer a malicious prosecution. Just because the complainants were feminists doesn't mean that the case shouldn't have been brought forward.

Obviously, the Crown thought they had a good case.

Not necessarily. This prosecution may have taken place in an attempt to establish triggers on how to deal with another new technologies issue. I can not read minds but historically, when an issue comes up for which there is no precedent it tries to set a standard of how to deal with new issues.

I suggest that this result has established what is NOT illegal. We will see more cases to find that trigger that makes use of the social media that is illegal and a standard will be set.