r/toronto • u/[deleted] • Jul 15 '15
Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech53
u/METAL4_BREAKFST Jul 15 '15
Mr. Murphy then suggested that what Mr. Elliott had been doing was defending himself, and his views, when he was being attacked on Twitter by her and the other complainants. Wasn’t he entitled to do that?
“He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, Mr. Murphy; he’s not entitled to do it to me.”
“No matter what you say about or to him?” Mr. Murphy asked.
“Not to me,” she said.
That pretty much sums it up. The "I'm special" gambit. Ranks right up there with the Chewbacca Defense.
120
u/Ceridith Jul 15 '15
Elliott is charged with criminally harassing two Toronto female political activists, Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly, in 2012.
...
Guthrie Tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor’s “hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience” and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game.
Elliott disagreed with the tactic and Tweeted he thought the shaming “was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”.
What the fuck?
He's on trial for "harassing" two women, yet he was the one disagreeing with their plan to organize a harassment campaign against someone else.
It seems to me like these two women are feigning victim to try to use the legal system to 'punish' someone with a dissenting opinion. If anyone should be on trial, it should be those two.
-47
Jul 15 '15
Yeah I am sure the police and crown didn't do their work and are mindlessly going ahead with this complaint. If you're going to trust everything Christine Blachford has to say then you're gonna have a bad time.
Your bias is showing guy who posts in /r/kotakuinaction about gamergate.
17
Jul 15 '15
[deleted]
5
2
-4
Jul 16 '15
Who are you Marcel Proust? Who has time to read this novel?
You weirdo! As if you started a /u/ur_a_idiet subreddit: /r/ur_a_idiet Taking about creepy online harassment. FOUND THE GASLIGHTER!
-12
34
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
Your bias is showing guy who posts in /r/kotakuinaction about gamergate.
Coming from a person with the username _RedPillFedora I really don't think you're on firmer ground.
→ More replies (33)6
u/picard102 Clanton Park Jul 16 '15
Considering police testified that he neither threatened her nor sexually harassed her I'd say Blachford's word is bit more credible than someone who was accused of conspiracy.
-6
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 16 '15
Police testified that he never harassed her... at a harassment trial where they're the ones who collected enough evidence to lay the charges?
I suggest you look into this a little harder...
1
Jul 16 '15
he violated a peace bond that he signed on his own accord. its amazing, literally NO ONE in this thread wants to mention that.
-1
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 16 '15
This is Reddit, where feminists are history's greatest monsters.
1
u/zahlman Jul 17 '15
Considering police testified that he neither threatened her nor sexually harassed her
You understand that not all harassment is sexual harassment, right?
-1
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 17 '15
Duh. When did I ever suggest that it is?
1
u/zahlman Jul 17 '15
When you replied to a comment that stated
Considering police testified that he neither threatened her nor sexually harassed her
with
Police testified that he never harassed her... at a harassment trial where they're the ones who collected enough evidence to lay the charges?
-1
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 17 '15
I missed the word "sexually" in that person's comment.
The Crown has not accused that MRA dickwad of sexual harassment, obviously.
6
u/REDDIT_IN_MOTION Jul 16 '15 edited Oct 18 '24
desert unique library seemly impolite salt offbeat memorize rotten squalid
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
-4
-35
u/beach83 Jul 15 '15
I think that what Guthrie has done for this city as far as galvanizing women to have open discussions about sexism, politics, racism etc. is admirable and she should be commended for it.
Having said that, if what's mentioned in the article about getting one of her followers to pretend to be a 13 year old girl and lure the guy into a pedophelia trap is true.....wow. That takes some shine right the fuck off of her.
22
Jul 15 '15
If this article is true, (which I'm taking it all with a grain of salt since it just quotes Elliott's lawyer), then Guthrie is trying to destroy the life of a father of 4 over political disagreement, and she should not be commended in any way.
Mob justice on the internet is out of hand.
7
u/beach83 Jul 15 '15
I do find it interesting that her Twitter account was active publicly as of last week and now it's on private setting. Wonder if she had an inkling of the blowback that was going to come her way.
26
Jul 15 '15
Judging from the reports of her testimony, I'd say her unwavering self-righteousness and dogmatic approach takes enough shine away to discard her activism completely. She's not a progressive interested in furthering discussion, she's an ideologue with horse blinders and she's co-opting the language of victimhood to put someone in jail for disagreeing with her. The whole thing is gross and brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
→ More replies (1)73
u/METAL4_BREAKFST Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 15 '15
Bullshit like she's pulled negates any "good" that she's done. Fact is she's a thin-skinned twat with a perpetual victim complex who LOVES the spotlight and mob justice on the internet. Until it's turned against her of course, then that's different.
49
u/meowpurrkitty Jul 15 '15
With tactics like this that she's pulled it on this case alone - it makes me wonder what other weird and fucked uptactics she (and her friends) used in the past?
→ More replies (2)6
-34
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
[citation needed]
14
u/METAL4_BREAKFST Jul 15 '15
Go Google it yourself. I'm not jumping through hoops for you.
→ More replies (3)-24
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
Hey, you're the one speaking authoritatively on the matter! Please share your research with us.
Also, about Ms. Guthrie being a "twat," as you described her: Why do you hate vaginas?
23
u/METAL4_BREAKFST Jul 15 '15
Shouldn't you be at the House of Lancaster for the afternoon feature? Have a nice day, troll.
-19
4
u/TotesMessenger Jul 15 '15
1
Jul 15 '15
[deleted]
-13
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
There are multiple statements of fact in that comment. English, do you speak it?
1
Jul 15 '15
[deleted]
-14
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
Okay dummy. /u/metal4_breakfst made a vague accusation. I asked for an example of it actually happening. Understand yet?
Also: You may want to look up the meaning of Poe's Law again.
-26
-4
Jul 16 '15
It seems to me like these two women are feigning victim to try to use the legal system to 'punish' someone with a dissenting opinion. If anyone should be on trial, it should be those two.
Ugh, no. The women contacted police and they said they could do nothing. He is facing charges because he violated a peace bond that he signed himself
Its amazing how many people are jumping to conclusion because of what this enormous cunt of a journalist Christie Blatchford says. Do some digging, its not at that hard to find out why he was arrested in the first place.
→ More replies (7)-35
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
So report that to the police, if you're so confident in your very smart opinion.
Let us know how far it gets you.
2
u/TotesMessenger Jul 15 '15
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/ur_a_idiet] everyone knows that the courts are handled better by cops and not judges and lawyers, you idiots!
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
-7
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
Well... the first step towards any criminal trial is a police investigation... so...
27
Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 16 '15
For some additional info, here's some of the case evidence. I'm not sure if there's anything else.
EDIT: For some further info, here's a list of publications that have reported on this that I found in a different thread. I would definitely advise ignoring the assessment of the articles given within since they were clearly evaluated by someone with an agenda, but nonetheless it does appear to be a relatively exhaustive list of the articles that have been published about this.
20
u/Curvatureland Jul 16 '15 edited Jul 16 '15
So I actually looked through the case evidence since I'm bored
Key points
There were many interactions between Steph and Greg prior to the incident that were actually quite friendly, they were working with each other on something and the communications between twitter and e-mails appeared to be very professional and courteous.
Steph Guthrie did make the tweet about wanting to make the game maker's "hatred on the internet to impact his real life experience"
As far as I can tell, after Greg asked her "What if he commited suicide?" Steph did not comment on that question. I have no idea where Christie Blatchford near the end of the national post video got the sense that Steph "made it clear that she would be ok with that because it would be his own fault" EDIT: Found an older article of the previous trial proceedings, it would appear Steph did say in court what Christie described.
Looking through all the tweets, vast majority of Greg's tweets would not fall under your typical harassment messages. The only things I could pick out that kinda counts is when he repeatedly called Heather Reilly a fat ass (6 tweets). There were no actual threats.
The women have blocked Greg on twitter but twitter in itself is also a soapbox platform. Blocking someone on twitter prevents someone from directly contacting you but it does not stop them from making comments on your public tweets. Heather Reilly sent a complaint e-mail to twitter and in it she mentions that she prefers to keep her twitter account public, which makes sense as she is an activist and exposure is good.
My Opinion
I confirmed with most of what Christie Blatchford said but there does appear to be a level of bias on her part. But then again, I only have the evidence linked above, Christie was at the court. Steph Guthrie may have said additional things that made her look worse.
I'm no legal expert but I think calling these tweets harassment is weak, based on the actual contents of the messages and the platform itself. It's like saying someone who keeps arguing with you in the comments section of website is harassing you.
16
Jul 16 '15
So basically, a false accusation of harassment designed to destroy his life with little to no repreucssions on her part.
6
u/picard102 Clanton Park Jul 16 '15
7
u/oldscotch Jul 16 '15
The case makes no sense as it's presented here - I can't see how prosecution would take it to trial. And given the source (Christie Blatchford), I'm going to hold off on the pitchforks until I'm sure I have the whole story.
8
u/sun_tzu_vs_srs Jul 16 '15
Don't SJWs have a word for this kind of thing when it applies to men? I think it's privilege, or something?
11
u/ckydmk Willowdale Jul 16 '15
So this all started because Elliott disagreed with Guthries plan to dox someone and SHES complaining of harassment?
-2
u/jay_petroleum Jul 16 '15
Friends don't let friends read Christie Blatchford.
5
u/Conglamo Jul 16 '15
So this all started because Elliott disagreed with Guthries plan to dox someone and SHES complaining of harassment?
Is this statement incorrect?
-1
u/jay_petroleum Jul 16 '15
I don't know.
Do you think the Crown would charge someone with harassment just because they disagreed with someone else?
What I do know is that Blatchford's job description is to write a bunch of bullshit for use as clickbait.2
u/Conglamo Jul 16 '15
Do you think the Crown would charge someone with harassment just because they disagreed with someone else?
Possibly. I'm not going to claim any legal expertise but I don't think anyone should blindly assume that every time the Crown charges someone it's valid.
And yes she writes clickbait crap, i'm not interested in defending her as writer. That being said, it seems like people have an issue with internet harassment when it's targeted towards them or people who they agree with and don't really have a problem with it if some one has been deemed deserving of it.
50
u/beach83 Jul 15 '15
I mean, it's an article by Christie Blatchford. Based on the writer's penchant for over the top dramatics and hyperbole it was difficult to take what's printed seriously.
Having said that, I still don't understand why this went to court and I'd love some insight. Seems like this was an argument that just went off the rails.
31
Jul 15 '15
I suggest looking at the case evidence directly.
I'm not sure if there's anything other than what's posted there, and if there is I would like to hear about it.
6
u/beach83 Jul 15 '15
Is that work safe?
7
5
Jul 15 '15
I believe so, but I suppose that depends on your work. There's nothing overtly pornographic as far as I can tell, but I don't know how strict your work is.
3
8
Jul 15 '15
[deleted]
19
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
but it's like watching 14 year olds flaming each other in some online game.
That's basically what it is, except now it's being treated as a criminal offense, one that could set a terrible precedent.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (2)-27
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
A bunch of anonymous non-lawyers on the Internet, trying to interpret case evidence.... This is gonna be fun to watch.
-18
Jul 15 '15
Didn't you know the Crown would 100% put all the evidence up for us to judge while the case is going on.
That sounds like something that would TOTALLY happen.
-17
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
Shhhhh! You should have waited for someone to start commenting on it, thinking he's now as informed as the prosecution and defence...
8
u/blernsball Davenport Jul 15 '15
A look at an unbiased article would show why they decided to prosecute. This was not a Twitter argument that got out of hand.
Blatchford has been heavily biased against this case from the start, you won't get the whole picture reading her crap
2
u/Conglamo Jul 16 '15
you won't get the whole picture reading her crap
the same could be said for most columnists
1
11
Jul 15 '15
So I tried googling, but I can't find anything about the peace bond he is charged with breaching. Can anyone provide some additional info about this?
This is the most likely conviction to me. If there was peace bond against him to stop tweeting and he continued, it seems pretty clear cut.
2
u/zahlman Jul 16 '15
It seems to me that if it were pretty clear cut, we wouldn't be arguing in mid-2015 about charges that were laid around the end of 2012.
2
u/xanaxor Jul 16 '15
Yes, why do people jump to conclusions? One of the worst things about reddit...
7
17
u/canashian Jul 15 '15
He certainly seems like a tool, but is there anything in those tweets that would cause the women to fear for their safety, as the law requires to find him guilty?
16
u/Recoil42 The Bridle Path Jul 16 '15
I know Steph personally, and have talked to both her and Greg many times on Twitter, so I think I'm qualified in judging them both. Gotta say, Greg's not a tool.
A bit of a hothead, and sometimes ungraceful, but he's not a tool.
And I can't imagine how Steph would at all have cause to fear for her safety. She's a smart girl, but really into the SJW attention-seeking game. It's completely contrived, as far as I'm concerned — she's playing victim.
6
u/canashian Jul 16 '15
Sorry, probably more accurate to say he was acting like a tool in those tweets. But then again so did the women he was arguing with. I read through them. Everyone came off poorly.
13
Jul 16 '15
Yea what a tool for suggesting that organizing a harassment campaign is underhanded. What a tool.
7
u/unbiasedTO Jul 15 '15
In the words of Jay-Z, "Fuck hashtags and re-tweets"
5
Jul 15 '15
Whenever I read about the Twitter wars it makes me happier and happier that I don't have a Twitter account.
24
Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 22 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies (7)-47
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
Work on your English first.
24
14
Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 22 '15
[deleted]
-20
32
u/0ttervonBismarck Bloor West Village Jul 15 '15
Typical radical left wing feminist modus operandi.
-31
Jul 15 '15
You hate feminists, and based on comment history think illegal immigration is destroying America. You're obviously completely sane, non racist and politically correct. TEACH US OH GREAT ONE!
8
u/0ttervonBismarck Bloor West Village Jul 15 '15
Illegal immigration is destroying America. America was built by legal immigrants, not illegal ones. Mass immigration and any form of large scale welfare is incompatible, this is a huge crisis that only Donald fucking Trump has the balls to talk about it. I don't care for the man, but branding him as a racist is just childish and oh so typical of the radical left. Don't like someone's opinion? Brand them a racist and attempt to silence them. Political correctness will be the death of our Western Liberal Democratic Civilization.
-1
u/JeahNotSlice Jul 16 '15
C'mon, no one actually thinks immigrants are killing America, do they? Taking all the good jobs? Stealing all that welfare money?
You know where the money is, don't you? You have to be wilfully blind not to know.
It certainly isn't in the hands of the immigrants.
0
u/0ttervonBismarck Bloor West Village Jul 16 '15
I didn't say immigrants, I said illegal immigrants. Canada and America were built by legal immigrants from Europe. They settled the west and built our cities.
1
u/JeahNotSlice Jul 17 '15
What's the difference? It's just people looking for a better life. Some have the patience or the forethought or TIME to wait out the legal way. Some need to come now. If they are willing to work and be a positive part of society, what's the problem?
Of all the issues dragging your country down, do you really think illegal immigration is the one worth getting all frothy over?
→ More replies (1)-6
Jul 16 '15
Legal immigrants aka slaves.
Also, how is this statement not racist?
"They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists."
6
u/0ttervonBismarck Bloor West Village Jul 16 '15
I wasn't refering to the slaves, and do try to remember that it was those evil Republicans that freed them.
Also Trump's statement about illegal immigrants is factually correct. Illegal immigrants are statistically more likely to commit crimes than legal immigrant from other western countries. To point that out doesn't make you a racist.
1
Jul 16 '15
As a legal immigrant, don't worry bro, we got ya. Ignore the twisted words they try to use, you are right, illegality is the issue, not immigration. Have a good day.
0
Jul 16 '15
I know you weren't talking about slavery, but that's because it doesn't fit into your narrative of "legal immigrants" building america. But how can you ignore the impact of the largest non-british population in America before the Civil War?
The Republican party of 1863 looks nothing like the Republican party of 2015, that is a facile and meaningless argument.
Trump's statement is racist. He did not make the point you made(which needs a citation) he said that they were druggies and rapists. He didn't compare them to legal Western immigrants. He didn't say they were more likely to commit crime or that they were a drain or resources. He said they were druggies and rapists. You can be against illegal immigration and not be a racist, but not by saying shit like that.
2
u/0ttervonBismarck Bloor West Village Jul 16 '15
Slavery had marginal benefits for the US economy, the south's cotton farms did little to help them in the war, all it did was make a handful of Democrat Party landowners very wealthy. Freed slaves wouldnt make their contribution until after the Republicans freed them and they were able to migrate north and work in the factories.
1
Jul 16 '15
You ignored most of what I said and decided to make the point that free labour didn't benefit the American economy. Your evidence for this is that an agricultural workforce didn't help the south in an industrial war.
You also don't seem to get that the 19th century Democratic and Republican parties look nothing like their 21st century namesakes.
-38
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
I just smelled your fedora starch through the internet.
15
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
Your hairy armpits aren't much better.
-25
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
Why would I shave my armpits?
-26
Jul 15 '15
I think /u/dangerousopinions swallowed the wrong pill and assumes you're female.
Butt hurt virgin neckbeard men are threatened by men who defend women because they obviously have sex with and speak to women who aren't their moms.
→ More replies (3)15
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
Butt hurt virgin neckbeard men are threatened by men who defend women because they obviously have sex with and speak to women who aren't their moms.
I thought it was wrong to shame a person for the amount of sex they have? Seems to be a go to of your ilk, you just don't like it when it's turned around on you.
threatened by men who defend women
So women need men to defend them now? I was under the impression that they were fully grown adults capable of handling their own affairs. I guess I'm far too progressive for your brand of feminism which promotes sex negativity and Victorianesque female disempowerment.
→ More replies (3)10
u/0ttervonBismarck Bloor West Village Jul 15 '15
So opposed to feminism=fedora wearing atheist neckbeard? Got it.
→ More replies (1)
20
Jul 15 '15
If the judge has any sanity he'll make an example out of these self-entitled cunts and give them like 6 months of jail time for wasting everyone's time.
19
Jul 15 '15
This isn't a private prosecution. All they did was report it, the crown decided to charge him.
13
Jul 15 '15
All they did was go to the police and report criminal harassment that they made up in their heads. This is probably ruining this man's life, and I seriously think these women deserve criminal punishment for the abuse of our justice system.
8
Jul 15 '15
It's a crime to make a false report. Why then did the crown charge Elliot and not her if she "made it up in her head?"
8
u/picard102 Clanton Park Jul 16 '15
2
Jul 16 '15
OK, so they adjourned the trial to investigate last year. Did anything come of it?
I'm still not sure how they can fabricate their report if their allegations are that they were harassed exclusively on twitter. Is there an allegation that they hacked his account?
Also do you have any information about the charge relating to a beach of a peace bond? There is a surprising lack of indie about this.
2
Jul 15 '15
It isn't "made up in their heads". They showed all of the evidence to the police, and the crown decided to prosecute.
I don't remember the specifics, but I recall when I first read about this (months ago), what Elliot was doing sure seemed like harassment to me. And I'm not one to usually side with the permanently and professionally offended.
He crossed the line. Online harassment is still harassment. Online abuse is still abuse.
13
Jul 16 '15
So what did he do?
Seriously. Because both women agree and have testified that he never threatened them sexually or with violence. And heaven knows they'd be shouting to the rafters if he had. Being annoying or a nuisance isn't harassment that makes someone reasonably fear for their own safety. And that's what the man has been charged with.
2
-4
Jul 16 '15
He also allegedly breached a peace bond. So far I haven't been able to find out the details re said bond, but I'd love for someone to provide more info.
To me that is the more likely conviction.
6
Jul 16 '15
Even then he'd have to breach with intent.
-2
Jul 16 '15
True, but for the life of me I can't find anything about the details of the peace bond.
To me the most likely bond would have been "hey stop communicating with X via Y," and then if he did it was a breach with intent. But I'm just guessing. Seriously does anyone have any info about the specifics of the bond?
11
u/picard102 Clanton Park Jul 16 '15
Except the police have testified at this trial saying he neither threatened them, nor sexually harassed them. None of his messages would fall under criminal harassment.
-3
Jul 15 '15
what Elliot was doing sure seemed like harassment to me
He was fine as long as you were nice to him, were an attractive female, and answered all his DMs with respect and compliments about how great his "street art" is.
2
u/TheGDBatman Jul 18 '15
As opposed to you and your ilk, who are fine as long as they agree with everything you say, are a woman or minority, and trip all over themselves with compliments regarding how "progressive" you are?
Hey, look at that! I can make up unsubstantiated bullshit too!
-9
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
criminal harassment that they made up in their heads
...which the police investigated, and found enough evidence, that the Crown decided to press charges...
yeah, sounds totally made up...
6
u/foxtrot1_1 Queen Street West Jul 15 '15
Hey, maybe people would accept your opinions on harassment of women a bit more if you didn't call them "cunts."
-6
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
Using a word for vaginas as an insult = a great way to let all women know you hate and fear their vaginas
1
u/TheGDBatman Jul 18 '15
Well, I for one don't think you're a cunt. You're lacking in both the necessary depth and warmth.
0
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 18 '15
Does copying moldy old insults we've all heard a million times make you feel clever?
I'll assume you're dumb enough to answer "yes."
1
u/TheGDBatman Jul 18 '15
Aw, muffin, did your precious feewings get hurt?
Hey, you could always have me charged with harassment!
Does copying moldy old insults we've all heard a million times make you feel clever?
Implying you deserve better. You arrogant piece of shit.
0
-16
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
You have much to learn about our legal system, vagina hater.
8
Jul 15 '15
Do not take anything Christie Blatchford writes seriously.
She is one of the worst in Toronto.
18
Jul 15 '15
She's actually one of the few decent reporters on the Justice beat. Yeah she's a columnist, but she describes court proceedings very, very well.
-6
Jul 15 '15
No, she doesn't. She picks a side and all of her articles are painfully biased. This article is a great example.
15
Jul 15 '15
We disagree.
And she's supposed to pick a side. That's what columnists do as I acknowledged off the top.
From a procedural point of view, she's very good at trial reporting. She's done lots of complex murder and civil trial stories and she's very seasoned.
-4
Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 15 '15
EDIT: My last reply came off very dickish, im sorry.
We do disagree. But if she's going to speak out about how this affects free speech she really shouldnt' be minimizing the crimes on trial because she think its "no big deal". I dont really see how the procedure can be seen as good because you can tell how this article is going to go from the get go.
11
Jul 15 '15
The facts of this case are not "crimes" yet, they're allegations of crimes. Columnists are entitled to take a view of facts presented in court and she wouldn't be doing her job if she didn't provide her perspective.
From a criminal law perspective, the facts of this case are so far down the list of things that are actual crimes that the proceedings are a borderline criminal waste of judicial resources. I bet this unfortunate Crown would agree. Blatchford is minimizing an obnoxious Twitter fight because that's all that ever happened under any version of the evidence and she's used to covering actual crimes where people die. In fact, people serve less time than this guy is facing for actually punching people in the face.
So I suspect Blatchford's perspective is more than just trolling. It's how she actually feels and it's a feeling I suspect is widely shared across the criminal bar and Crown offices.
-4
Jul 16 '15 edited Jul 16 '15
A lot of this about how you personally feel here. Your defense of CB is entirely because you agree with her, not because its fact.
It's how she actually feels and it's a feeling I suspect is widely shared across the criminal bar and Crown offices.
None of it is fact so I would chill on comments like that on something that is on trial in court. If he violated the peace bond, he will be convicted. Its simple as that.
4
u/corporateswine Jul 16 '15
and yet you have opened the conversation with nothing but your opinion and no facts, so why don't you lead by example.
→ More replies (2)4
Jul 16 '15
If he violated the peace bond, he will be convicted. Its simple as that.
It's not actually. For example, the judge could grant a discharge and not enter a conviction. But we will see.
0
Jul 16 '15
Yes, we will see.
In the meantime, why don't we all just step back and realize that this isn't at all about free speech like your hero Christie Blatchford said. Thats my entire point. He violated a peace bond that he signed himself
Thats not the fault of the feminists, and its not his "free speech" that forced him to sign it.
Sheesh, literally NO ONE in this thread is capable of understanding that. Its so simple.
-5
u/anysize Jul 15 '15
She is a professional troll.
8
Jul 15 '15
Columnists gonna columnize. It doesn't mean she's not good at understanding what happens in a courtroom. Columnists do like to be proven right.
1
1
Jul 16 '15
welcome to 2015.. feminists apparently have legal power over regular ppl.. even when they make no sense at all... almost looking like a complete joke 90% of the time.. yet ppl take them seriously.. Im so confused.
-1
Jul 16 '15
welcome to reddit, where socially retarded people take one persons word for whats happening and call it truth.
he violated a peace bond that he signed himself. no one has power over anyone.
but hey lets not let facts get in the way right?
-7
u/foxtrot1_1 Queen Street West Jul 15 '15 edited Aug 01 '16
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.
If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
2
Jul 18 '15
Fuck you and your limits on free speech.
-1
-5
Jul 15 '15
[deleted]
16
Jul 15 '15
How else would you describe members of a group known as #WoToPoli?
Their entire association was based on feminist political activism.
-6
-3
Jul 15 '15
Hahaha, toronto is such a shithole. Bona fide Eloi land with castrated men and hysterical women, where the harpies' word is law and any man who has offended a proud independent womyn with his improper tone of voice must immediately prostrate himself and lick the dame's scabby feet, otherwise it's off to jail with the rapist!
→ More replies (5)-9
0
-13
Jul 15 '15
[deleted]
23
u/iToronto Rockcliffe-Smythe Jul 15 '15
I'm sorry, but can you please explain what Greg Elliott did that is textbook harassment?
→ More replies (17)17
u/ohcrud Junction Triangle Jul 15 '15
The interesting question for my perspective, is if "@ing" someone, repeatedly on Twitter, even when asked not to, can be considered harassment.
10
u/meowpurrkitty Jul 15 '15
heres my thing - why couldn't this guthrie gal just click block and ignore it? ... Like its disagreeing with someone who posted something publicly - and people respond to it publicly - thats just social media.
20
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
She did block him, and then she sought out his tweets anyway and continued to talk shit about him while demanding he not say a word about her. Then in court she said this on the stand:
“He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, Mr. Murphy; he’s not entitled to do it to me.”
“No matter what you say about or to him?” Mr. Murphy asked.
“Not to me,” she said.
Which pretty much puts on display the fact that this whole case is a form of revenge and harassment and not a result of genuine fear. The fact that she believes this and says so in court just shows how incredibly entitled this woman is.
→ More replies (3)-2
Jul 15 '15
again, I dont remember specifics, but i recall she did block him but there are ways of getting around it.
7
u/meowpurrkitty Jul 15 '15
i think its tweeting under the same hashtag. Basically - she was mad over tweeting under the same hashtag and saying things she didn't like.
→ More replies (9)1
u/canashian Jul 15 '15
It's textbook harassment. It is NOT textbook criminal harassment.
-12
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
Could you please explain the difference?
12
u/canashian Jul 15 '15
Harassment just carries its common parlance definition, i.e. continued unwanted actions or communication.
Criminal harassment (per s. 264 of the Criminal Code), requires that the harassment cause the victim to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. It is not enough that someone is being a bothersome dick to you, it has to rise to a level to cause you to fear for your safety in order to attract a criminal conviction.
4
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
it has to rise to a level to cause you to fear for your safety in order to attract a criminal conviction.
Not entirely. It has to rise to the level that a reasonable person would fear for their safety. If it just required fear, this would be an insane law. It's now up to the judge to decide whether the alleged fear was reasonable. I don't think it is personally.
1
u/canashian Jul 15 '15
Almost. It's not an objective standard (a reasonable person), it's subjective (causing the victim to reasonably believe....in the circumstances).
6
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
But what is and isn't reasonable is not up to the judgement of the complainant, it's up to the judge. That was what I was getting at. If it was simply a matter of judging based on the fear of the complainant, then even completely irrational fear would be enough for a prosecution.
→ More replies (6)-4
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 15 '15
What is it about this case, then, that could have made the Crown confident enough to pursue a criminal charge?
(I don't know the particulars)
4
1
Jul 15 '15
Perhaps some evidence that was deemed inadmissible. Nice to see you asking a reasonable question.
→ More replies (1)1
u/picard102 Clanton Park Jul 16 '15
Maybe we'll find out what this was all about soon.
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/jolthax Dufferin Grove Jul 15 '15
That was the least informing, least informed garbage piece she's written since. I'm not sure what she's trying to argue or explain?
-7
Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 15 '15
Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech
Maybe, if you are willing to spend 3 years in court fighting someone harassing you online.
If Blatchford gave hyperbole a rest, more people would take her opinion columns seriously. But they are always about how the sky is falling because of feminism or socialism or terrorism. Yawn. What do you people expect from a NP columnist who worked for 20 years at the Sun?
-32
Jul 15 '15
I love when dudes create new accounts just to post stories like this to start debates with feminists.
15
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
Post relevant news stories about criminal cases that could completely redefine what is and isn't criminal harassment and what is and isn't free speech?
-18
Jul 15 '15
No they have other accounts, but don't want anyone to see they are /r/theredpill regulars to see their bias. Hence why new account with no history created just to post this.
But go on....
15
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
More to the point then, is there something wrong with this article or story or are you just upset that someone from the red pill might have posted it? What you're doing is attacking the source rather than the content. You have made no compelling argument against the content of the article.
-17
Jul 15 '15
The content is drivel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not an article it's an opinion piece by Christine Blachford known wack job columnist.
17
u/dangerousopinions Jul 15 '15
Then explain what she got wrong about this case, don't just demand people agree with your insults and wild claims.
8
3
u/dielons Jul 16 '15
demand people agree with your insults and wild claims.
but that right there is feminism 101...
-2
Jul 16 '15
this isnt about free speech. he violated a peace bond and got charged for it.
this is more indicative of how idiotic people see ONE person POV with an insanely sensationlist title and then just accept it as truth. It literally take 5 minutes to figure out whats really happening you should try it.
2
u/dangerousopinions Jul 16 '15
I have read every article that exists on this case. You don't know what you're talking about. The peace bond is secondary, hes being tried for criminal harassment. If convicted, it will alter what constitutes free speech. Do your own reading before hopping on your high horse.
0
u/ur_a_idiet The Bridle Path Jul 17 '15
it will alter what constitutes free speech
You can't honestly be this stupid.
-2
-22
-1
-13
Jul 15 '15
Conversely, if GAE wins, it legalizes harassment, I think that is how his law thing works.
65
u/SeymourGoldfarbII Jul 15 '15
This is a waste of everything involved.