Twitter Harrassment Trial - Ramifications for Free Speech?

[The Unknown Poster]

This case, from what I read, is ludicrous and a case of some sort of weird feminist victim card being played here.

 

 

 

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

 

What’s believed to be the first case in Canada of alleged criminal harassment-via-Twitter is just a judge’s decision away from being over.

 

After hearing closing submissions Tuesday from Chris Murphy, who represents 54-year-old Greg Elliott, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan is expected to rule on Oct. 6.

 

In the balance rides enormous potential fallout for free speech online.

 

Elliott is charged with criminally harassing two Toronto female political activists, Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly, in 2012.

Allegations involving a third woman were dropped.

 

The graphic artist and father of four lost his job shortly after his arrest, which was well-publicized online, and if convicted, could go to jail for six months.

 

These are astonishing repercussions given that it’s not alleged he ever threatened either woman (or any other, according to the testimony of the Toronto Police officer, Detective Jeff Bangild, who was in charge) or that he ever sexually harassed them.

 

Indeed, Elliott’s chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists.

 

He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger named Anita Sarkeesian until the screen turned red.

 

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”.

 

Until then, the two were collegial online, with Elliott offering to produce a free poster for Guthrie’s witopoli (Women in Toronto Politics) group.

 

As serious as the ramifications of a conviction could be for Elliott, so could they be dire for free speech online, Murphy suggested in his final arguments.

He said the idea that all it takes to end up charged with criminal harassment is vigorous participation in online debate with those who will not brook dissent “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter”.

 

In fact, Murphy said that contrary to what Guthrie and Reilly testified to at trial, they weren’t afraid of his client — as suggested by both their spirited demeanour in the witness box and their deliberate online campaign to call Elliott out as a troll.

 

Rather, Murphy said, they hated Elliott and were determined to silence him — not just by “blocking” his Tweets to them, but by demanding he cease even referring to them even in making comment about heated political issues.

 

To all this, Guthrie pointed out once in cross-examination that feelings of fear, like all feelings, “develop over time”, and snapped that she was sorry she wasn’t “a perfect victim” who behaved like a conventional victim.

 

The criminal harassment charge is rooted in the alleged victim’s perception of the offending conduct.

 

The statute says if that conduct caused the alleged victims “reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety”, that’s good enough.

 

Yet Guthrie and Reilly didn’t behave as though they were remotely frightened or intimidated: They convened a meeting of friends to discuss how Elliott should be publicly shamed; they bombarded their followers with furious tweets and retweets about him (including a grotesque suggestion from someone pretending she was a 13-year-old that he was a pedophile); they could and did dish it out.

 

“They were not vulnerable,” Murphy said once. “They are very accomplished, politically savvy women. If they can’t handle being mentioned in the tail end of a political discussion (on Twitter), then they’re in the wrong business.”

 

And, he said, of the meeting both women attended in August of 2012, to discuss how Elliott would be called out, “That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence … they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott.”

 

Murphy said the case was akin to “a high school spat, except it’s adults on the Internet”, and said it is astonishing that the court should be acting as referee in an online political debate.

 

“If anybody was being criminally harassed in this case,” Murphy told the judge, “it was my client, it was Mr. Elliott.”

 

That Reilly, who was anonymous on Twitter and who directed her own volley of hateful tweets at Elliott, should come “to this court and the police and say she’s being criminally harassed is an abuse of the system.”

 

Prosecutor Marnie Goldenberg made only the briefest remarks, and refused to provide Postmedia with a copy of her written arguments, saying it wasn’t her practice.

National Post

 

[Mike]

Can you imagine if the roles in this case swapped genders?

[The Unknown Poster]

Can you imagine if the roles in this case swapped genders?

The two women in this case should be ashamed of themselves.  And they should be ostracized from whatever political active groups they are apart of.  Unfortunately as is the case with these looney lobbies, everything is fair game as long as it's them doing the harassing.

 

Im a believer in cleaning up the Internet to a reasonable degree.  We've seen kids kill themselves over on-line bullying.  This case is a slap in the face to legitimate cases.  I hope they lose and I hope the guy sues them into oblivion.

 

I was included in a group of people that were attacked online pretty hard.  Not so much even me personally, but "someone" took facebook pics of guys' wives and gf's and posted them to an anonymous blog with extremely nasty comments.

 

But this?  Good lord.  Shameful.

[Atomic]

Not convinced we're getting the full story here. I'd have to see the full extent of the harassment. Not prepared to take the author's word for it as she has clearly made up her mind already.

[The Unknown Poster]

It sounds like they were planning to publicly harrass their "enemies" on social media and when this guy didnt want to go along with it, they did it to him and when he argued, they complained he was doing to them what they did to him and planned to do to others.

[Atomic]

It sounds like they were planning to publicly harrass their "enemies" on social media and when this guy didnt want to go along with it, they did it to him and when he argued, they complained he was doing to them what they did to him and planned to do to others.

That is what it sounds like. But I'd be interested in seeing the full sequence of events, not one biased individual's take on it.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

There is no free speech in Canada.

 

Now you can say what ever you want but you can be hit with hate speech filings or false statement lawsuits which is not necessarily a bad thing. Look how long the KKK has been able to walk down the streets in USA.

[Rich]

There is no free speech in Canada.

 

Now you can say what ever you want but you can be hit with hate speech filings or false statement lawsuits which is not necessarily a bad thing. Look how long the KKK has been able to walk down the streets in USA.

 

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would disagree with you.

[The Unknown Poster]

There is no free speech in Canada.

 

Now you can say what ever you want but you can be hit with hate speech filings or false statement lawsuits which is not necessarily a bad thing. Look how long the KKK has been able to walk down the streets in USA.

The be fair, thats the way it should be no?  As a society we should be protected insofar as expressing our feelings and opinions but should also be protected from hate.  There is a great historic photo of a KKK member in his goofy sheet hiding behind a black cop who is protecting him from an angry mob.  Sort of sums it up right there.

 

In a not-related but sort on the same subject, we all might have heard about Alexis Frulling, the 20 year old woman who was video taped engaging in a threesome with two guys in an alley during Calgary Stampede.  She's turned this into an "I am woman, hear me roar" scenario (and I cant say I disagree with her either):

 

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-woman-from-the-calgary-stampede-threesome-reminds-us-that-women-can-do-whatever-they-want

[iso_55]

How many harassing lawsuits could we file against each other here the way we treat others we don't agree with? Things get crazy sometimes. On here & other social media sites. We say things online we'd never say in person to someone because we are in front of a computer screen & not face to face with anyone. It makes it easy to treat people with a lack of respect.

[Jimmy Pop]

Saw a very similar story watching John Oliver recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNIwYsz7PI&noredirect=1

[The Unknown Poster]

How many harassing lawsuits could we file against each other here the way we treat others we don't agree with? Things get crazy sometimes. On here & other social media sites. We say things online we'd never say in person to someone because we are in front of a computer screen & not face to face with anyone. It makes it easy to treat people with a lack of respect.

No kidding.  I think it comes down to common sense.  You know when you've gone over the line.  With social media, you can block people.  I've had people call my house and threaten to kill me.  I once got an email with a photo of a guy pointing a gun at the camera holding a sticky note that said "bang, you're dead".  This case seems like something where if they didnt want to read this guy disagree with them, they could block him.  If he started calling their house or posting threats or personal information, then its harassment. 

 

Heck, i go blocked by Bart Kives because he didnt like me disagreeing with him on twitter.  I think I told him he was very negative.  Got into a twitter battle with our MLA too and he was very aggressive and negative.  I didnt block him, but he blocked me (and others).  Think he got kicked off twitter for awhile actually.

 

I'd always want the law to err on the side of letting too much go then over-restricting things.  Whats the saying, better to let a 100 guilty men go free than convince one innocent?

[max power]

Freedom of speech is by definition for speech that people find offensive.  There is no need for freedom of speech that everyone agrees is not offensive.

 

People (ie mostly the left) have forgotten this.

[The Unknown Poster]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

 

Might not have been Voltaire, but thats who usually gets the credit.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

 

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

 

Might not have been Voltaire, but thats who usually gets the credit.

 

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.even if you're totally wrong.- 2 Sports Guys

[iso_55]

 

How many harassing lawsuits could we file against each other here the way we treat others we don't agree with? Things get crazy sometimes. On here & other social media sites. We say things online we'd never say in person to someone because we are in front of a computer screen & not face to face with anyone. It makes it easy to treat people with a lack of respect.

No kidding.  I think it comes down to common sense.  You know when you've gone over the line.  With social media, you can block people.  I've had people call my house and threaten to kill me.  I once got an email with a photo of a guy pointing a gun at the camera holding a sticky note that said "bang, you're dead".  This case seems like something where if they didnt want to read this guy disagree with them, they could block him.  If he started calling their house or posting threats or personal information, then its harassment. 

 

Heck, i go blocked by Bart Kives because he didnt like me disagreeing with him on twitter.  I think I told him he was very negative.  Got into a twitter battle with our MLA too and he was very aggressive and negative.  I didnt block him, but he blocked me (and others).  Think he got kicked off twitter for awhile actually.

 

I'd always want the law to err on the side of letting too much go then over-restricting things.  Whats the saying, better to let a 100 guilty men go free than convince one innocent?

 

On an old defunct CFL site that used to be run on the Stamps website in  & around 2000 or 2001, there was a poster who became unhinged. Threatened to kill all the posters he hated. He said he'd track them down wherever they lived in Canada. Then he posted where he sat at BC Lions games & dared  anyone to come get him & to bring a weapon. That blew up the site & the Stamps closed it down permanently.

[kelownabomberfan]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

Might not have been Voltaire, but thats who usually gets the credit.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall (28 September 1868 – 13 April 1956),[1][2][3][Note 1] who wrote under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre, was an English writer best known for her biography of Voltaire entitled The Life of Voltaire, first published in 1903. She also wrote The Friends of Voltaire, which she completed in 1906.

In The Friends of Voltaire Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[4] (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[5][6][7] Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

[kelownabomberfan]

We had a terrible case here in BC where John Furlong, the former CEO of the Vancouver Olympics, was wrongfully accused of sexual abuse in residential schools in the 1960's. It turns out the three accusers weren't even at the school when Furlong was there, but all of this came out much later after Furlong was dragged through a long trial. How does this stuff happen? Why?
 

In 2013, these three aboriginal people filed civil lawsuits against the former Vancouver Olympics boss John Furlong, alleging, in the most lurid detail, how he had sexually and physically abused them while they were students at Immaculata Elementary school in Burns Lake, B.C., and he was a young volunteer teacher.

This week, the last of the suits — Mr. Morice’s — was dismissed by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers.

As it turns out, Mr. Morice received $120,822 from Ottawa in compensation for similar abuse allegedly committed by another man at a residential school in a different town during the same time period he claimed in the civil suit that Mr. Furlong had been abusing him.


The money was paid out as part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the largest class-action agreement in Canadian history.

That was just the most significant problem with Mr. Morice’s credibility: He also has a long criminal record, mostly for offences of dishonesty, didn’t bother even to show up for court on Monday, and once even left a voicemail for Mr. Furlong’s lawyer, threatening that “there’s some natives that want to lay a beating” on Mr. Furlong.

Late last year, Ms. Abraham dropped her suit, by consent and without explanation, after her lawyer, Jason Gratl, withdrew (he once represented the three claimants but in the end withdrew from all the suits), while Ms. West’s case was tossed in February by Supreme Court Justice Miriam Gropper, who concluded that on the evidence, Ms. West “did not ever attend Immaculata.”

Yet to the bitter end, the three accusers were still being protected by not all, but surely some, of the press, their names not used or only sparingly. No one dared suggest they had any misconduct for which to answer.

In any case that limited publicity, such as it was, is the only sanction they will ever face.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-furlong-accusations

[The Unknown Poster]

There is definitely a lefty spin in the media in this country with the right media either being way too right or simply being tagged as "crazy".  I mean, look at Ezra.  I posted one of his stories in another thread and people attacked Ezra without even watching the story.  Im not a devout follower of his so I dont know the dirty details of his "craziness" but I do follow him on twitter and look a bit closer when I see something that interests me.

 

Recently he has become embroiled in a feud with Catherine Porter with the Toronto Star.  Both were at a "Jobs, Justice & Climate" march (with that name you know it's going to be an unbiased story).  Porter seemingly there to take part I guess.  Ezra there to interview people.  Porter tried to set Ezra up, repeatedly requesting that he interview her nine year old daughter who wanted to confront him.  Really.  A 9 year old consciously chooses to confront Ezra Levant.  Sure.

 

Porter wrote a story on this for the Star and described her daughter as "incredulous" that "the right-wing (important fact I guess) broadcaster doesn't believe in human-caused climate change".

 

She states she and her daughter watched Ezra "cross-examine" a man dressed like a chicken.  The daughter asked what Ezra was doing and Porter admits she told her kid Ezra was "belittling" the man because he (Ezra) doesnt believe in man-made climate change.  Porter says her daughter couldnt believe it and marched over to confront Ezra.  A 9 year old.  Uh huh.  Porter then writes she wondered if bringing her child to the protest was appropriate.  *rolls eyes*.

 

She described her daughter as ready to brawl with Ezra and wrote that Ezra wouldnt engage the kid and attacked the mother, resulting in the kid saying "you're being mean to my mom".  She later said her daughter took part in a "Stephen Harper must go" chant.  9 years old.  Porter seemingly proud of how her daughter has formed her own opinions.  Sure.

 

Anyway, the point being Ezra video recorded the entire thing and Porter's account was a complete fabrication.  The kid did not go off to confront Ezra.  Porter repeatedly asked him to come interview her daughter.  Ezra clarified that he had her permission to do so.  The daughter then asked a clearly rehearsed question "why dont you believe in climate change?"  Ezra was very nice to the little girl and said well its not that I dont, its that I believe the Earth goes through regular heating and cooling trends.  The kid looked at him perplexed.  She clearly knows nothing about climate change.  She's 9 years old.  Ezra asked if she had heard of the ice age and she said yes.  He said well the earth has had many ice ages and warming trends.  The girl was obviously confused and had no means to engage in a reasonable discussion.  She only knew the one question to ask.

 

Ezra then began interviewing her mother.  The kid did not say "you're being mean to my mom", she said "you're talking to my mom, you know", though clearly annoyed.  Ezra was again, very polite.  His video also showed he was not belittling the chicken man but engaging in a light hearted discussion and both were laughing.

 

The question is:  Is Catherine Porter delusional or is this an example of the how the left lie and cheat any opinion that isnt exactly the same as theirs?

 

On the subject of climate change I read a CNN story about...I cant even remember, and one line was "man-made climate change is no longer debated within the scientific community".  It isnt?  I found it hilarious.  Its like the left is covering their ears and yelling "na na na na I cant hear you" and if they say "there is no debate" enough times, it will become accepted as fact.

 

The right: "let's debate issues"

The left: "There is no debate.  We are correct".

[basslicker]

To Unknown Poster.......I've disagreed with you before but the above is an amazing post.

[johnzo]

This is basically a summary of the defence's closing arguments so yeah, it's not the full story.

It's strange it doesn't quote any of the tweets from the respective sides--stories about online harassment will generally do that.