men's rights

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Didn't know this was still going on, I wouldn't indulge myself here.

[Captain_Vietnam]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//news/canada/toronto-man-found-not-guilty-in-twitter-harassment-trial-widely-viewed-as-a-canadian-first

 

 

Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared of two charges of criminal harassment that stemmed from his Twitter interactions with two Toronto women’s rights activists. Judge Brent Knazan’s lengthy decision dwelled on both the nature of Twitter and freedom of expression in a ruling that is among the first in Canada. 

Elliott was cleared, in part, because — though the judge noted his words were sometimes “insulting and homophobic†— his tweets were not considered overtly sexually or physically threatening.

Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly accused Elliott of harassment partly based on his use of hashtags — a word, acronym or phrase after a number symbol used to create trackable conversations — they used. It was an assertion the judge found contrary to the open nature of Twitter. He said the pair may have felt harassed, but he couldn’t prove Elliott knew they felt that way, nor did the content of his tweets include explicitly threatening language.

Knazan also discussed the link between Twitter and freedom of expression. People must “tolerate the annoyance†of oppositional views as part of that Charter right,

“Freedom of expression represents society’s commitment to tolerate the annoyance of being confronted by unacceptable views…One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric,†he said, quoting from Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach’s book the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

The judge also noted a lack of “reasonableness†in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence.

While Knazan called Guthrie’s work to promote women’s rights “admirable†and Elliott’s words offensive, he noted there was no explicit threat of violence and much of the sense of harassment was based on a volume not context of tweets.

Elliott peppered his tweets to Reilly “with mean, crass†comments, the judge noted. But again he cited the fact that Reilly, like Guthrie, had also continued to tweet negative things about Elliott. And he noted that the crown in either case wasn’t able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a real threat of violence.

Elliott was arrested in 2012 and charged with two counts of criminal harassment over his online interactions with the two Toronto activists. Guthrie and Reilly had both blocked Elliott on the site — a move that prevents a user from viewing someone’s tweets when logged into the website — but they told police they felt he continued to track their movements and feared for their safety.

After the verdict, Elliott said he was relieved his three-year ordeal was over and thanked all those who had contributed to his defence. While he didn’t rule out returning to Twitter, he said the court-imposed break (he was legally barred from the internet during the course of the trial) made him better appreciate the value of in-person interaction. 

“It is so much healthier and nice to be out with real people,†Elliott said. “You can’t spend all your time online.†

When asked if he would take back any of the nastier things he said — cursing at the women or calling them names — he simply reiterated the judge found his conduct to be within the law. 

“It’s been a very very long process,†Elliott’s lawyer Christopher Murphy said, adding that’s longer than some murder trials. “I think what his honour is saying is you’re allowed to express your view as long as your view doesn’t cross any criminal thresholds… As long as you’re expressing a political view and you’re expressing the view that is not threatening or sexually harassing then you do not need to worry about being arrested for it.â€

There was standing room only in the court Friday the judge announced the verdict. A group of supporters around Guthrie and Reilly heaved a few loud sighs of disappointment when judge said not guilty. During a break in the verdict — which took over three hours to read — supporters gathered around both women, sharing long faces and longer hugs. 

Throughout the trial, Elliott’s lawyer, Chris Murphy, argued Elliott was simply disagreeing with Guthrie and Reilly and engaging in an ideological debate. The Crown had argued that the sheer number of tweets he sent about them, and the fact he continued to use hashtags they frequented, amounted to harassment. One tweet of Elliott’s about an event at a Toronto bar became a particular focus because it made Reilly feel he was tracking her movements in real life. 

Knazan said both women may have actually feared Elliott but said there was not enough proof he was either aware of their sentiments or had any potential to become violent to surpass the standard of reasonable doubt. 

In 2012, after the charges were laid, Guthrie tweeted, “In anticipation of any ‘you just did this to prove a point’ criticisms, I did this (because) he was making me feel unsafe/miserable. Worth noting.â€

Neither she nor Reilly made themselves immediately available to reporters for comment. 

The potentially precedent-setting case is believed to the first time a Canadian court has dealt with harassment on the social media network. Experts and civil rights lawyers said in the lead-up to Friday’s verdict that it was a major test of freedom of expression in Canada and the limits of free speech.

Elliott was arrested in November 2012 after months of escalation in his online interactions with Guthrie and Reilly. The pair had blocked him in August, but the court heard he continued to mention them in other tweets or comment on events or subjects they were discussing on the social network. His defence argued the pair continued to “taunt†Elliott even after blocking him, and they wouldn’t have done so if they were genuinely afraid of him.

The Criminal Code defines criminal harassment, in part, as engaging “in conduct… that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.â€

Criminal harassment carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

The Crown declined to comment on the outcome.

 

 

feminism at its finest. rights of men are not respected anymore

 

these two feminist can use system to ruin mans life

Edited January 24, 2016 by Captain_Vietnam