Is Freedom of Speech in Canada on Trial in Ontario Case?

[Apollo]

What else is there to consider? Can you provide a source of more info because we're speaking to what we have available.

See the thing is the police said there was no harassment, yet it's still gone to trail. This is where free speech debate enters. If the police said there was evidence of harassment, it was clearly identifiable, then there would be no discussion of free speech.

I agree, harassment shouldn't be protected by free speech. Harassment is a charge that must be proved with evidence though. Again, if you have more than what we're going on then please provide it. It would be helpful.

Whether she's defended free speech or not is irrelevant because no one is suggesting she's intentionally attacking free speech. What is being suggested is that this case has no evidence, just someone who's saying she FEELS harassed and wants someone else to pay criminally for making her feel that way(am I understanding the case correctly here?). People have all sorts of feelings triggered by all sorts of things. How does one measure a feeling and what about a feeling should see someone locked up?

The arguments I've provided has focused on a single concept, does a lack of evidence mean there is a threat to free speech should such a case rule in the accuser's favour? You've attempted to derail the discussion a couple times now calling people sexist and other things. You've suggested if a man finds a woman attractive there is something wrong with that. Should we apologize for not taking your view and providing a different perspective? Also what does it have to do with the thread?

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[Quirk]

What else is there to consider?

How about the fact that you many not have all the evidence and the woman might be telling the truth? And she might have a point? Why do her "feelings" not matter to you at all? Her feelings wheren't "triggered," he attacked her for 10 months.

Your "single point," "a lack of evidence" is something that will surely come out during the trial, no? Yet, despite a lack of evidence your sexist bias of siding with the troll against the women absent of any evidence or knowledge of the case, speaks volumes.

As does your conflating being attracted to women, and use of sexualized images of women in places where it may not be apprioriate, or may make women feel less confortable, well, because you probably don't care, the right to "admire women's bodies" is more important to you than how women may feel in a given social environment, especially if they don't feel the way you want them to feel about it.

As an admin here, would you allow the kind of behaviour that the sexist troll exhibited on Twitter? 10 months of harassment directed at a user, even if such harassment was merely vulgar and insulting, and not actuallt violating any criminal laws regarding threats of violence?

That every single one of you that has posted in this thread has exhibited sexist bias is beyond doubt, no matter how much you cry about it. Outside of MRA circles and Alex Jones fans, you will find no doubt about it. Have fun, if that's the crowd you to want roll with.

[Apollo]

How about the fact that you many not have all the evidence and the woman might be telling the truth? And she might have a point? Why do her "feelings" not matter to you at all? Her feelings wheren't "triggered," he attacked her for 10 months.

I'm not suggesting she's being untruthful. I'm questioning whether its harassment because of what a police investigation turned up. Her feelings do matter, just not in a court of law. If the guy harassed her he should pay whatever the appropriate punishment is but if he didn't or at least there is no proof, then he shouldn't be punished. I mean that's the basis our free, fair society, isn't? Innocent until proven guilty through evidence? This is one of the things that makes Canada great.

Yet, despite a lack of evidence your sexist bias of siding with the troll against the women absent of any evidence or knowledge of the case, speaks volumes.

Ah, character attacks now. What is it you're trying to win by such tactics? Just because you toss a label at me doesn't make it stick and doesn't discredit what I say. You can discredit what I say through facts and superior debate. What I know is what the police said, should ignore that because of the way someone else feels? What else is brought to a court case outside of police investigation and eye witnessed accounts? If the guy was doing things out of Twitter that we've not seen then that's a different matter and if that's the case why wouldn't the police know this? You don't trust the police?

As does your conflacting being attracted to women, and use of sexualized images of women in places where it may not be apprioriate, or may make women feel less confortable, well, because you probably don't care, the right to "admire women's bodies" is more important to you than how women may feel in a given social environment, especially if they don't feel the way you want them to feel about it.

Oh this can go both ways. What is sexual is totally open to interpretation and what is inappropriate is also open to interpretation. What about all those big muscly basketball players we all sit down and watch? If a woman is around should I feel embarrassed or uncomfortable with her looking at their biceps or butts? Why the heck should I even care? I can tell you I wouldn't think any different of her. The world isn't my platform to judge.

As an admin here, would you allow the kind of behaviour that the sexist troll exhibited on Twitter? 10 months of harassment directed at a user, even if such harassment was merely vulger and insulting, and not actuallt violating any criminal laws regarding threats of voilence?

As an admin I would probably ban the lot of them(the programmers, the accuser and the accused) and remind them of the site rules. I would allow them all back and if something happened again there would be a longer banning. Tasteful and respectful is important no doubt about it.

That every single one of you that has posted in this thread has exhibited sexist bias is beyond doubt, no matter how much you cry about it.

Did you ever consider whether you have a sexist bias? I mean you were very quick to toss labels on everyone who's disagreed with you. Some people in here, myself included, have shown you far more respect than you've given back. I continue to show respect despite you challenging my character and you know nothing about me besides: I believe in and respect the police, evidence is important and there's nothing shameful in being comfortable with your sexuality even if you're a heterosexual male.

[JimiCliff]

I don't know much about this case, but I do know that I would never trust Christie Blatchford's reporting to give me an unbiased view about anything. She's always had a strange agenda, and the anti-feminist bent of the article in the OP falls right in line with it.

Edit: The way the article is framed, you'd think that she was one of Elliot's defence attorneys.

[Quirk]

I mean that's the basis our free, fair society, isn't? Innocent until proven guilty through evidence? This is one of the things that makes Canada great.

Is he not being given a trial?

You can chose to think and reflect about your sexist bias, or not, I don't care. I have nothing to win. Yet, you have a lot to lose. Also, if you refuse to know the difference between an obviously sexualized image, and merely an attractive picture of an athlete, I'm not sure I can help you. I happen to work in communites where these subjects are discussed at length, and I have learned about issues of sexism from lots of amazing, dedicated, brave and wonderful women. Listen, or don't, your life, your call. Or listen to the Alex Jones posse. Just know that you will be called on your sexist bias.

And as for me, of course I have sexist bias, it's imposible to grow up in a sexist society and not. The difference is I care and work towards overcomming bias, with honesty. I suggest you try the same.

The fact is that you are really worried about a sexist troll and not at all worried about a woman facing harassment, and you adopt this position with almost no evidence or knowldege about the people involved. That should make you reflect, whatever the details of this particular case is.

By the way, where are you getting your information about "what the police evidence says?" You seem to think you have a lot of information about the body of evidence, where from? Have the police issued an official statement? Or are you depending on Blatchford?

[Quirk]

I don't know much about this case, but I do know that I would never trust Christie Blatchford's reporting to give me an unbiased view about anything. She's always had a strange agenda, and the anti-feminist bent of the article in the OP falls right in line with it.

Thanks for adding your voice Jimmi!

One of reasons such anti-femminist bias permeats communities is the boy's club atmosphere that makes casual sexism acceptable, but standing up to such sexism treated with hostility, i.e. "social justice warriors" "liberalism is mental illness," etc, yet accusing a women you don't know of being a scheming, disingenuous, vindictive bitch doesn't even warrent a blink.

[Apollo]

Is he not being given a trial?

You can chose to think and reflect about your sexist bias, or not, I don't care. I have nothing to win. Yet, you have a lot to lose. Also, if you refuse to know the difference between an obviously sexualized image, and merely an attractive picture of an athlete, I'm not sure I can help you. I happen to work in communites where these subjects are discussed at length, and I have learned about issues of sexism from lots of amazing, dedicated, brave and wonderful women. Listen, or don't, your life, your call. Or listen to the Alex Jones posse. Just know that you will be called on your sexist bias.

And as for me, of course I have sexist bias, it's imposible to grow up in a sexist society and not. The difference is I care and work towards overcomming bias, with honesty. I suggest you try the same.

The fact is that you are really worried about a sexist troll and not at all worried about a woman facing harassment, and you adopt this position with almost no evidence or knowldege about the people involved. That should make you reflect, whatever the details of this particular case is.

By the way, where are you getting your information about "what the police evidence says?" You seem to think you have a lot of information about the body of evidence, where from? Have the police issued an official statement? Or are you depending on Blatchford?

From what I read both of these people in court were aggressive on Twitter. I don't think either is a criminal and if you think I'm sexist because of that then I'm ok with that too. It's a free country.

It's great you happen to work in communities where such matters are discussed while the rest of us must dwell in some sort of limbo alternate reality where we're not exposed to what's really happening in this country.

To answer your last question, the Investigating officer testified in court that he was unable to find any evidence of harassment. That's from the report and if the journalist is telling a lie then she does so at her own risk and I know not how it benefits her.

[Quirk]

From what I read both [...] That's from the report and if the journalist is telling a lie then she does so at her own risk .

Right. So your entire view of the case comes from Blatchford and Alex Jones's pal's video. Got it.

"She does it at her own risk"

Right, because Blatchford has a great reputation for journalistic integrity to protect.

Are you worried at all about the harassment that Steph faced? Or have you already passed judgement on that. I don't necessarily mean criminallt defined threats of violence. I mean the fact that women like Steph are viciously attacked with insults and vulgarities pretty much constantly. Do you think that men like Elliot are a problem at all? I'm not asking about criminal law, I'm asking what you think of the problem, or if you even think there is one.

[Apollo]

You're calling the guy guilty until proved innocent. You, the high and mighty to judge all us men in here, sees nothing wrong with that?

As I said, if the guy is actually guilty then I hope he gets punished appropriately. I respect and trust the police and this is why I was concerned when I read the article and see how this escalated to a big court case. If you don't appreciate that then there isn't much more to say until we find out a verdict.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[Quirk]

You're calling the guy guilty until proved innocent.

I specifically said not in a criminal sence. Even absent any legaly addressible threats of violence, do you think the harassment of women undertaken by trolls like Elliot is a problem? Or do you not believe that he continued to harass Steph for 10 months?

Do you care at all about Steph Guthrie? Do you know that Steph has been working in campaigns against cyber bullying (despite staunchly opposing c-13), and is very much a part of the communities and support networks that help women who face harassement, including young girls who face harasement, girls like Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, for whome the internet has become a very dangerous place. Do you care?

Women like Steph pay a steep price for daring to stand up to trolls and bullies. At what point have you shown any interest in her side of the story?

Oh right, Blatchford and Alex Jones's pall don't talk about that, because they are trolls themselves, on a crusade against "liberals," "feminists" and "social justice warriors."

Get a grip Apollo and try to listen to what I'm saying instead of crying butt-hurt man tears.

[JimiCliff]

Looking at an old article from the Star, you get a very different picture of the case.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/20...ent_trial.html

This fact is very curiously omitted from Blatchford's reporting (bolds all mine):

Guthrie and Elliott met in real life over dinner on Dundas St. W. in April 2012 to discuss his doing some work for her organization, “Women in TO politics.” She told court Wednesday she was “creeped out” by Elliott at dinner because he was “really intense.”

Guthrie decided not to work with Elliott and told him so over email, which showed a seemingly cordial back-and-forth.

For whatever reason, Blatchford decides that all we need to know about Elliot's relationship to witpoli is this:

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

Something else Blatchford neglects to mention, anywhere:

Elliott felt Guthrie and others were ganging up on Spurr and unleashed a series of tweets saying so. Guthrie blocked him from communicating with her on Twitter, but she could still read tweets that mentioned her user name.

Shortly after, Elliott created the Twitter hashtag #FascistFeminists in relation to Guthrie and her friends.

[Quirk]

Jimmi, right, she wrote an article about the twitter blocking issue:

http://stephguthrie.com/2013/12/12/restoretheblock/

[JimiCliff]

This article from Metro News will give you a much clearer idea of why Elliott's being charged with harassment:

The second of three women alleging Gregory Alan Elliott criminally harassed them via Twitter took the stand Thursday, testifying that she became concerned that Elliott would confront her in real life rather than just online.

The trial is possibly the first in Canada to address harassment solely by tweet, and raises issues about the expectation of online privacy, freedom of speech and the treatment of women on the Internet.

Heather Reilly, a prolific Twitter user with the handle @Ladysnarksalot, told the court that she blocked Elliott on Twitter in the spring or summer of 2012, preventing him from following her account.

“@greg_a_elliott Please do me a favour & not reply to my posts. You don’t follow me- were you creeping the #TOpoli tag to find my tweet?” she tweeted on Aug. 9, 2012.

“.@ladysnarksalot how’d you feel if I was so delusional to ask you to not retweet me? You want “control” use your email, not Twitter. #TOpoli,” @greg_a_elliott replied, after suggesting that Reilly didn’t understand the point of Twitter.

The defence has not conceded that it was Elliott who sent the tweets from the @greg_a_elliott account.

The exchanges became increasingly hostile that month, with @greg_a_elliott tweeting that Reilly was a “hateful b–tch” and accusing her and other women he dubbed “#fascistfeminists” of ganging up on him, Reilly said.

He also posted tweets like “Heather’s fat ass gets fatter” with the #topoli hashtag but without mentioning her Twitter handle in the tweet (known as subtweeting), the court heard. Subtweeting meaning the other Twitter user mentioned won’t be automatically notified that he or she is being discussed.

It was on Sept. 11 when Reilly began to be concerned for her safety, she testified. She and a group of friends met at a west-end bar and were tweeting about their evening, she testified.

“A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight,” @greg_a_elliott tweeted. The tweet made her fear that Elliott was at the same bar and search the room to make sure he was not, she said.

Her concerns “escalated from name-calling to that he could do physical harm to me,” she said. (Elliott is not accused of threatening any of the complainants.)

Two weeks later @greg_a_elliott replied to a tweet she sent related to the Toronto International Film Festival and it was the last straw, she said.

She reported the @greg_a_elliott account to Twitter, but they offered no assistance. She went to the police after seeing Elliott was charged with criminally harassing Stephanie Guthrie, she said.

“Not everyone on the Internet is going to be your friend and wants to be your friend,” said Reilly, acknowledging that Twitter is a publicly available forum. “There are people out there who just want to stir up a reaction.”

But she testified that Elliott’s tone and repeated and deliberate involvement of her in Twitter fights crossed a line. “I didn’t appreciate the attacks I felt I received,” she told the court.

Elliott’s lawyer has argued that the three complainants in the case conspired to gang up on Elliott, and were in fact the ones who were bullying Elliott.

He suggested that Elliott’s tweets were valid social and political commentary.

http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/110...ave-her-alone/

I'm not saying whether he's guilty or innocent, but it's pretty obvious that Blatchford's stance on the case (which pretty much inspired this whole thread)...

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

...is willfully misleading.

[Apollo]

I specifically said not in a criminal sence. Even absent any legaly addressible threats of violence, do you think the harassment of women undertaken by trolls like Elliot is a problem? Or do you not believe that he continued to harass Steph for 10 months?

Do you care at all about Steph Guthrie? Do you know that Steph has been working in campaigns against cyber bullying (despite staunchly opposing c-13), and is very much a part of the communities and support networks that help women who face harassement, including young girls who face harasement, girls like Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, for whome the internet has become a very dangerous place. Do you care?

Women like Steph pay a steep price for daring to stand up to trolls and bullies. At what point have you shown any interest in her side of the story?

Oh right, Blatchford and Alex Jones's pall don't talk about that, because they are trolls themselves, on a crusade against "liberals," "feminists" and "social justice warriors."

Get a grip Apollo and try to listen to what I'm saying instead of crying butt-hurt man tears.

Quirk, I stopped after the first paragraph. The whole thread is about the criminal sense. You're using thread as a platform for something else, just create a new thread about whatever it is you want to address already...

Also why must you continue to be abusive toward a me? I've been patient but if you call me one more name I'll ban you for a week. Disagree with me on the topic or whatever else all you want but I will tolerate anymore abuse toward me or others. If you cannot be respectful then go somewhere else. For someone so judgemental over how society treats or views certain groups and people I find very ironic how rude and abusive you yourself can be when confronted with differing views.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[JimiCliff]

Quirk, I stopped after the first paragraph. The whole thread is about the criminal sense. You're using thread as a platform for something else, just create a new thread about whatever it is you want to address already...

Also why must you continue to be abusive toward a me? I've been patient but if you call me one more name I'll ban you for a week. Disagree with me on the topic or whatever else all you want but I will tolerate anymore abuse toward me or others. If you cannot be respectful then go somewhere else. For someone so judgemental over how society treats certain groups I find very ironic how rude and abusive you yourself can be when can confronted with differing views.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

I would argue, though, that he wasn't off-base doing this, as it appears that the article that started this whole conversation is, indeed, blatantly anti-feminist, and (as mentioned above) intentionally mis-informative.