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

[Quirk]

"much better ways to fight for your views in my opinion" -- well mansplained! I bet you have lots of advice for peope who face issues you have never faced, if only they listed to you! I'm releasing an app for that next week, I'll let you know, you can be a power user,

"Can you explain to us how were they threatened?" -- non-stop harrasement on twitter for 10 months.

And this is not an issolated case, women who have a public profile are harrassed, threatened and bullied continously by trolls. This has to stop, and people like Steph Guthrie need to be supported in fighting this.

I wont spend too much time here explaining this, educate yourself, stop making excuses for the sexist and racist trolls and educate yourself on the massive scale of the problem, and support the women who are standing up to bullying.

edit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya...b_2567898.html

[Apollo]

Just to clarify, are you questioning the ethics or competencies of the investigating officer? This gentleman investigated the case for evidence of threatening conduct and turned up nothing. I see that you're passionate about this particular case but how do you logically explain away this fact? Twitter is a public platform and there is no way to totally block people. It's not the best tool for communicating if that is the desire. Email distribution lists is an example of a better tool.

By the way, I agree that no one should have to face any bullying and harassment online. A false sense anonominity shouldn't naturally lead someone to being a jerk to others. If everyone's motto was "if you wouldn't say it to their face you shouldn't say it to them online" then I think this wouldn't be a real problem. I also believe good parenting is needed to fix these issues. We have a generation of parents coming in now who "grew up" with the Internet and they are not ignorant to cyberspace bullying or harassment. I think you will see a decline in these acts but it will take time. The Internet has evolved faster than the culture around it, this is the root of the problem in my opinion.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[Quirk]

I see that you're passionate about this particular case but how do you logically explain away this fact?

I'm not passionate about this particualr case, I am concerned with the situatiion that women face online, and you may have only heard of Steph Guthrie yesterday, but know she is a well informed and committed activist on this issue, and I trust her more that accounts from national post hacks like Blatchford.

[Apollo]

That's fair and I commend you on your critical thinking, it's healthy to question things, but what of the point from the investigating officer I mentioned? Surely his reputation is on the line in every one of these cases he works and he's going to thoroughly investigate all the details, right?

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[slaw]

It likely won't set any kind of precedent. There isn't enough "legal" stuff going on. It's two women pissed off at a way a guy communicated with them...without really harassing them in any way.....and trying to get legal action where there's really none to take.

Making a thread about it kind of is "freaking out" to me because it really doesn't seem like there's any substance to this case at all. :P

I understand why you care about it in principle...but it should be a non-story. It shouldn't really be getting media attention.

Except you are wrong about everything you just wrote. It is a criminal trial and not just some pissed off women suing someone. The accused hasn't been able to use the internet or email for almost 3 years, was arrested, and fired from his job. There is legal action being taken by both the police and Crown and the accused faces up to 6 months in jail.

But as always, the outcome of the trial itself is a red herring in many ways because it doesn't matter whether this guy is convicted or not or whether he is morally culpable because the process is the punishment. What people like these activists want to accomplish is twofold: they want to isolate and destroy (either economically or reputationally or both) people who disagree with them politically; and, two, they want to discourage others who disagree with them from speaking publicly.

As for "bullying", surely they jest. These are the same people who sic hordes of the like-minded perpetually outraged on anyone who challenges their orthodoxies, publicly shame them and try to get them fired from their jobs. If these 'activists' are too delicate to deal with the pushback from that then perhaps they should be kept safely at home until a suitable man can be found for them to marry and protect them from the mean ol' world.

[white men can't jump]

Except you are wrong about everything you just wrote. It is a criminal trial and not just some pissed off women suing someone. The accused hasn't been able to use the internet or email for almost 3 years, was arrested, and fired from his job. There is legal action being taken by both the police and Crown and the accused faces up to 6 months in jail.

But as always, the outcome of the trial itself is a red herring in many ways because it doesn't matter whether this guy is convicted or not or whether he is morally culpable because the process is the punishment. What people like these activists want to accomplish is twofold: they want to isolate and destroy (either economically or reputationally or both) people who disagree with them politically; and, two, they want to discourage others who disagree with them from speaking publicly.

As for "bullying", surely they jest. These are the same people who sic hordes of the like-minded perpetually outraged on anyone who challenges their orthodoxies, publicly shame them and try to get them fired from their jobs. If these 'activists' are too delicate to deal with the pushback from that then perhaps they should be kept safely at home until a suitable man can be found for them to marry and protect them from the mean ol' world.

Well I said it's two pissed off women trying to take legal action against a guy who basically said things to them they didn't like online. The reason I frame it like that is because apparently the criminal investigation revealed that no part of the communication from the accused in any way resembles what generally constitutes criminal harassment.

They are purely trying to tear him down, and seemingly without legal grounds to stand in their case, so I don't know how good that is for anybody. Bad for both sides of the case. And I can't see how it's a good thing for the cause the women are trying to support.

Again, activism is about changing minds. Tearing down those who disagree is not very productive.

I mean, what would be better, tearing this guy down, shutting him up, ruining his life and pushing him out of the debate? Or trying hard to turn around his way of thinking, and maybe even have him become a vocal supporter of your movement? The latter is pretty much always the better option, and that might not be in any way possible now with the way things have played out.

*I think the way this thing has played out and the actions taken are more likely to entrench the different sides in their views on the issue. And make apathetic those who weren't really invested in it.

[Apollo]

He interjected because he disagreed with how they were treating someone else who disagreed with their views and created a silly PC game in protest(ie: they were "harassing" a guy who made the controversial game.). I don't think they were going to change his mind, it would have been a miraculous swing. If anything they reaffirmed the conclusion he had come to. That's my interpration based on what I've read.

[Quirk]

That's fair and I commend you on your critical thinking, it's healthy to question things, but what of the point from the investigating officer I mentioned? Surely his reputation is on the line in every one of these cases he works and he's going to thoroughly investigate all the details, right?

I'm not the judge in this case, and while cops always have their "reputation on the line," that doesn't always mean they never do anything or get anything wrong. As I mentioned, we have a serious problem with harrassment of women online, and people like Steph Guthrie need to be supported in fighting it.

They, not the sexist trolls, have my support. Harassment is not free speech.

Steph is one the most active supporters of free speech online in Canada, and was one of the most active opponents of Harper's C-13, here's her on Canadaland talking about it:

Understand that far from being "good publicity" she is not only being demonized by the likes of blatchford, but is subject to constant harassment, and endless threats and vulgarities, at a volume and intensity that you can't imagine.

If you're a fan of logical fallcies, grab a bottle, read slaw's post and drink every time you find one. It's a short post, but you'll be trashed quickly. And, of course, his avatar is totally not sexist.

As I said, I'm not really going get to deep into this here, read the huffpost article I posted and follow some of the links. Now decide if want to support women who are fighting against bullying and harassment, and actually fighting for free speech, or sexist trolls who viciously harass women who dare to speak. Your life, your call. I know which side I'm on.

[Apollo]

Alright well, I'm not going to speculate, I just know what I read. Thanks for the background info though.

In regards to Slaw's avatar though, I went to a fitness competition on Saturday, and those men and women were both in speedos and bikinis and you wouldn't find a better bunch of men and women; many of the women were educated professionals and all were proud of their bodies. Admiration of the female body isn't sexist. In fact it's normal, just as it's normal for women to admire a good looking man. Men and women are different, they think differently and there isn't anything wrong with that. That doesn't make one better or lesser than the other.

I support women sticking up for themselves and they deserve to be on equal footing and things are far, far better than in the past but a man shouldn't feel ashamed of being a man. Part of being a straight man is admiration for the female body. It's not sexist. Sexism is a form discrimination, I don't read that from Slaw's avatar.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[Quirk]

In regards to Slaw's avatar though

Sexualized images of women do not always indicate sexist views of women. That is true. Sometimes, though, they do.

[Apollo]

True and forming negative assumptions of the character, the moral fibre of a man just because he shows admiration for the female form doesn't necessarily indicate a sexist either.

A man can admire women without being the stereotypical sexist pig that's rammed down our throats all over TV. That form of labelling is sexist in itself. Very ironic.

But Slaw can defend himself. I just wanted to defend all men everywhere who have utmost respect for women but also admire their figures.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[Quirk]

True and forming negative assumptions of the character, the moral fibre of a man just because he shows admiration for the female form doesn't necessarily indicate a sexist either.

I know where my bet lays.

[3inthekeon]

The Spurr guy is a sick fuck, the Elliot guy seems like he has a bit of Travis Bickell in him, and Stephanie Guthrie seems like a bit of a nutbar also.

[Quirk]

Stephanie Guthrie seems like a bit of a nutbar also.

Why? Here's an article from her on Women and tech.

http://stephguthrie.com/2013/11/07/w...ch-at-mozfest/

As usual, clear, well writter and insightful, what makes her a nutbar? That she is persuing charges against a sexist troll that harassed her for 10 months?

[Miekenstien]

Anybody here not get trolled? But they are girls right.