Case in Canada will have big impact on online free speech

[PS_Alexandria]

It starts with a young man who made a video game in which the players punched a feminist blogger. A group of activists on twitter were understandably irate about this, and began planning a campaign of online hate for the game developer. Gregory Elliott, an acquaintance of the activists, refused to support the campaign, saying that he was worried it might lead the young man to commit suicide. The activists responded by pressing charges against Elliott for "criminal harrassment" due to their twitter argument.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...twitter-constitutes-criminal-harassment.shtml

If Elliott is convicted, it will be a huge blow to free speech on the internet. Since we of Literotica all depend on our free speech rights on the internet, I thought this case would be of interest here.

 

[aqwertyuiop]

"...the Canadian law in question requires the victims to "reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety..."

This was a twitter dispute. She put the "harasser" on ignore. She must have gone out of her way to find his tweets.

No way the stupid plaintiff bitch wins. It is ridiculous that her case was even allowed to proceed.

I guess Canada has some wacko judges, like the US does.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Imagine, defending someone whose kids have said that he beat their mother.

Tweets like ""hateful bitch", "Heather’s fat ass gets fatter" and "A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight," don't sound like "disagreements" to me. It sounds like harassment. Especially that last one, tweeting the location where the woman was currently. That gave her reason to fear for her safety. Also adds stalking to harassment.

Link

 

[PS_Alexandria]

Imagine, defending someone whose kids have said that he beat their mother.

This is a separate issue. If it is true that he beat the mother of his children, he should not be charged with internet harassment, but rather with beating the mother of his children.

Tweets like ""hateful bitch", "Heather’s fat ass gets fatter" and "A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight," don't sound like "disagreements" to me. It sounds like harassment. Especially that last one, tweeting the location where the woman was currently. That gave her reason to fear for her safety. Also adds stalking to harassment.

Link

They're well within the scope of what happens during an average internet argument. By this logic, 90% of youtube comments would be criminal harassment. Should we destroy someone's life because of a mean comment they posted on someone's youtube video?

 

[lovecraft68]

Imagine, defending someone whose kids have said that he beat their mother.

Tweets like ""hateful bitch", "Heather’s fat ass gets fatter" and "A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight," don't sound like "disagreements" to me. It sounds like harassment. Especially that last one, tweeting the location where the woman was currently. That gave her reason to fear for her safety. Also adds stalking to harassment.

Link

Good points, but you won't win an argument here. Eyer's whining thread about Reddit proves that people can't seem to understand there is a difference between freedom of speech and criminal behavior.

This is the internet equivalent of leaving threatening messages on someone's answering machine "back in the day"

 

[lovecraft68]

And as far as lit goes, Laurel recently demonstrated that she is evolving on this matter when she erased a Durnman thread that said eyer should be hung. The reason was it was perceived as a "threat"

This will be like any other rule or law, the only people who will bitch about it are the ones that are the ones that have brought it about the trolls who think its entertaining to spew threats of hate and violence at people

The Feds and Law enforcement have finally come around to the fact the internet needs to start having some laws and not being the wild west.

And as far as this case goes the idiot should have kept his mouth shut because fact is if the feminists wanted to protest the game all that would have done was give it press and make it money. Now it has the attention of law enforcement

 

[Messier82]

Here in the UK we've had a spate of equally provocative incidents, most notably, people using social media to threaten rape on certain high profile individuals. WTF?!?

What do all these international events say about our society? The internet does not create monsters but it does a very effective job of allowing monstrous people to show the beast within.

Fortunately most of them are too stupid to know how to cover their tracks and (in the UK certainly) tend to pay for it quite rapidly with some 'porridge'.

 

[someoneyouknow]

If you go up to someone and say something to the effect, "I know where you live and I'm going to burn your house down while you're in it", every reasonable person would agree you have made a direct threat against that person.

You saying the same thing on a message board or in a tweet or whatever is no different.

Freedom of speech is great but with that freedom comes consequences. If you wouldn't say the above to someone because you know it's a direct threat, don't try hiding behind your screen and think saying the same thing is somehow different.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

July 16, 2015

He crossed a line. That has legal consequences.
He pushed boundaries. He tested.

He will see the results of his experiment.

 

[PS_Alexandria]

If you go up to someone and say something to the effect, "I know where you live and I'm going to burn your house down while you're in it", every reasonable person would agree you have made a direct threat against that person.

You saying the same thing on a message board or in a tweet or whatever is no different.

Freedom of speech is great but with that freedom comes consequences. If you wouldn't say the above to someone because you know it's a direct threat, don't try hiding behind your screen and think saying the same thing is somehow different.

Agree, but Gregory Elliott never said that he knew where the women lived, that he would burn their house down, or that he would do any act of physical violence against them. He just called them fat and ugly. It is legal to call someone fat and/or ugly to their face.

Eyer's whining thread about Reddit proves that people can't seem to understand there is a difference between freedom of speech and criminal behavior.

Reddit is a private company. It is free to have whatever policy about speech it wants to have. But Gregory Elliott is not being banned by a private company for his speech, he is facing jail time from the government. That is a totally different issue. And calling someone fat and/or ugly (even to their face) is again, not criminal behavior.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This makes no sense. It seems Elliot is the only reasonable person involved, and the plaintiffs are actually trying to do him dirt.

 

[Busybody]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1207387

 

[BotanyBoy]

Agree, but Gregory Elliott never said that he knew where the women lived, that he would burn their house down, or that he would do any act of physical violence against them. He just called them fat and ugly. It is legal to call someone fat and/or ugly to their face.



Reddit is a private company. It is free to have whatever policy about speech it wants to have. But Gregory Elliott is not being banned by a private company for his speech, he is facing jail time from the government. That is a totally different issue. And calling someone fat and/or ugly (even to their face) is again, not criminal behavior.

But they are women, which means their feelings are under legal protection meaning he committed a crime.

 

[Sean Renaud]

But they are women, which means their feelings are under legal protection meaning he committed a crime.

The article implies that if he didn't know where they lived finding out would be easy enough.


Now that brings us to Greg Elliott. He knew Guthrie a bit (and not just online), and he disagreed with Guthrie's apparent plan to shame Spurr, and so he created what appears to have been something of a counter campaign to speak out against Guthrie's campaign.

How much 'a bit' constitutes if obviously open for interpretation but we're not exactly talking about random strangers like most of us. I could walk right by most of you and not have a clue.

Whether or not this warrants legal intervention is sticky at best but lets keep our facts with what we know.

 

[Busybody]

BEN SHAPIRO FILES POLICE REPORT AGAINST TRANSGENDER REPORTER ZOEY TUR

Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro has filed a report with the Los Angeles Police Department alleging battery against transgender Inside Edition reporter Zoey Tur, née Robert Albert Tur.

Shapiro filed the report Sunday morning, two days after a contentious exchange with Tur on the HLN program Dr. Drew. On a panel discussion over Bruce Jenner’s receipt of ESPN’s Arthur Ashe Courage Award, Tur grabbed Shapiro’s neck and growled, “You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.” Shapiro later alleged that Tur had threatened him after the appearance, “I’ll see you in the parking lot,” and that CNN security had escorted Shapiro to his car after ensuring Tur had left the premises. Tur also tweeted out on Friday that he would like to “curb stomp” Shapiro.

Tur’s threats against Shapiro followed Shapiro arguing that referring to transgender people by their preferred instead of biological sex is “mainstreaming delusion.” Of Jenner, Shapiro declared, “How he feels on the inside is irrelevant to the question of his biological self.” After Tur suggested that Shapiro knew nothing about genetics, the following exchange then occurred:

Shapiro asked if the discussion was supposed to be on genetics and asked, “What are your genetics, sir?” Pinsky said to Tur, “I’d stay away from the genetics and back to the brain scans.”

Tur then said to Shapiro, “You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.” Shapiro responded, “That seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion.” Oduolowu said that, to be fair, Shapiro was being rude, to which Shapiro answered, “I’m sorry, it’s not rude to say that someone who’s biologically a male is a male.” Tur stated, “You just called me a ‘sir.’”

After some of the other panelists, particularly radio and “Chain Reaction” host Mike Catherwood, objected that Shapiro knew that what he said would be “insulting” and “inflammatory.” Shapiro responded, “It’s not a matter of insulting or inflammatory. It’s a fact. You are a male. Dr. Drew is a male.”

Shapiro explained to Breitbart News why he filed the police report. “Just because the left has designated someone a member of the victim class does not mean that that person gets to infringe the rights of others,” he said of his report. “Until the left learns that, their aggression will not stop.” Shapiro also said that he had spoken with a detective at LAPD, and that he would be pursuing any possibility of charges regarding alleged criminal threats.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's pretty cut and dry, you grab me by the throat anything I do shy of breaking your goddamn neck is 100% justified.

As for what to call someone there is no good reason not to call them by their preferred gender.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Shapiro seems to be a world class asshole, but this was a contentious discussion, and Tur should not have gotten physical and should not have threatened violence. But I agree with him about gender.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Shapiro seems to be a world class asshole, but this was a contentious discussion, and Tur should not have gotten physical and should not have threatened violence. But I agree with him about gender.

Then I assume you agree we should start calling the UK the UQ, since they are not a Kingdom currently and are ruled over by a queen?