Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Man Faces 6 Months in Jail For Disagreeing With Feminists on Twitter
- Thread starter Busybody
- Start date
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 45,750
We're all just waiting for LJ to come roaring in
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 45,750
What do you mean if? If its on the net its real, right?
But as always with links I have the feeling there is more to the story. I know its hard to believe, but some people do tend to skew things for their desired effect.
I know, it wouldn't happen here though
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
there is a jewler (in Canada) that MADE a wedding ring for a lesbian couple
the couple later found out he was against SSM
they sued teh jewler for mental anguish etc
and WON
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
The story is, he could be charged under Canadian law. Two opposing sides of douchebags arguing what could happen is not the same as what really did happen. Aliens could land tomorrow and eliminate Canada altogether.
Reasonable people here accept that a BB thread is almost always not true, but you're really just phoning it in this morning.
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
that he COULD be charged based on TWITTER disagreements
is BAD enough
Black Savage will YAWN, until these types then get burned at the stake then he will say
The guy is dead, nothing to do no more, lets move on
Johnny Savage will yawn because it's in Canada and he really doesn't give a rat's ass about what goes on in other countries.
Having said that though, someone should pull the plug on that fucking twitter. What a cesspool.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Enough Said
A Canadian man faces 6 months in jail for disagreeing with feminists on Twitter, a case that one journalist warns “could have enormous fallout for free speech.”
54-year-old Greg Elliott could be charged with criminal harassment simply for expressing his opposition to a campaign by activists Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly to publicly shame a young man in Northern Ontario.
Father of four Elliott was arrested in 2012 and fired from his job as a graphic designer after he opposed Guthrie and Reilly’s plan to generate “hatred on the Internet” targeting the designer of an online video game which allowed players to simulate punching feminist blogger Anita Sarkeesian in the face.
Elliott felt that the two activists’ plot to publicly shame the young man “was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game,” and could cause the young man to commit suicide, urging Guthrie and Reilly not to follow through.
Guthrie and Reilly then claimed that Elliott’s refusal to endorse the plot (he had previously helped Guthrie’s feminist group by offering to design a free poster), represented “criminal harassment.”
Under Canada’s draconian anti-harassment laws, the victim merely has to claim that the offending conduct made them “fear for their safety.”
In other words, if Elliott is convicted, feminists in Canada could claim that anyone who disagrees with or offends them is engaging in “criminal harassment” and demand they be sent to prison.
Guthrie and Reilly also claimed that Elliott was engaging in harassment merely for tagging them in tweets. At no point did Elliott make any remarks directed at the two that could be construed as sexual harassment, hate speech, or violent rhetoric, according to Toronto Police Detective Jeff Bangild.
The very worst comment that Elliott made in reference to the activists was a tweet in which he indirectly referred to the women as “fat” and “ugly”.
The National Post’s Christie Blatchford writes that the ruling, expected to be made on October 6, will have, “enormous potential fallout for free speech online.”
“Basically what he did was disagree politically with these young women….he just disagreed with some of their politics,” said Blatchford.
The notion that someone could be arrested and incarcerated for engaging in vigorous online debate “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter,” said Elliott’s attorney Chris Murphy.
The astounding thing about this case is that Elliott himself was clearly subjected to harassment by Guthrie and Reilly when the two activists sent him a barrage of hateful tweets. Another supporter of Guthrie and Reilly even pretended to be a 13-year-old girl to try and portray Elliott as a pedophile.
“If anybody was being criminally harassed in this case, it was my client, it was Mr. Elliott,” Murphy told Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan.
Guthrie and Reilly also met in August 2012 to discuss how they would attempt to disparage Elliott.
“That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence … they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott,” said Murphy.
This case once again illustrates how politics is downstream from culture. The sewer pipe of social justice warrior mental illness, once restricted to the dark recesses of Tumblr and Twitter, is now infecting law and government – posing a direct threat to free speech.
It’s bad enough that Twitter acquiesces to contrived hate mob outrage and bans prominent anti-feminists from its social media network, but to actually send people to prison for politely expressing disagreement with feminists represents a staggering lurch into unbridled authoritarianism.
A Canadian man faces 6 months in jail for disagreeing with feminists on Twitter, a case that one journalist warns “could have enormous fallout for free speech.”
54-year-old Greg Elliott could be charged with criminal harassment simply for expressing his opposition to a campaign by activists Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly to publicly shame a young man in Northern Ontario.
Father of four Elliott was arrested in 2012 and fired from his job as a graphic designer after he opposed Guthrie and Reilly’s plan to generate “hatred on the Internet” targeting the designer of an online video game which allowed players to simulate punching feminist blogger Anita Sarkeesian in the face.
Elliott felt that the two activists’ plot to publicly shame the young man “was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game,” and could cause the young man to commit suicide, urging Guthrie and Reilly not to follow through.
Guthrie and Reilly then claimed that Elliott’s refusal to endorse the plot (he had previously helped Guthrie’s feminist group by offering to design a free poster), represented “criminal harassment.”
Under Canada’s draconian anti-harassment laws, the victim merely has to claim that the offending conduct made them “fear for their safety.”
In other words, if Elliott is convicted, feminists in Canada could claim that anyone who disagrees with or offends them is engaging in “criminal harassment” and demand they be sent to prison.
Guthrie and Reilly also claimed that Elliott was engaging in harassment merely for tagging them in tweets. At no point did Elliott make any remarks directed at the two that could be construed as sexual harassment, hate speech, or violent rhetoric, according to Toronto Police Detective Jeff Bangild.
The very worst comment that Elliott made in reference to the activists was a tweet in which he indirectly referred to the women as “fat” and “ugly”.
The National Post’s Christie Blatchford writes that the ruling, expected to be made on October 6, will have, “enormous potential fallout for free speech online.”
“Basically what he did was disagree politically with these young women….he just disagreed with some of their politics,” said Blatchford.
The notion that someone could be arrested and incarcerated for engaging in vigorous online debate “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter,” said Elliott’s attorney Chris Murphy.
The astounding thing about this case is that Elliott himself was clearly subjected to harassment by Guthrie and Reilly when the two activists sent him a barrage of hateful tweets. Another supporter of Guthrie and Reilly even pretended to be a 13-year-old girl to try and portray Elliott as a pedophile.
“If anybody was being criminally harassed in this case, it was my client, it was Mr. Elliott,” Murphy told Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan.
Guthrie and Reilly also met in August 2012 to discuss how they would attempt to disparage Elliott.
“That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence … they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott,” said Murphy.
This case once again illustrates how politics is downstream from culture. The sewer pipe of social justice warrior mental illness, once restricted to the dark recesses of Tumblr and Twitter, is now infecting law and government – posing a direct threat to free speech.
It’s bad enough that Twitter acquiesces to contrived hate mob outrage and bans prominent anti-feminists from its social media network, but to actually send people to prison for politely expressing disagreement with feminists represents a staggering lurch into unbridled authoritarianism.
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
I read that when I googlized your thread title - which I do often in the mornings because I enjoy a good laugh with my coffee.
While they are unplugging the Twitter they should also unplug nutty conspiracy sites like infowars and PJ Media. ...and put Alex Jones in a padded room.
The interwebs is a mind control device for the mentally weak who are easily influenced by such nonsense.
While they are unplugging the Twitter they should also unplug nutty conspiracy sites like infowars and PJ Media. ...and put Alex Jones in a padded room.
The interwebs is a mind control device for the mentally weak who are easily influenced by such nonsense.
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 45,750
Couldn't agree more. It really is destroying the world, by melting one mind at a time.
hashtag45
badass 2nd rate Litizen
- Joined
- May 9, 2015
- Posts
- 9,307
You two guys are starting to be more and more in sync. Even using the same emoji smileys, I notice.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
its Not Alex Jones or all the other LIB favorite punching bags
University Of Missouri Chancellor Freaks Out Frat Photo Of Confederate Flag Near Campus, Calls It “Threatening” And “Offensive,” Vows To Punish Students…
Mizzou
The kicker: The picture is three years old and the people in it are not MU students. He backed down, for obvious reasons.
Via The Fire
Officials at the University of Missouri said they will not take action against people photographed three years ago with a Confederate flag in a picture that recently appeared online, because they are not MU students.
MU updated its statement on the issue this afternoon after FIRE reached out asking for comment.
The photo, which was posted Sunday by Twitter user @fratscenery, appeared to show five young men, one of whom was holding a Confederate flag, standing near an MU fraternity house. On Monday, MU Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin posted an official statement on the university’s website, in which he said that the photo “may be considered offensive and possibly even threatening to some of our community members,” and announced that “we will be working to identify those in the photo.” The statement attracted the attention of publications like Reason, which noted that the Chancellor seemed to be in a “panic” over the three-year-old photo. (The College Fix, for its part, ran the story underneath the headline “Mizzou chancellor flips out over three-year-old photo of Confederate flag near campus.”)
Concerned that MU was planning to punish students for protected expression, FIRE reached out to the university for more details. Shortly thereafter, the university removed the Chancellor’s statement from the website, although it is archived online.
University spokesperson Christian Basi told FIRE earlier today that MU had since identified the people in the photo as non-students who are outside the university’s authority.
“As far as we have been able to determine, these are not MU students,” Basi said. “There is no further action we will be taking.”
Basi also stated that Loftin’s statement was originally posted only because the Chancellor “wanted to respond” to numerous tweets he had received about the picture, and it was meant to demonstrate that Loftin was “trying to find context” about the photo. Basi said he could not speculate on what the university might have done had those pictured been students, other than to say students are required to abide by the MU rules of conduct.
University Of Missouri Chancellor Freaks Out Frat Photo Of Confederate Flag Near Campus, Calls It “Threatening” And “Offensive,” Vows To Punish Students…
Mizzou
The kicker: The picture is three years old and the people in it are not MU students. He backed down, for obvious reasons.
Via The Fire
Officials at the University of Missouri said they will not take action against people photographed three years ago with a Confederate flag in a picture that recently appeared online, because they are not MU students.
MU updated its statement on the issue this afternoon after FIRE reached out asking for comment.
The photo, which was posted Sunday by Twitter user @fratscenery, appeared to show five young men, one of whom was holding a Confederate flag, standing near an MU fraternity house. On Monday, MU Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin posted an official statement on the university’s website, in which he said that the photo “may be considered offensive and possibly even threatening to some of our community members,” and announced that “we will be working to identify those in the photo.” The statement attracted the attention of publications like Reason, which noted that the Chancellor seemed to be in a “panic” over the three-year-old photo. (The College Fix, for its part, ran the story underneath the headline “Mizzou chancellor flips out over three-year-old photo of Confederate flag near campus.”)
Concerned that MU was planning to punish students for protected expression, FIRE reached out to the university for more details. Shortly thereafter, the university removed the Chancellor’s statement from the website, although it is archived online.
University spokesperson Christian Basi told FIRE earlier today that MU had since identified the people in the photo as non-students who are outside the university’s authority.
“As far as we have been able to determine, these are not MU students,” Basi said. “There is no further action we will be taking.”
Basi also stated that Loftin’s statement was originally posted only because the Chancellor “wanted to respond” to numerous tweets he had received about the picture, and it was meant to demonstrate that Loftin was “trying to find context” about the photo. Basi said he could not speculate on what the university might have done had those pictured been students, other than to say students are required to abide by the MU rules of conduct.
Too friggin' funny...
...even university Chancellors now have spokespersons to hide behind.
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
That twitter gets gullible people all riled up over nothing.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
I agree. Twitter sucks in gullible people and fills their tiny brains with nonsense.
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
Why are you trying to extrapolate two isolated incidents of over-reaction (fueled by the internet - which was my point) to a global epidemic? And now YOU are upset about it, which furthers my point that the internet is a form of mind control for the gullible.
Regarding the first anecdote (which is your thread topic) - he was probably fired for being a shit bird and the internet battle was just the last straw. And he didn't face criminal sanction - that's just you buying into wackadoodle internet pundant internet posts.
And the second (if it's true, I didn't google it) - some gullible douche was duped and ended up looking stupid.
Similar threads
