The good news & bad news - Zoe Quinn, feminist and catalyst for Gamergate, gives up

[LJ_Reloaded]

The good news & bad news - Zoe Quinn, feminist and catalyst for Gamergate, gives up

http://blog.unburntwitch.com/post/139084743809/why-i-just-dropped-the-harassment-charges-the-man

The good news: the pack of lies that was Zoe Quinn's criminal accusations against her ex-boyfriend are now dead and gone.

The bad news: Zoe Quinn didn't get exposed in an actual court of law for the fraud that she is. This really needed to go to court.

The really bad news: the idiots who sent her death and rape threats are also off the hook. They're a bigger problem than she is and the FBI dropped the ball instead of the fucking hammer here.

We've got an ongoing problem of online threats that this debacle exposed, and at some point the government needs to enforce the fucking law.

 

[badbabysitter]

http://blog.unburntwitch.com/post/139084743809/why-i-just-dropped-the-harassment-charges-the-man
The good news: the pack of lies that was Zoe Quinn's criminal accusations against her ex-boyfriend are now dead and gone.

Falsehood 1..... after posting his letter claiming she slept her way to good video game reviews reviews as part of his 9000+ word online letter, he was threatened with a defamation of character lawsuit.. so he then went and admitted he lied.. and currently has a restraining order on him, not to mention a gag order preventing him from divulging anymore information on her

The bad news: Zoe Quinn didn't get exposed in an actual court of law for the fraud that she is. This really needed to go to court.

Flasehood 2.. since the claims made against her were already admitted to be false, it's quite impossible to take her to jail for being lied about

The really bad news: the idiots who sent her death and rape threats are also off the hook. They're a bigger problem than she is and the FBI dropped the ball instead of the fucking hammer here.

Truth.. her ex-boyfriend being chief amongst them.. you know, the same guy you just celebrated

We've got an ongoing problem of online threats that this debacle exposed, and at some point the government needs to enforce the fucking law.

unless it protects feminists ..then it will be bad, right?

When you seek charges, you’re on trial as much as the other person, if not more. The “asking for it” defense is alive and well even in 2016, and you have to be a “good victim” in order to give your case the best shot it has. “Good victim”, when it comes to women in domestic or gendered violence cases like mine, tends to mean a lot of loaded, even conflicting things. The courts do not favor a lot of women simply for being who they are - women of color, trans women, sex workers, I could go on. Even beyond that, you have to be well behaved and silent about the proceedings, or risk pissing off the judge and giving the defense attorneys ammo to work with. Even my Cracked article was waved around in court by my ex’s lawyers, citing it as “the most disgusting thing that happened during GamerGate” despite my almost one foot stack of threats and photos of me that people had printed out, jizzed on, and sent to my family. The defense, so far, had hung a hat on trying to prove I deserved all of this.

I have been open about my depression and my history in sex work. I have not gone out of the public eye during all of the abuse, and I don’t regret that. I believe in standing up for sex workers and people living with mental health concerns and anyone else I can, and I don’t know what would have happened if I had kept my mouth shut when I was targeted two years ago. But this comes with a cost - everything I have said and done will be held against me and spun by my abuser. The cost of being who I am in defiance of the abuse was sacrificing being a good victim.

The spin is even more successful in these cases, because of how disconnected judges, lawyers, police, and juries often are from the internet. One told me to simply give up my career and stop going offline if I didn’t like the abuse. He barely bothered to look at my huge stack of evidence before declaring he had no idea what the internet was about and didn’t want to know.


this is what you consider a pack of lies

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Falsehood 1..... after posting his letter claiming she slept her way to good video game reviews reviews as part of his 9000+ word online letter, he was threatened with a defamation of character lawsuit.. so he then went and admitted he lied.. and currently has a restraining order on him, not to mention a gag order preventing him from divulging anymore information on her

Yes and who shot President Kennedy again? Please, get out of here with your bullshit.

unless it protects feminists ..then it will be bad, right?

Nope, the law applies equally to everyone... or, at least it should.

 

[badbabysitter]

Yes and who shot President Kennedy again? Please, get out of here with your bullshit.

That's it? That's your entire counterpoint?

You have harped on about the " lies" that Zoe Quinn spewed before, but you have not once ever told us what exactly those " lies" were

so put up or shut up gater

Nope, the law applies equally to everyone... or, at least it should.

Yeah, but you're very selective in how you feel about who it's applied equally to

case in point here, you think the full weight of the law should be thrown at online harrassers...... yet in the Elliot case in Toronto, where even the judge declared the feminist was the subject of harasment, you celebrated his walking scott-free as a victory

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

That's it? That's your entire counterpoint?

You have harped on about the " lies" that Zoe Quinn spewed before, but you have not once ever told us what exactly those " lies" were

so put up or shut up gater

I think I'll just drop this off right here.

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/04/zoe-quinn-lied-about-me-in-front-of-congress.html

And before you open your yap, his testimony is just as credible as Zoe Quinn's.

Yeah, but you're very selective in how you feel about who it's applied equally to

case in point here, you think the full weight of the law should be thrown at online harrassers...... yet in the Elliot case in Toronto, where even the judge declared the feminist was the subject of harasment, you celebrated his walking scott-free as a victory

When you threaten harm and hunt down their personal info then that's criminal harassment. Elliot did neither.

 

[badbabysitter]

I think I'll just drop this off right here.

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/04/zoe-quinn-lied-about-me-in-front-of-congress.html

first claim.. he says she doxxed him which he " proves" by providing a link she made that linked to an blog which shows his business address which is already public domain.. you cant reveal private information if the information isn't private to begin with

claim 2... being on a site 7 to 4 years previously which is not in any way related to gamergate ( since it doesnt exist yet) is conclusive proof..of literally nothing..

rest of points.. merely he said/ she said antecdotal which can't be proven by either side, and he makes no attempt to actually do so either

And before you open your yap, his testimony is just as credible as Zoe Quinn's.

except like I said... his arguments are based off public domain and things completely unrelated to GG

meanwhile her ex.. literally admitted to lying about her and being the impeous for gamergate... and you have expressed zero outrage about that

ever.

When you threaten harm and hunt down their personal info then that's criminal harassment.

Not quite, but close

Criminal harassment

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Marginal noterohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

Elliot did neither.

he did all of that except for one thing... since his victim didnt fear her harrasser and stood up to him, it's not considered a crime... but standing up to him didnt stop him either

here's the judges ruling from one of your own posts


There is no doubt that Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly were harassed by Gregory Alan Elliott, either due to the volume or content of his tweets, but that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan said

this essentially means, if someone stands up their harrasers it's no longer a crime


this is your great victory

 

[lovecraft68]

We've got an ongoing problem of online threats that this debacle exposed, and at some point the government needs to enforce the fucking law.

Then they will be coming here. Women on this site put up with a lot of shit from the creeper assholes here, never mind out right stalkers like eyer and his kind.

'Freedom of speech' which is the battle cry of the internet "I'm going to rape you bitch crowd" is about to get a rude awakening because the government is going to be forced to get involved because sites like this use FOS as an excuse to let people here spew hate and threats and think its funny.

Oh, one more note. I'm sure Sean Renaud will be along to explain how Zoe created Rooshv and legalized rape is a natural progression because of her

 

[lovecraft68]

first claim.. he says she doxxed him which he " proves" by providing a link she made that linked to an blog which shows his business address which is already public domain.. you cant reveal private information if the information isn't private to begin with

claim 2... being on a site 7 to 4 years previously which is not in any way related to gamergate ( since it doesnt exist yet) is conclusive proof..of literally nothing..

rest of points.. merely he said/ she said antecdotal which can't be proven by either side, and he makes no attempt to actually do so eithe


except like I said... his arguments are based off public domain and things completely unrelated to GG

meanwhile her ex.. literally admitted to lying about her and being the impeous for gamergate... and you have expressed zero outrage about that

ever.




Not quite, but close

Criminal harassment

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Marginal noterohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.




he did all of that except for one thing... since his victim didnt fear her harrasser and stood up to him, it's not considered a crime... but standing up to him didnt stop him either

here's the judges ruling from one of your own posts


There is no doubt that Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly were harassed by Gregory Alan Elliott, either due to the volume or content of his tweets, but that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan said

this essentially means, if someone stands up their harrasers it's no longer a crime


this is your great victory

Ontario? Canada? The country where a girl was raped and pictures of the assault were placed on Facebook DURING the assault and the Canadian 'detectives' said there was not enough evidence to press charges and the girl was eventually driven to suicide? That Canada? Yeah, no surprise, all any woman needs to know about Canada is Lit's Lancecaster the rapist, I mean 'dom' lives there.

 

[badbabysitter]

Ontario? Canada? The country where a girl was raped and pictures of the assault were placed on Facebook DURING the assault and the Canadian 'detectives' said there was not enough evidence to press charges and the girl was eventually driven to suicide? That Canada? Yeah, no surprise, all any woman needs to know about Canada is Lit's Lancecaster the rapist, I mean 'dom' lives there.

Yup, my home country.. all of that is a " privilege", just ask LT

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

first claim.. he says she doxxed him which he " proves" by providing a link she made that linked to an blog which shows his business address which is already public domain.. you cant reveal private information if the information isn't private to begin with

claim 2... being on a site 7 to 4 years previously which is not in any way related to gamergate ( since it doesnt exist yet) is conclusive proof..of literally nothing..

rest of points.. merely he said/ she said antecdotal which can't be proven by either side, and he makes no attempt to actually do so either







except like I said... his arguments are based off public domain and things completely unrelated to GG

meanwhile her ex.. literally admitted to lying about her and being the impeous for gamergate... and you have expressed zero outrage about that

ever.




Not quite, but close

Criminal harassment

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Marginal noterohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.




he did all of that except for one thing... since his victim didnt fear her harrasser and stood up to him, it's not considered a crime... but standing up to him didnt stop him either

here's the judges ruling from one of your own posts


There is no doubt that Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly were harassed by Gregory Alan Elliott, either due to the volume or content of his tweets, but that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan said

this essentially means, if someone stands up their harrasers it's no longer a crime


this is your great victory

Dude did not beset or watch her house (c), nor did he follow them physically (a), nor did he threaten her or her friends or family (d)

He communicated with her on an open forum. And your laws suggest that this is criminal harassment?

Your country sucks. I'm glad I don't live in Canada. This case might get thrown out as criminally frivolous here.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Ontario? Canada? The country where a girl was raped and pictures of the assault were placed on Facebook DURING the assault and the Canadian 'detectives' said there was not enough evidence to press charges and the girl was eventually driven to suicide? That Canada? Yeah, no surprise, all any woman needs to know about Canada is Lit's Lancecaster the rapist, I mean 'dom' lives there.

That's fucking insane. Sadly this miscarriage of justice could also happen here. The Steubenville fuckers only got 2 years for what they did.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

Following her 2012 Kickstarter campaign for the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games video series, feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian began to receive large volumes of online criticism and harassment.[4][5] One form of harassment commonly decried in the media was a Newgrounds game in which players punched a photograph of Sarkeesian, causing her to appear progressively more bruised and injured.[6][7][8] The game's creator, Bendalin Spurr, who had previously made a similar game about punching conservative lawyer and anti-video-game activist Jack Thompson,[6] denied that the games promoted real violence.[9]

Stephanie Guthrie, a Toronto-based feminist activist, was among those who objected to Spurr's game. Wanting to cause real-life consequences for Spurr's online activity, she contacted news organizations and potential employers in his hometown.[10][11] Gregory Alan Elliott, a Toronto artist,[12] criticized Guthrie's actions as "every bit as vicious as the face-punch game".[13] Guthrie and other women blocked him on Twitter, they also reported his account but the social networking website found he wasn't violating their terms of service, and Elliott continued tweeting criticism to their accounts and commenting on their online and offline activities.[14][15] An investigating officer found that none of Elliott's messages threatened harm against any of the women.[16]

Interesting take-aways from this:
1) Bendalin Spurr, the guy who created the Punch Anita Sarkeesian game had previously created a Punch Jack Thompson game in the same spirit and mindset. Yet it was only a problem when Anita Sarkeesian was the target.

2) A feminist, Stephanie Guthrie, pursued Bendalin Spurr in real life, violating section C of the Canadian harassment law

3) Guthrie blocked Spurr while mocking him on Twitter and creating hashtags about him. More than likely, THIS probably helped to sink the prosecution's case. You don't allege harassment and then mock and taunt your alleged harasser. No court in the land is going to smile on that, not even in feminist Canada.

4) The judge actually dismissed the case because Elliott's tweets contained nothing of a sexual or violent nature and there was not even a sign that he planned to hurt them.

In other words, badbabysitter, you're full of shit.

 

[badbabysitter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott


Interesting take-aways from this:
1) Bendalin Spurr, the guy who created the Punch Anita Sarkeesian game had previously created a Punch Jack Thompson game in the same spirit and mindset. Yet it was only a problem when Anita Sarkeesian was the target.

which is irrelevant to his harrasment

2) A feminist, Stephanie Guthrie, pursued Bendalin Spurr in real life, violating section C of the Canadian harassment law

contacting the media is not violating his privacy or home per section C, blocking him on twitter is also not violation of section C

meanwhile he did violate section B.. you dont get to pick and choose what parts of a law you like...unless it's India and you can ignore 377 to suit your gender politics

3) Guthrie blocked Spurr while mocking him on Twitter and creating hashtags about him. More than likely, THIS probably helped to sink the prosecution's case. You don't allege harassment and then mock and taunt your alleged harasser. No court in the land is going to smile on that, not even in feminist Canada.

Creating a hashtag is not violating his privacy, unless she somehow forced him to read them

4) The judge actually dismissed the case because Elliott's tweets contained nothing of a sexual or violent nature and there was not even a sign that he planned to hurt them.

But he did continually try to contact her after being blocked multiple times, wherin he would create a new account solely to contact her.. she didnt want his contact, and he kept contacting her


and the judge even said he harrassed her

but she wasnt in fear for her life or safety..so it didnt count

In other words, badbabysitter, you're full of shit.

so LT... you're cheerleading a guy that went too far, violated consent, and wouldnt take no for an answer


no wonder you think he's awesome

 

[badbabysitter]

Dude did not beset or watch her house (c), nor did he follow them physically (a), nor did he threaten her or her friends or family (d)

but he did violate section B


(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;


just because he didnt break one part of the law, does not mean he didnt break the other

He communicated with her on an open forum. And your laws suggest that this is criminal harassment?

and after being blocked he continued to violate section b




(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;


just because he didnt break one part of the law, does not mean he didnt break the other

Your country sucks. I'm glad I don't live in Canada. This case might get thrown out as criminally frivolous here.

dude, every anti-abortion case in the US would get thrown out as frivolous here

 

[badbabysitter]

as an aside.. you still havent been able to show one single thing Zoe Quinn lied about when it pertains to gamergate

funny that

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

which is irrelevant to his harrasment




contacting the media is not violating his privacy or home per section C, blocking him on twitter is also not violation of section C

meanwhile he did violate section B.. you dont get to pick and choose what parts of a law you like...unless it's India and you can ignore 377 to suit your gender politics




Creating a hashtag is not violating his privacy, unless she somehow forced him to read them




But he did continually try to contact her after being blocked multiple times, wherin he would create a new account solely to contact her.. she didnt want his contact, and he kept contacting her


and the judge even said he harrassed her

but she wasnt in fear for her life or safety..so it didnt count




so LT... you're cheerleading a guy that went too far, violated consent, and wouldnt take no for an answer


no wonder you think he's awesome

Went too far in your pathetic opinion.

NOT in an actual judge's opinion.

 

[badbabysitter]

Went too far in your pathetic opinion.

NOT in an actual judge's opinion.

the judge's opinion was that he was harrassing her, even said so in your link... it just didnt amount to criminal harrasment


and you still havent been able to support your claims about Zoe Quinn

ever gonna?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

the judge's opinion was that he was harrassing her, even said so in your link... it just didnt amount to criminal harrasment

As I said, the judge actually dismissed the case because Elliott's tweets contained nothing of a sexual or violent nature and there was not even a sign that he planned to hurt them.

and you still havent been able to support your claims about Zoe Quinn

ever gonna?

Like I said, I will counter what she says, with what the guy she accused, says
http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/04/zoe-quinn-lied-about-me-in-front-of-congress.html

 

[badbabysitter]

As I said, the judge actually dismissed the case because Elliott's tweets contained nothing of a sexual or violent nature and there was not even a sign that he planned to hurt them.

You're going to show the ruling, and I'm going to show what was said in the ruling.. and we are both going to be right.. so this argument will forever go nowhere

Like I said, I will counter what she says, with what the guy she accused, says
http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/04/zoe-quinn-lied-about-me-in-front-of-congress.html

this was already covered in this thread... literally nothing he said points to anything criminal on her part

the absolute closest he gets is his outrage that she outed information on him that was already in public domain ( being a lawyer , he should have known that) and that a teenage Quinn was part of a board that bullied people years before Gamergate came into existence


so... still no smoking gun

please show me where in any of that is there evidence of her "lies"