Canadian Politics Mega-thread - Page 30

On January 23 2016 06:15 Tephus wrote:
Why interesting? This is common sense. You don't have the right to not be offended, and you have the right to free speech.

On January 23 2016 12:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:

No, you do not get to use the criminal system to win your petty internet arguments.

On January 23 2016 16:36 Essbee wrote:
What would it take for the economy to get back on track? I am in Korea but working as a Canadian and would love for the CAD to get back up... it's painful to transfer 2500$ only to get around 2080 KRW.

On January 23 2016 12:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Why does it always fee like the socially maladjusted teenagers of 90's-early 20's are feeling like the most adapted people of this current decade?

No, an internet flamewar is not a big deal.

No, you do not get to use the criminal system to win your petty internet arguments.

No, people saying mean things on the internet will rarely translate into mean things being done in real life.


I hope this guy gets to sue for legal fees, because I can't possibly see how the Crown actually thought they had a case here. Sure, maybe if this guy had started insulting and targeting these women unprovoked. Not when they were doing the exact same thing to him. And not when they'd "blocked" him, and then actually took the time and effort to see what this guy was continuing to say about them and still respond to it.

At least we have a legal precedent now so that no one else (hopefully) has to waste three whole years on it.

On January 24 2016 08:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:


Actually , he used a hashtag with one of the complainants names to sort of circumvent the block and to try to get them to notice what he was saying about them on twitter. When you read the Toronto Star's version of the events it was a lot more of a "close call" by the judge.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/22/verdict-in-alleged-harassment-of-toronto-feminists-could-change-the-twitterverse.html

to your point, the Star correrctly mentions how this is a precedent setting case. it is total crap that the guy could not use the internet for 3 years. total bull.

Re: ur internet flamewar comment :All of the communication alleged to be harassment was entirely through
Twitter. However, their dispute began when she rejected a project proposal of his during face-to-face meetings. They have work history.

I think the judge made the right call. I'm glad he has a reasonable knowledge of how Twitter works, Otherwise, this could've gone sideways.

When reading The Post's version of a court case and then reading the Star's version of the same court case.. i'm left wondering if its really 2 different cases

During August the dispute escalated, as Mr. Elliott defended an open right to reply on Twitter and read others tweets. Twitter could have had a more eloquent defender, as some who joined in pointed out to him about his tone. At one point he tweeted “Snark, How fat IS your ass? #TOPOLI.” Ms. Reilly, though not the first to use vulgar language, had by then retweeted a comment by someone named @criticalbritt, who told Mr. Elliott of a wish that “you’d disappear up your own arse you supercilious fart golem”. This is the register of language sometimes used by both those arguing for an open Twitter and those wanting to prevent further attacks on women.

On Guthrie

The main premise that I find unreasonable is her perception that she could tweet about topics but not be exposed to his tweets (however spurious and invalid) about the same topic – even if the topic was him.

All of Mr. Elliott’s tweets at issue were responses to the attacks on him that I have listed, or a return to the original dinner and the Bendilin Spurr dispute. I say “all” his tweets because Crown counsel does not rely on the content of any one tweet to suggest harassment. His not letting go of a topic is stubborn and may be considered childish, but it does not provide a basis for a recipient of his tweets to fear danger, especially if the recipient is herself still making negative comments about the sender.

On Reilly

As Ms. Guthrie testified, there is no such thing as a perfect victim. But Ms. Reilly’s retweeting of forceful, insulting, unconfirmed and ultimately inaccurate attacks suggesting pedophilia...raises doubt in my mind to whether she was afraid of Mr. Elliott. There is no suggestion of fear in her communication.

Fear can be of psychological harm, as Crown counsel submits, but that is not the fear that Ms. Reilly was expressing to Twitter or in her testimony.

...Her fear that he might have been at the Cadillac Lounge and that he could escalate to offline and real-life harassment (though she had no idea what he would do) is based on her view that there is privacy in Twitter and that one account holder can dictate what another account holder tweets. But on the whole of this evidence, relating to both her and Ms. Guthrie, Twitter is not private, by definition and in its essence.

On January 28 2016 08:39 Dark_Chill wrote:
Maybe a stupid question, but does a weak canadian dollar have any effect on the non-global market? Like for every day grocery purchases and such?