7 ms·

Toronto man found not guilty in Twitter harassment trial

82 points by eigenvector 11y ago

atjoslin 11y ago
Ridiculous, Canada. The "Language Police" literally exist.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  Except the verdict was not guilty, thankfully.
  - skylan_q 11y ago
    It shouldn't have even gone this far.
  - ssijak 11y ago
    He lost his job, was banned from using PC and internet during the trial, etc..
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - pervycreeper 11y ago
        He lost his job only because he was given an order forbidding him from using the internet. What makes you say that he's "an asshole"?
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - pervycreeper 11y ago
    He was jailed, forbidden from using the internet, subjected to a multi-year legal nightmare, left with a six-figure legal fee, and made a target of aggression for rabid feminists worldwide.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      The article doesn't say any of that - cite please?
      - ssijak 11y ago
        "He had more problems than a charge of criminal harassment. According to Gregory Elliott’s son, Clayton, the Canadian courts initially sought to detain him for the duration of his trial. This would have seen him jailed for more than three years. Eventually, the Crown was persuaded to grant bail, although, as part of his bail conditions, Elliott was prohibited from using “the internet and any device with access to the internet.” A graphics designer by trade, this was crippling to his career. Before he even had a chance to figure out how to continue doing his job of 17 years with these restrictive bail conditions, he was fired without cause. Forced to withdraw his pension early, the 55-year old father of four has spent more than $50,000 in legal fees, and still owes a further $40,000." Also they falsely accused him as pedophile (while they knew he was not guilty for what they were accusing him). One of many sources : http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/19/a-life-ruined-by-feminists-and-the-state-only-the-internet-can-save-gregory-alan-elliott/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/19/a-life-ruined-by-fe...
        kjs3 11y ago
        Using breitbart.com as a "source" doesn't exactly support your post as impartial or believable; indeed, it pretty much telegraphs your bias.
      - pervycreeper 11y ago
        Christie Blatchford's coverage of this case is essential reading, IMO: http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/gregory-elliott http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/gregory-elliott The briefs and the decision themselves are also worthwhile to read, here's the decision: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj35/2016oncj35.html http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj35/2016onc... Interestingly, there are a few mistakes regarding how twitter functions, and a tweet was falsely attributed to Elliot. This was noticed by the blogger over at genuinewitty.com, which also has more depth and detail in its research and coverage of the case (also essential reading, IMO).
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  No more ridiculous than Ellen Pao's allegations of sexual harrassment.
  - kelukelugames 11y ago
    Ellen Pao never claimed sexual harassment. She claimed workplace discrimination because of her gender. Being discriminated against after breaking off an affair is common. Think of how much most people like their exs. However, according to my lawyer friend, Pao had zero chance of legal victory.
    - cpncrunch 11y ago
      >Ellen Pao never claimed sexual harassment From her court documents: "Plaintiff experienced continuing retaliation after she complained about sexual harrasment to the highest level of management at KPCB". (in addition to discrimination at work because of her gender).
parennoob 11y ago
Some of the allegations made in this trial border on the comical; although it is somewhat scary it took them so long to throw the case out. "He continued to contact them, they said, in part through the use of hashtags he knew them to be involved with." Let me get this straight – imagine two people, Alex and Bob, who are both comics fans. Alex doesn't like Bob and has blocked him on Twitter. Now Bob tweets something like "I like Marvel #comics". Can you seriously say that he is "harassing" Alex because Alex is specifically searching for Tweets with that hashtag and sees Bob's Tweet? In my opinion, people wasting the court's time with such cases should be fined a hefty amount.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant files a civil suit against the plaintiff.
  - ssijak 11y ago
    Can he get compensation for all the bad things that he endured because of this trial (lost job, was not able to work because he was banned from the internet, etc..)?
    - pakled_engineer 11y ago
      He crowdfunded some of the legal fees https://www.generosity.com/fundraising/gregory-alan-elliott-twitter-trial-support-fund https://www.generosity.com/fundraising/gregory-alan-elliott-... Unsure if it's even worth incurring more lawyer fees pursuing the loss of employment as the women will likely have no money to pay him, file endless appeals and delays, ect.
- hobs 11y ago
  If it was the USA the judge could have always choosen to brand them a vexatious litigant, which as Jason Scott said, "Basically means you are an asshole in the eyes of the court." It also sets up certain requirements to use the legal system (like paying a certain amount of the defendants attorney fees up front iirc)
danso 11y ago
What's interesting to me is that in America, which does have pretty strong First Amendment protections, also has statutes for phone harassment: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/telephone-harassment-statutes http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/telephone-harassment-sta... > Telephone harassment is defined in many different ways. For example, while most states require some level of intent to harass or annoy, a few require only that the communication in fact harasses or that a reasonable person would expect it to harass...Telephone harassment often includes the following actions: calling repeatedly, anonymously or at inconvenient hours; causing the phone to ring continuously; using obscene language; or failing to hang up the phone. It can also include falsely stating that a family member of the recipient is injured or dead, or threatening to injure the recipient or a family member. I support the non-guilty verdict here, but would someone be able to allege harassment over Twitter on the basis that it is similar to the statues on phone harassment (at least in America)? The argument is less about the content of the message and more about the annoying nature of repeated "notifications".
- parennoob 11y ago
  Phones are not a pub-sub system like Twitter is. Once you block someone, there is no way they can contact you directly. You have to go and read their Tweets in some manner to see what they are saying. Stephanie Guthrie was appears to have been literally trying to sue this guy because he called her mean names (for which she blocked him), and was using a hashtag that she liked to search on. Apparently, Tweets from people you have blocked are still visible if they are using a hashtag that you search on. This could possibly be a technical limitation – it's not like Google gives you an option (apart from SafeSearch) to filter sites you may be offended by. Come to think of it, this is literally like trying to sue someone for putting up a site indexed by Google that may come up for search terms you use. So I would say the case for being similar to repeated phone calls is invalid.
  - avita1 11y ago
    > Once you block someone, there is no way they can contact you directly. Most carriers allow you to blacklist phone numbers (although that very well may not have been the case when those laws were written).
stevebmark 11y ago
Reminder that this has nothing to do with "free speech," and that celebrating the outcome of the trial for that is flawed reasoning.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Only if you have a narrow, pinched, legalistic definition of "free speech" which would be unrecognizable to any of the philosophers and statesmen who created our modern understanding of the concept. If, for getting into an argument with certain people, you can be punished with being ostracized, fired, prevented from earning a living, demonized by the news media, and put through a years-long wringer in the courts, your freedom of speech is harmed even if at the end of it a judge says not guilty.
  - stevebmark 11y ago
    And still, nothing you said has anything to do with free speech.
  - kaonashi 11y ago
    > ostracized, fired, prevented from earning a living …and if you force people to be in your company regardless of what you say does to those people, you've taken away their freedom of assembly.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      Then it's a good thing that's not what I said, isn't it? Not everything that's legal is right. A company that fires someone because they got in a Twitter argument on their own time is behaving legally, and an attempt to make such an action illegal would probably cause more problems than it solves. But a company that does such a thing would not be right.
      - kaonashi 11y ago
        That would depend on how what that person said affects their relationships with co-workers (e.g. someone went on a racist Twitter tirade that all their co-workers read, some of whom belong to groups they were disparaging)
smegel 11y ago
Feminist persecution.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
im2w1l 11y ago
Is there a record of his and their tweets anywhere? (I would need both to see to what extent he stalked their hashtags). Or is everything still up?
- probdist 11y ago
  There are many of the substantive tweets preserved in the legal record of the case.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  Here is a link to a court doc. http://www.scribd.com/doc/296325188/2016oncj35 http://www.scribd.com/doc/296325188/2016oncj35 Edit: TL;DR 1) Mr. Elliot and Ms. Guthrie met in person to discuss design work. Elliot is a graphic designer. Guthrie thought he was creepy and they don't agree on stuff. But relationship is not yet hostile. 2) Guthrie publishes on Twitter the info of the person who made the Anita Sarkiesian game. Elliot disagrees and gets blocked. 3) Elliot makes comments about AIDs and uses slurs. "His language is vulgar and sometimes obscene, and once inexplicably homophobic." After reading this I give up. On the same day, Ms. Reilly tweeted with a period before Mr. Elliott’s handle so that not only his followers but the“ whole world”would see it, according to her evidence:“.@greg_a_elliott Just couldn’t ignore me, huh? Leave me the fuck alone.” However, the space between the period and his handle, perhaps a typographical error, may mean that it did not have this effect. Twitter scares me.
  - pervycreeper 11y ago
    >once inexplicably homophobic The explanation is that the tweet in question is from a different account with a similar looking handle. There are multiple news outlets which have been informed of this inaccuracy, which have not yet issued corrections or retractions for reporting this false info.
  - trattle 11y ago
    The homophobic one about AIDS was from a troll / parody account. Look at the spelling of the surname.
probdist 11y ago
Previous (short) discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10954709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10954709
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

82 points by eigenvector 11y ago

atjoslin 11y ago

Ridiculous, Canada. The "Language Police" literally exist.

ojbyrne 11y ago
Except the verdict was not guilty, thankfully.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  It shouldn't have even gone this far.
- ssijak 11y ago
  He lost his job, was banned from using PC and internet during the trial, etc..
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - pervycreeper 11y ago
      He lost his job only because he was given an order forbidding him from using the internet. What makes you say that he's "an asshole"?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- pervycreeper 11y ago
  He was jailed, forbidden from using the internet, subjected to a multi-year legal nightmare, left with a six-figure legal fee, and made a target of aggression for rabid feminists worldwide.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    The article doesn't say any of that - cite please?
    - ssijak 11y ago
      "He had more problems than a charge of criminal harassment. According to Gregory Elliott’s son, Clayton, the Canadian courts initially sought to detain him for the duration of his trial. This would have seen him jailed for more than three years. Eventually, the Crown was persuaded to grant bail, although, as part of his bail conditions, Elliott was prohibited from using “the internet and any device with access to the internet.” A graphics designer by trade, this was crippling to his career. Before he even had a chance to figure out how to continue doing his job of 17 years with these restrictive bail conditions, he was fired without cause. Forced to withdraw his pension early, the 55-year old father of four has spent more than $50,000 in legal fees, and still owes a further $40,000." Also they falsely accused him as pedophile (while they knew he was not guilty for what they were accusing him). One of many sources : http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/19/a-life-ruined-by-feminists-and-the-state-only-the-internet-can-save-gregory-alan-elliott/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/19/a-life-ruined-by-fe...
      - kjs3 11y ago
        Using breitbart.com as a "source" doesn't exactly support your post as impartial or believable; indeed, it pretty much telegraphs your bias.
    - pervycreeper 11y ago
      Christie Blatchford's coverage of this case is essential reading, IMO: http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/gregory-elliott http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/gregory-elliott The briefs and the decision themselves are also worthwhile to read, here's the decision: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj35/2016oncj35.html http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj35/2016onc... Interestingly, there are a few mistakes regarding how twitter functions, and a tweet was falsely attributed to Elliot. This was noticed by the blogger over at genuinewitty.com, which also has more depth and detail in its research and coverage of the case (also essential reading, IMO).
cpncrunch 11y ago
No more ridiculous than Ellen Pao's allegations of sexual harrassment.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  Ellen Pao never claimed sexual harassment. She claimed workplace discrimination because of her gender. Being discriminated against after breaking off an affair is common. Think of how much most people like their exs. However, according to my lawyer friend, Pao had zero chance of legal victory.
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    >Ellen Pao never claimed sexual harassment From her court documents: "Plaintiff experienced continuing retaliation after she complained about sexual harrasment to the highest level of management at KPCB". (in addition to discrimination at work because of her gender).

parennoob 11y ago

Some of the allegations made in this trial border on the comical; although it is somewhat scary it took them so long to throw the case out. "He continued to contact them, they said, in part through the use of hashtags he knew them to be involved with." Let me get this straight – imagine two people, Alex and Bob, who are both comics fans. Alex doesn't like Bob and has blocked him on Twitter. Now Bob tweets something like "I like Marvel #comics". Can you seriously say that he is "harassing" Alex because Alex is specifically searching for Tweets with that hashtag and sees Bob's Tweet? In my opinion, people wasting the court's time with such cases should be fined a hefty amount.

ojbyrne 11y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant files a civil suit against the plaintiff.
- ssijak 11y ago
  Can he get compensation for all the bad things that he endured because of this trial (lost job, was not able to work because he was banned from the internet, etc..)?
  - pakled_engineer 11y ago
    He crowdfunded some of the legal fees https://www.generosity.com/fundraising/gregory-alan-elliott-twitter-trial-support-fund https://www.generosity.com/fundraising/gregory-alan-elliott-... Unsure if it's even worth incurring more lawyer fees pursuing the loss of employment as the women will likely have no money to pay him, file endless appeals and delays, ect.
hobs 11y ago
If it was the USA the judge could have always choosen to brand them a vexatious litigant, which as Jason Scott said, "Basically means you are an asshole in the eyes of the court." It also sets up certain requirements to use the legal system (like paying a certain amount of the defendants attorney fees up front iirc)

danso 11y ago

What's interesting to me is that in America, which does have pretty strong First Amendment protections, also has statutes for phone harassment: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/telephone-harassment-statutes http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/telephone-harassment-sta... > Telephone harassment is defined in many different ways. For example, while most states require some level of intent to harass or annoy, a few require only that the communication in fact harasses or that a reasonable person would expect it to harass...Telephone harassment often includes the following actions: calling repeatedly, anonymously or at inconvenient hours; causing the phone to ring continuously; using obscene language; or failing to hang up the phone. It can also include falsely stating that a family member of the recipient is injured or dead, or threatening to injure the recipient or a family member. I support the non-guilty verdict here, but would someone be able to allege harassment over Twitter on the basis that it is similar to the statues on phone harassment (at least in America)? The argument is less about the content of the message and more about the annoying nature of repeated "notifications".

parennoob 11y ago
Phones are not a pub-sub system like Twitter is. Once you block someone, there is no way they can contact you directly. You have to go and read their Tweets in some manner to see what they are saying. Stephanie Guthrie was appears to have been literally trying to sue this guy because he called her mean names (for which she blocked him), and was using a hashtag that she liked to search on. Apparently, Tweets from people you have blocked are still visible if they are using a hashtag that you search on. This could possibly be a technical limitation – it's not like Google gives you an option (apart from SafeSearch) to filter sites you may be offended by. Come to think of it, this is literally like trying to sue someone for putting up a site indexed by Google that may come up for search terms you use. So I would say the case for being similar to repeated phone calls is invalid.
- avita1 11y ago
  > Once you block someone, there is no way they can contact you directly. Most carriers allow you to blacklist phone numbers (although that very well may not have been the case when those laws were written).

stevebmark 11y ago

Reminder that this has nothing to do with "free speech," and that celebrating the outcome of the trial for that is flawed reasoning.

13thLetter 11y ago
Only if you have a narrow, pinched, legalistic definition of "free speech" which would be unrecognizable to any of the philosophers and statesmen who created our modern understanding of the concept. If, for getting into an argument with certain people, you can be punished with being ostracized, fired, prevented from earning a living, demonized by the news media, and put through a years-long wringer in the courts, your freedom of speech is harmed even if at the end of it a judge says not guilty.
- stevebmark 11y ago
  And still, nothing you said has anything to do with free speech.
- kaonashi 11y ago
  > ostracized, fired, prevented from earning a living …and if you force people to be in your company regardless of what you say does to those people, you've taken away their freedom of assembly.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    Then it's a good thing that's not what I said, isn't it? Not everything that's legal is right. A company that fires someone because they got in a Twitter argument on their own time is behaving legally, and an attempt to make such an action illegal would probably cause more problems than it solves. But a company that does such a thing would not be right.
    - kaonashi 11y ago
      That would depend on how what that person said affects their relationships with co-workers (e.g. someone went on a racist Twitter tirade that all their co-workers read, some of whom belong to groups they were disparaging)

smegel 11y ago

Feminist persecution.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

im2w1l 11y ago

Is there a record of his and their tweets anywhere? (I would need both to see to what extent he stalked their hashtags). Or is everything still up?

probdist 11y ago
There are many of the substantive tweets preserved in the legal record of the case.
kelukelugames 11y ago
Here is a link to a court doc. http://www.scribd.com/doc/296325188/2016oncj35 http://www.scribd.com/doc/296325188/2016oncj35 Edit: TL;DR 1) Mr. Elliot and Ms. Guthrie met in person to discuss design work. Elliot is a graphic designer. Guthrie thought he was creepy and they don't agree on stuff. But relationship is not yet hostile. 2) Guthrie publishes on Twitter the info of the person who made the Anita Sarkiesian game. Elliot disagrees and gets blocked. 3) Elliot makes comments about AIDs and uses slurs. "His language is vulgar and sometimes obscene, and once inexplicably homophobic." After reading this I give up. On the same day, Ms. Reilly tweeted with a period before Mr. Elliott’s handle so that not only his followers but the“ whole world”would see it, according to her evidence:“.@greg_a_elliott Just couldn’t ignore me, huh? Leave me the fuck alone.” However, the space between the period and his handle, perhaps a typographical error, may mean that it did not have this effect. Twitter scares me.
- pervycreeper 11y ago
  >once inexplicably homophobic The explanation is that the tweet in question is from a different account with a similar looking handle. There are multiple news outlets which have been informed of this inaccuracy, which have not yet issued corrections or retractions for reporting this false info.
- trattle 11y ago
  The homophobic one about AIDS was from a troll / parody account. Look at the spelling of the surname.

probdist 11y ago

Previous (short) discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10954709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10954709

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]