4 ms·
And that's my point. The court case was about harassment, and (rightfully) quashed on the basis of insufficient harassment. The case was referred to in terms of
by johndunne 3y ago
And that's my point. The court case was about harassment, and (rightfully) quashed on the basis of insufficient harassment. The case was referred to in terms of gender politics. Call me triggered, I came to see what HN'ers thought of the law in relation to these sham end-to-end encryption laws, not G politics.
- averageRoyalty 3y agoI see, your point was more a technicality on the legal reason for the charge. I think the GPs point was not what the charge was, but the reason the person was charged in the first place. Technically the charge may have been harassment, but in reality it was gender politics reasons - it's unlikely a harassment charge would have been laid if the accuser were not a trans person here. The reason this was highlighted was the concept of how other digital laws could be abused in a similar manner.