Disagreement = Harassment?

[Rageaholic]

I mentioned this story on another thread, but a man in Canada could face jail time over a twitter disagreement.

Basically, he worked with this feminist activist who was on some crusade against internet trolls. One of the people she went after created a "beat up Anita Sarkeesian game". Now, I won't defend the game, but I can't defend her reaction, which involved public shaming and warning all potential employers about him. Essentially, she wanted to make it impossible for him to get a job. The plaintiff disagreed with this tactic so I guess she blocked him or something (I don't know, since I don't do twitter), but he continued posting about her. So she sued for harassment.

What's interesting is that according to police, there was nothing threatening or nothing sexual in the guys tweets. But because she felt threatened, she sued. She wouldn't even have the decency to explain specific tweets that she felt threatened by. Because, in her own words,

“There’s no perfect victim, Mr. Murphy, and no perfect way to respond to being stalked. Sometimes you have to fight back a little bit…. I’m sorry if I wasn’t a perfect victim.”

And later she said,

“He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, Mr. Murphy; he’s not entitled to do it to me.”

“No matter what you say about or to him?” Mr. Murphy asked.

“Not to me,” she said.

Should have never made it to court, but somehow, she gets him fired from his job, banned from the internet for a year (how is that even possible?), put through years of legal battles, and he might even get jail time.

I'm still convinced that there's details being left out (and if I missed anything, feel free to post it). I mean, it's so ridiculous that I'd think this was something from the onion. But every news site that reports this tells basically the same story so I don't know what to think.

[BlaqueKatt]

that's not even close to accurate.

he spent two years effectively stalking and trolling, and saying when they told him to stop, and eventually went to the police "they were bullying him" because his ability to troll was affectedself image as a "nice guy"(tm) was hurt. Calling someone "crazy, a fat ass, fascio-feminist" is not a "disagreement". He also basically doxxed them, tweeting the locations around toronto where they were meeting up with their friends.
two other articles
one
two

most of the articles on the case are from MRA websites, the likes of which I will not even validate. (as in by people who say rape should be legal, and spousal abuse is a man's right, and depriving a man of his "right to harass women" is actually harassment)

It's like the guy that ran the revenge porn site trying to sue the media for using his name because now he'll never get a job.

[Rageaholic]

^

I had a gut feeling there was something more to this. It sounded way too much like the feminist boogeyman MRA sites love to talk about. That kind of trolling/harassment takes dedication.

Though I still think she's an asshole for wanting to ruin a guy over the punch anita game. There is nothing constructive about wanting to make someone unhirable.

[BlaqueKatt]

Though I still think she's an asshole for wanting to ruin a guy over the punch anita game. There is nothing constructive about wanting to make someone unhirable.

erm, I believe his actions themselves did that. Saying she made him unhirable is akin to saying "well sure he sexually harassed 78689889798 women, but she cost him his job by reporting it"

[Rageaholic]

But she wasn't going after a guy for sexual harassment, she was going after someone she didn't even know for making a website that had nothing to do with her. The site wasn't in good taste, but it wasn't anything dangerous and Anita is a public figure (though I still don't understand why she is so hated everywhere, but that's another topic all together).

[Gravekeeper]

But she wasn't going after a guy for sexual harassment, she was going after someone she didn't even know for making a website that had nothing to do with her.

Guthie is a feminist and the founder of Women in Toronto Politics. You can't say one of the worst examples of misogyny in modern society is none of her business. If it had been a game about punching black people for daring to talk about racial issues you wouldn't say it was none of their business, would you? -.-

The site wasn't in good taste, but it wasn't anything dangerous and Anita is a public figure (though I still don't understand why she is so hated everywhere, but that's another topic all together).

"Wasn't in good taste" is a remarkably polite way to put it. Anita was also not a public figure at the time unless you consider people with youtube accounts to be public figures. Its debatable if she's even a pubic figure now and if she is, its because she was the focus of so much vitriol.

[Canarr]

most of the articles on the case are from MRA websites, the likes of which I will not even validate. (as in by people who say rape should be legal, and spousal abuse is a man's right, and depriving a man of his "right to harass women" is actually harassment)

And yet you feel no qualms about "validating" Jezebel - a website that seems to believe spousal abuse is a woman's right. Or at least funny when a woman does it.

The defense's final submission is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8A...pXZDNTT2M/view

that's not even close to accurate.

he spent two years effectively stalking and trolling, and saying when they told him to stop, and eventually went to the police "they were bullying him" because his ability to troll was affectedself image as a "nice guy"(tm) was hurt. Calling someone "crazy, a fat ass, fascio-feminist" is not a "disagreement". He also basically doxxed them, tweeting the locations around toronto where they were meeting up with their friends.

Actually, THIS is "not even close to accurate".

Elliot and Guthrie were in contact between April and November 2012 - seven months, not two years. Guthrie's allegation is that Elliott began his stalking of her in the summer of 2012, after they met at a business dinner in April to discuss him doing some work for her political organization. After that, he supposedly became obsessed with her and started to stalk her.

Elliot's account claims that they got along fine for a few months, until in July 2012, they apparently had a disagreement over Guthrie's decision to doxx the asshole making the "punch Anita Sarkeesian" game. (Sidenote: I'm not defending the "punch Anita Sarkeesian" game. Not one bit; that was an assholish thing to do. But I have a hard time feeling sympathy for someone complaining about being harassed on the internet when she's completely fine with doing the same to others, herself.)

Elliot further claims that Guthrie effectively harassed him, by falsely claiming to others (via Twitter) that he were harassing her. From the defense:

For instance, September 9, 2012 is a critical date for the Crown Attorney’s prosecution of Mr. Elliott. On that day, Mr. Elliott sent Ms. Guthrie a tweet asking her to “stop harassing [him] pretending to be harassed”. It is also the only day that Ms. Guthrie ever told Mr. Elliott to stop contacting her and “smearing [her] work”, as established in the following exchange:

Q: Okay. Can you tell me where before September 9, 2012, you ever asked Mr. Elliott to stop contacting you?

A: I don’t believe I did, but I did block him and I did stop responding to his many attempts at contacting me.

Q: So you don’t believe you told Mr. Elliott to stop contacting you

A: No, I don’t believe I did. 9

erm, I believe his actions themselves did that. Saying she made him unhirable is akin to saying "well sure he sexually harassed 78689889798 women, but she cost him his job by reporting it"

There is no sexual harassment involved in this mess. At all. From the defense's submission:

9. Ms. Guthrie confirmed that, as far as she was aware, Mr. Elliott never sent her a tweet that was libelous, threatening, or sexual in nature.5

10. Ms. Guthrie also confirmed that, aside from her business dinner on April 18, 2012, she never saw him again.6

11. Ms. Reilly, too, confirmed that Mr. Elliott never sent her a tweet that was sexual in nature, and she had never seen Mr. Elliott in person until she saw him in Court during the trial.7

To me, this whole thing is very far from being as clear-cut as you seem to think it is.

EDIT: he's actually been banned from the internet ever since he got out of jail on bail in November 2012 - going on three years, now. Tough for someone who used to make his living through the web.

[Rageaholic]

Elliot's account claims that they got along fine for a few months, until in July 2012, they apparently had a disagreement over Guthrie's decision to doxx the asshole making the "punch Anita Sarkeesian" game. (Sidenote: I'm not defending the "punch Anita Sarkeesian" game. Not one bit; that was an assholish thing to do. But I have a hard time feeling sympathy for someone complaining about being harassed on the internet when she's completely fine with doing the same to others, herself.)

This is why I think she's an asshole too. She who fights monsters much?

[Canarr]

This is why I think she's an asshole too. She who fights monsters much?

That's overdramatizing it a bit, don't you think? She's a feminist politician in Toronto, not a resistance fighter in ISIS-occupied Syria. What "monsters" do you suppose she's fighting?

[Kheldarson]

That's overdramatizing it a bit, don't you think? She's a feminist politician in Toronto, not a resistance fighter in ISIS-occupied Syria. What "monsters" do you suppose she's fighting?

Trolls? I mean, from what I'm reading, she's resorting to troll tactics to fight those she deems as being trolls. Does that make her better than those she fights?

[Canarr]

You're right; I was taking the "monster"-part of Rageaholic's post a bit too literal. My apologies.

Guthrie seems like a self-righeous, slightly delusional asshole to me; SHE is right, HER cause ist just, and whoever stands in her way deserves to be punished. And if anyone DARES to utter a dissenting opinion, it MUST be because he is obsessing over HER personally. It can't be that he just doesn't like her methods, or thinks she might be wrong, or, y'know, objects to being branded a pedophile online. No, it HAS to be because he's a stalker.

[Rageaholic]

Update: he was found not guilty, but he was still barred from using the internet for over 3 years and this was before the verdict was even reached.

That's... concerning.

[Gravekeeper]

Update: he was found not guilty, but he was still barred from using the internet for over 3 years and this was before the verdict was even reached.

That's... concerning.

I explained that in another thread as I recall. Getting booted off the internet was because he violated a peace bond. It was a separate charge from the harrassment.

[Canarr]

Even so - a 3-year-ban of the internet is a hefty impediment for someone who makes at least part of his living as a freelance artist/illustrator. That goes beyond not being able to Tweet pictures of your food or surf for cat videos.

[s_stabeler]

There are two issues.
1) under what criteria can someone be banned from the internet by a judge? If it's a similar procedure to the civil contempt of court procedure, then the ethics are dubious at best, since an internet ban is, these days, extremely disruptive.
2) could a less extreme measure be taken instead? for example, in the case in the OP, banning him from Twitter would probably suffice to curtail the harassment.


basically, the issue is that imposing a one-year ban on the guy accessing the internet actually means that de facto, he was stripped of his ability to do his job. That is overly harsh.