Monday, January 25, 2016

Canada: After a legal battle that dragged on for three years, Gregory Alan Elliott has been found not guilty of harassing lesbians

Feminist Guthrie: The judge noted a lack of “reasonableness” in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence

In 2012, Elliott was charged with criminal harassment after arguing with feminist activists on Twitter. He’s suffered through a tortuous court case that has cost him nearly one hundred thousand dollars.

Anyone following this case knows that Greg is only guilty of the crime of wrongthink. He was arrested for critically engaging with people who disagreed with him. It wasn’t any different from what people do on social media platforms every day.

Greg’s tweets were far milder than some of the vile garbage I’ve seen come through my notifications. He never threatened anyone, and he never gave anyone reason to fear for their safety.

All he did was argue with people that hated him so much they demanded he be shut down.

I don’t believe Stephanie Guthrie or her cronies felt victimized for a second. We’re talking about people who have posted images of themselves drinking from mugs with “male tears” written on them, after all.  They wanted Elliott to pay for having challenged them, nothing more.

The charges in Elliott’s protracted legal case have prohibited him from using the Internet, forced him to quit his job, and left him bankrupt.

The last three years of Greg’s life have been hell, and he won’t ever get them back.

Despite all this, I am joyful, Greg is joyful, and his sons are joyful. Free speech has won the day, and Greg won’t have to deal with the prospect of months of jail time or heavy fines.

People opposed to speech rights won’t get the satisfaction of seeing Greg behind bars.

Most importantly, legal precedent has been established to defend free expression.

Canada is infamous for its ineffectual provisions for freedom of speech. Establishing the legal default to favour allowing offensive speech is a boon for speech rights in Canada.



Anonymous said...

Feminists think that they are special and that they should have special privileges.
They are really just immature people who have not progressed beyond childish ideas and childish attitudes.

Use the Name, Luke said...

If there is justice in Canada, the following two actions will be taken:

1) These FemiNazis will be required to pay Greg's legal expenses and lost wages.

2) They will receive the punishment they tried to have the government impose upon him.

Bird of Paradise said...

These feminists witches want any woman who disaree's with their radical anti-family ideas persicuted and silenced just like the global warming advocates want the skeptics silenced

Dean said...

"Feminist Guthrie: The judge noted a lack of “reasonableness” in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence"

Agree completely. What is more irrational that believing one can make negative comments about a person and feeling no return comments can be made?

But many of the special groups feel exactly that. No opinions other than their own can be voiced. One hallmark of the fanatic, though, seems to be lack of rational thought. And many within the special groups exhibit both fanaticism and irrationality.

Use the Name Luke: I agree with your first comment. Those suing Greg should be required to reimburse him for all expenses and lost income.

The second, however is problematic. If you are saying that Guthrie and other radical feminists should not allowed to express their opinion, I don't agree. As much as their conversation disgusts me, they should be allowed to spew. If nothing else, their speech defines them and lets the world know them for what they are - man hating fanatic FemiNazis.

That is not to say that all feminists fall into that fringe. But those that do tend to implicate all.

Use the Name, Luke said...


The key to the second point is the attempt to use government power to harm someone they hated. That can be filing false lawsuits or making false claims to try to get the government to falsely throw someone in prison or impose some other sort of harm, such as his internet restriction. Mere disagreement with someone (expressing their opinion) would not rise to that level.

For example, let's suppose Joe Blow wants to murder Joe Cool. He could do it himself (a crime), he could hire someone to do it (also a crime), or he could try to get the government to do it by calling in a false "man with gun" report or Swatting. The latter is just as much an attempt at murder as the first two, therefore the same penalty should apply.

There has been a lot of talk about tort reform in this country. Such a penalty for abusing the legal system would go a long way towards ending lawfare type suits such as this.

Dean said...

Luke: Thanks for the clarification. I agree, there should be a penalty for filing false claims. In fact, I have maintained for some time there should be four pronged reform in regards to law suits:

1) If a claimant loses the suit the claimant and his lawyer are required to pay all the defendants court costs and other expenses related to his defense.

2) If the award is monetary, only actual expenses and losses suffered, including court costs and legal fees, may be awarded.

3) If the situation merits punitive damages those will go to Social Security, Medicare, or perhaps charity such as Red Cross or Salvation Army. No part of that will be given to the plaintiff or the attorneys.

4) Lawyer fees will be a set amount, not a percentage of the awarded amount.

You offer an significant fifth point: if, as in this case, the sought for judgement is to impose a non-monetary punishment and the suit is lost, the plaintiff receives the sought for punishment.