Post: #1

http://www.infowars.com/man-faces-6-mont...n-twitter/

This gut didn't do much except disagree with a couple feminists on Twitter and wouldn't do some video game design!

From the article.. "Basically what he did was disagree politically with these young women….he just disagreed with some of their politics,”

Further on "In other words, if Elliott is convicted, feminists in Canada could claim that anyone who disagrees with or offends them is engaging in “criminal harassment” and demand they be sent to prison."

Yes it's Infowars but that doesn't make it not true.

Post: #2

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Harassment...story.html

Quote:Harassment case threatens free speech


BY CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD, NATIONAL POST JULY 15, 2015 9:49 AM

What's believed to be the first case in Canada of alleged criminal harassmentvia-Twitter is just a judge's decision away from being over.

After hearing closing submissions Tuesday from Chris Murphy, who represents 54-year-old Greg Elliott, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan is expected to rule on Oct. 6. In the balance rides enormous potential fallout for free speech online.

Elliott is charged with criminally harassing two Toronto female political activists, Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly, in 2012.

Allegations involving a third woman were dropped.

The graphic artist and father of four lost his job shortly after his arrest, which was well-publicized online, and if convicted, could go to jail for six months.

These are astonishing repercussions given that it's not alleged he ever threatened either woman (or any other, according to the testimony of the Toronto Police officer, Detective Jeff Bangild, who was in charge) or that he ever sexually harassed them.

Indeed, Elliott's chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists.

He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to "sic the Internet" upon a young man in northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger named Anita Sarkeesian until the screen turned red.

Guthrie tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor's "hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience" and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game.

Elliott disagreed with the tactic and tweeted he thought the shaming "was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game."

Until then, the two were collegial online, with Elliott offering to produce a free poster for Guthrie's witopoli (Women in Toronto Politics) group.

As serious as the ramifications of a conviction could be for Elliott, so could they be dire for free speech online, Murphy suggested in his final arguments.

He said the idea that all it takes to end up charged with criminal harassment is vigorous participation in online debate with those who will not brook dissent "will have a chilling effect on people's ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter."

In fact, Murphy said that contrary to what Guthrie and Reilly testified to at trial, they weren't afraid of his client - as suggested by both their spirited demeanour in the witness box and their deliberate online campaign to call Elliott out as a troll.

Rather, Murphy said, they hated Elliott and were determined to silence him - not just by "blocking" his tweets to them, but by demanding he cease even referring to them even in making comment about heated political issues.

To all this, Guthrie pointed out once in cross-examination that feelings of fear, like all feelings, "develop over time", and snapped that she was sorry she wasn't "a perfect victim" who behaved like a conventional victim.

The criminal harassment charge is rooted in the alleged victim's perception of the offending conduct.

The statute says if that conduct caused the alleged victims "reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety," that's good enough.

Yet Guthrie and Reilly didn't behave as though they were remotely frightened or

intimidated: They convened a meeting of friends to discuss how Elliott should be publicly shamed; they bombarded their followers with furious tweets and retweets about him (including a grotesque suggestion from someone pretending she was a 13-year-old that he was a pedophile); they could and did dish it out.

"They were not vulnerable," Murphy said once. "They are very accomplished, politically savvy women. If they can't handle being mentioned in the tail end of a political discussion (on Twitter), then they're in the wrong business."

And, he said, of the meeting both women attended in August of 2012, to discuss how Elliott would be called out, "That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence ... they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott."

Murphy said the case was akin to "a high school spat, except it's adults on the Internet", and said it is astonishing that the court should be acting as referee in an online political debate.

"If anybody was being criminally harassed in this case," Murphy told the judge, "it was my client, it was Mr. Elliott."

That Reilly, who was anonymous on Twitter and who directed her own volley of hateful tweets at Elliott, should come "to this court and the police and say she's being criminally harassed is an abuse of the system."

Prosecutor Marnie Goldenberg made only the briefest remarks, and refused to provide Postmedia with a copy of her written arguments, saying it wasn't her practice.

Sounds to me like a white knight beta who got burned burned for disagreeing with feminists online.

Hijacking the legal system to persecute those they disagree with is a major goal of radical left-wing activists (especially feminists) pretty much everywhere.

In countries where they can't, like in the US, they resort to mob pressure to enforce de facto bans on free speech and might secretly (or openly as in the case of mattress girl and Senator Gillibrand) be aided by political allies in government.

Post: #3

This would be a great indicator of a 'Grand Conspiracy'.

If this becomes a precedent in Canada the way these articles indicate, I predict it will lead to an overwhelming response from men who can only be suppressed so much.

My tinfoil theory:

A secret society that controls everything would not see this as a good move necessarily, hoping to string people along with a sense of freedom while silently chipping away at the foundation of their liberties.

This is so interesting to me because it says that either:

1) There is a kind of frenetic mob-rule mentality that is driving the SJW narrative and women actually have the power we fear they do which would be indicated by a conviction...

OR

2) A dismissal could indicate that somewhere higher up the class-chain is some malevolent 'cabal' of 0.01%er's who are keeping the mob in check...for now


Or maybe I'm just hoping life is a little more exciting than it appears.

In the meantime...

Post: #4

Case isn't over yet. http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1108049...her-alone/

Post: #5

This might seem like a modern SJW turn of events. But the concept of punishing men for specifically insulting women actually comes from an old Southern tradition regarding women's "honor."

In the old days, when someone insulted a woman's honor, the men would step in and give him a beatdown for justice. Now the legal system administers the beatdown.

A few points about all this:

1). First off, the very fact that women view the world this way is why they're not qualified to engage in debates or serious political discussions. Once you disagree with them, they (and their defenders) think you've insulted them, and it comes off as somehow more sinful than when you argue with a man. Men knew this generations ago, which is why they left women out of the political process.

2). Now that men don't step in to defend women's honor, they get the state to do it. Or the HR department. Or someone like that. The traditions really haven't changed only the frames that hold them in place have. Whenever someone tells you this is the "modern world," remind them that this is the ancient world given a modern facelift.

3). I've said this before, but here it goes again. Men invented free speech. If it ends (which seems to be a possible reality more and more), women will be the ones who end it.

Post: #6

(07-15-2015 01:41 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  This might seem like a modern SJW turn of events. But the concept of punishing men for specifically insulting women actually comes from an old Southern tradition regarding women's "honor."

I thought it was a Southern tradition to be pleasant, not a whore and feminine.

Post: #7

(07-15-2015 02:23 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  I thought it was a Southern tradition to be pleasant, not a whore and feminine.

That's the insidiousness of feminism...they destroyed traditional expectations of female behavior, but when it comes to traditional expectations of male behavior they alternate between reinforcing and condemning them based on convenience. Therefore according to leftists, white-knighting for a woman is oppressive, and yet not white-knighting for a woman is also oppressive.

Post: #8

(07-15-2015 01:41 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  This might seem like a modern SJW turn of events. But the concept of punishing men for specifically insulting women actually comes from an old Southern tradition regarding women's "honor."

In the old days, when someone insulted a woman's honor, the men would step in and give him a beatdown for justice. Now the legal system administers the beatdown.

A few points about all this:

1). First off, the very fact that women view the world this way is why they're not qualified to engage in debates or serious political discussions. Once you disagree with them, they (and their defenders) think you've insulted them, and it comes off as somehow more sinful than when you argue with a man. Men knew this generations ago, which is why they left women out of the political process.

2). Now that men don't step in to defend women's honor, they get the state to do it. Or the HR department. Or someone like that. The traditions really haven't changed only the frames that hold them in place have. Whenever someone tells you this is the "modern world," remind them that this is the ancient world given a modern facelift.

3). I've said this before, but here it goes again. Men invented free speech. If it ends (which seems to be a possible reality more and more), women will be the ones who end it.

The way I see this handled in the workplace is women are paid and given direct responsibility to disagree and discipline women. Loyalty from women must be bought.

Post: #9

(07-15-2015 01:41 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  This might seem like a modern SJW turn of events. But the concept of punishing men for specifically insulting women actually comes from an old Southern tradition regarding women's "honor."

In the old days, when someone insulted a woman's honor, the men would step in and give him a beatdown for justice. Now the legal system administers the beatdown.

A few points about all this:

1). First off, the very fact that women view the world this way is why they're not qualified to engage in debates or serious political discussions. Once you disagree with them, they (and their defenders) think you've insulted them, and it comes off as somehow more sinful than when you argue with a man. Men knew this generations ago, which is why they left women out of the political process.

2). Now that men don't step in to defend women's honor, they get the state to do it. Or the HR department. Or someone like that. The traditions really haven't changed only the frames that hold them in place have. Whenever someone tells you this is the "modern world," remind them that this is the ancient world given a modern facelift.

3). I've said this before, but here it goes again. Men invented free speech. If it ends (which seems to be a possible reality more and more), women will be the ones who end it.

Post: #10

(07-15-2015 02:23 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(07-15-2015 01:41 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  This might seem like a modern SJW turn of events. But the concept of punishing men for specifically insulting women actually comes from an old Southern tradition regarding women's "honor."

I thought it was a Southern tradition to be pleasant, not a whore and feminine.

Post: #11

Wait, hold up. You mean men also twitter as well? I thought that was a female, attention whore thing.
PS. Follow me on Twitter on my non existent social media account.
There is a reason its called twitter with the avatar of a bird. Its because its just a bunch of twittering nonsense.
Nobody cares what I just ate or wants to see me taking a selfie in the bathroom mirror or posting a meal I didn't prepare or pay for.
Grow up already. Social media should only be used by men as business media, period. If you are that good looking to get social media attention then you will do even better with night or day game. Attention whores are not only women, the male thirst in the cyber world is very real.

Post: #12

Just read the word Toronto and I didn't bother reading the rest... the why is this happening was established!!