A man is on trial and faces serious punishments for disagreeing with feminists when they are the ones who harassed him!
The best introduction to what is going on can be found on YouTube where Paul Joseph Watson explains the new penalties being threatened for disagreeing with feminists.
Here’s a story from the Canadian National Post: “Christie Blatchford: Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech.”
What’s believed to be the first case in Canada of alleged criminal harassment-via-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.
First of all, while a “guilty” verdict would be unjust and practically criminalize speech, free speech has already been destroyed by this case. Elliot was publicly arrested and lost his job as a result. The damage to his reputation and his livelihood are real punishments that have already been inflicted upon him. Only if he is exonerated, is able to sue the two feminazis for defamation and damages, and wins his lawsuit, is there any win for free speech.
You probably think that Elliot used some abusive language. No. He disagreed with them. The feminazis were the abusive ones.
In fact, [defense attorney, Chris] 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.
See the video above for a pretty egregious example, including a cohort posing as a thirteen-year-old girl online to try to entice Elliot into replying in some way in order to make him out to be a pedophile.
But the hypocrisy is amazing. These two “feminists” are pretending they feared for their lives even though they freely attacked Elliot.
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.
So, on the stand, Guthrie simultaneously lashed out at the defense attorney for some kind of victim stereotype and demanded that the courts use a victim stereotype to justify punishing Elliot for disagreeing with her.
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.”
This, again, shows us that free speech has already suffered a stunning defeat in Canada. Not only did these vindictive shrews conspire to use the courts to hurt Elliott for publicly disagreeing with them on Twitter, but the prosecutor went along with it. (If “shrews” offends you, feel free to substitute another word… like “harpies” or “witches” or something similar.)
If you think this won’t be happening soon in the United States you are being naïve.