R. v. Elliott @amirightfolks @LadySnarksalot @greg_a_elliott (Canada)

Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared of two charges of criminal harassment that stemmed from his Twitter interactions with two Toronto women who believe transwomen are women.

Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly accused Elliott of harassment partly based on his use of hashtags — a word, acronym or phrase after a number symbol used to create trackable conversations — they used. It was an assertion the judge found contrary to the open nature of Twitter. He said the pair may have felt harassed, but he couldn’t prove Elliott knew they felt that way, nor did the content of his tweets include explicitly threatening language.

The judge also 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.

This is a victory for freedom of expression. For the record, we think every person involved in this case is not worth following on social media.

R. v. Elliott

‘One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric’_ Toronto man found not guilty in Twitter harassment trial _ National Post

8 thoughts on “R. v. Elliott @amirightfolks @LadySnarksalot @greg_a_elliott (Canada)

  1. I was disabled as the result of a disease when I was 12. Competing as a disabled person to keep your head above water along-side able bodied persons has been very difficult. The Blatt v. Cabelas litigation has been a huge setback for disabled persons. Is the negative impact of this case on disabled persons something you are interested in discussing? There is no organization to represent persons with disabilities (compare to GLAAD or the Nat’l Organization for Women) so there isn’t any comment on how this would affect disabled persons aside from your website. Warm Regards.

      • Disabled people are already underserved by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Since the ADA’s passage 25 years ago, our economic situation has worsened with the highest unemployment (excess of 60%) and poverty rates (29%) of any group in the nation. The Department of Justice’s Statement of Interest concludes that gender dysphoria should not be excluded from the definition of disability for the ADA. One of the legal remedies the ADA provides to disabled persons is “reasonable accommodation.”

        Blatt is seeking the “reasonable accommodation” of being able to use the women’s restroom. However, Blatt has not substantiating Blatt’s claim that Blatt had in fact changed gender. Disabled persons are already underserved the ADA. Adding a new category to the definition of “disabled persons” under the ADA, without requiring proof of disability is a disservice to persons who were either born disabled or suffered a disability without any volitional aspect on their part. Put simply, no one “transitions” into a cripple. It is something to be avoided at all costs.

        Thank you for listening. If I have ranted, I apologize. However there is no other group looking out for disabled persons.

        ________________________________

      • Thanks. I don’t know that I agree with you that the litigation in Blatt impacts the reality that “Disabled persons are already underserved the ADA” but I appreciate your perspective.

Comments are closed.