690
691

MISC.[Drama] In closing submissions of Feminist v. Elliot, feminist says in court that doxing someone is okay if they deserve it. (drive.google.com)

terfwarz が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 245
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Danielle_S 267ポイント268ポイント  (39子コメント)

Who decides if they deserve it? Randos on the internet?

Just finished reading the whole thing. So, people who had meetings to decide what to do about their ideological opponent think they have a case of him harassing them. 15 people got together to discuss how to handle that guy and he's the harasser? She told the police he propositioned a 13 year old while knowing that wasn't the case. These people need to see the inside of a prison cell.

This whole thing is surreal. Canadian taxpayers are paying for this? Smfh

[–]Notalent13 166ポイント167ポイント  (30子コメント)

Them, that's the point. They become Judge, Jury, and Executioner, all in the name of social justice.

[–]terfwarz[S] 69ポイント70ポイント  (18子コメント)

Yep, that's what they believe.

[–]MasterChiefFloyd117 81ポイント82ポイント  (16子コメント)

I'm waiting for a South Park episode with:

(THIS IS WHAT SOCJUS ACTUALLY BELIEVES)

Displayed at the bottom of the screen.

[–]_Mellex_ 28ポイント29ポイント  (14子コメント)

You'd think the SJW-type would be a natural target for Stone and Parker. Just a matter of time, I guess? Although I dread the day they do a GG episode. As much as they are funny and satirical genius, they aren't always the most accurate (or even fair) in their depictions of sociopolitical events. Not that they should be.

[–]Niwjere 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

Someone hasn't seen the episode "The Cissy".

[–]DeeDoubsFounder of Kek's Giving Day 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

The Cissy was mostly about all the dumb bathroom drama.

[–]Niwjere 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

dumb bathroom drama

Sir, I have an accurate description of SJW behavior on sensors. Shall I fire the railguns?

[–]PR-DUDE 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

NO! Mr Worf I'll remind you we came here to discover new life. I'll be damned before I fire on these people. They're a backwards people with a semblance of early earth history called the puritans. Need I remind you again about the prime directive.

Niwjere(as Mr Worf) We're being hailed sir

On screen!

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JdxW2c9yFI)

..... Fire Mr worf!

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]workfoo 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

    hey aren't always the most accurate (or even fair) in their depictions of sociopolitical events

    Pretty sure that's part of the satire. If you have been watching SP religiously since the beginning, you notice they make tons of glaring errors on purpose. Like stuff that couldn't possibly get past the script writers.

    I thoroughly enjoyed the WoW episode when they say that Hunters can use shields. NO THEY FUCKING CAN'T.

    [–]sikels 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

    at one point they could use bucklers.

    [–]workfoo 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Like in beta? I played from the Dire Maul patch and Hunter's couldn't use shields at that point.

    [–]MeinKampfyCar 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I think that was a joke on the whole "every item is a hunter item" thing

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]matthew_lane 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      sings dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. sings

      [–]wowww_ 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Judge, Jury, and Witchicutioner.

      [–]Steampunk_Moustache 25ポイント26ポイント  (3子コメント)

      They become Judge, Jury, and Executioner

      When you think about it, this is exactly what 'social justice' implies.

      A social justice system.

      [–]DeeDoubsFounder of Kek's Giving Day 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

      We crowd sourced our legal system to random people with chips on their shoulders.

      [–]Urishima 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

      They would only need to toss aside that toxic masculinity bullcrap in order to become Judge Dredd

      [–]Mashiki 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Funny that they have no idea they're following the fascist goose step.

      [–]matthew_lane 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You think they are unaware? I think they are very aware, I think that's exactly what they want, after all authoritarians never think that they will ever not be in charge of the fascism that they lobby for:

      After all, in their minds they are the good guys, so the rules don't apply to them, because the rules only target the bad people.

      That's why there is no one as shocked by totalitarian dictatorships being dictatorial like someone who helped put them into power, suddenly being on the receiving end.

      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

        [–]DeadlyVenomGames 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Crime? Micro aggressions. Verdict? Guilty. Sentence? Three years in an isocube.

        [–]Irishish 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Crime: being problematic. That's six months in the cubes.

        [–]katawashounen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/

        Everybody is racist.

        And racist people deserve to lose everything they have and be hated by everyone.

        This seems like it might present a problem. Unless of course you plan to be the person who gets to decide which racists lose everything and get hated by everyone, and which racists are okay for now as long as they never cross you in any way.

        [–]Drakaris 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Reasons... and double standards.

        [–]matthew_lane 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Good thing they have double standards, or they would have no standards at all.

        [–]BlackBison 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

        If you have a penis and/or disagree with a woman, then you deserve it, you pissbaby shitlord.

        [–]Selfweaver 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

        She told the police he propositioned a 13 year old while knowing that wasn't the case. These people need to see the inside of a prison cell.

        Shouldn't be too difficult. Making a knowingly false police report is illegal pretty much anywhere.

        [–]WilburCharlotte 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        What do you want to bet she's never charged for that crime?

        [–]Selfweaver [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        Depends on what odds you are wiling to give.

        [–]matthew_lane 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        These people need to see the inside of a prison cell

        These people need to see the padded walls of a sanitarium for the women studies insane.

        [–]Dyalibya 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Exactly!

        [–]gossipninjaArmed with PHP shurikens 157ポイント158ポイント  (25子コメント)

        Let's play a game.

        If Elliot loses, I am sure we will see dozens of sites use it as an example of "patriarchy" and "muh soggy knees"

        But if Elliot WINS, we will see no where near the coverage, and the little we do will say "this highlights the dangers women face online" in a transparent attempt to spin a total defeat as some sort of "awareness" raising that can be chalked up to a win (not unlike Pao's BS lawsuit).

        [–]terfwarz[S] 114ポイント115ポイント  (15子コメント)

        We need to do something because this is the exact thing Randi and the gang wants. They want to bully people who disagree with them. They want to use the tools of both the legal system and technology to go after dissenting voices.

        In the closing submission, Stephanie Guthrie told a crowd at a "Stephanie Guthrie Appreciation Day" (I guess a meetup for her bullshit) that she wanted to teach elliot a lesson, just like she wanted to teach the creator of the beat-up sarkeesian game a lesson by ruining his life. That disagreeing with her has real life consequences.

        This is fucking horrible.

        This document is so fucking great, so much is in there. She acknowledge that she might have said that she wanted to each Elliot a lesson, that she ONLY felt unsafe her AFTER elliot was angry towards when he called her out on wanting to sic the internet against some person. WTF is up this person? This shit is nuts. No where in the evidence submitted shows Elliot being obsessed over her, or harassing her with death threats or sexual threats or making her feel unsafe.

        More so, the defense attorney even demonstrated how the complainants can deprive the court of evidence by making their tweets private. One of the complainants wrote a letter to the crown/prosecutor to explain why their twitter account has gone protected.

        This is from the letter:

        Hello, my Twitter account had been locked over the weekend to prevent contact/harassment from unrelated individuals. This has nothing to do with the court case. I have unexpectedly briefly made my account private for short periods to prevent contact from abusive and harassing users (example: Men’s Rights Activists) when simply blocking the accounts has not been successful, and when the blocked accounts have continued to read my tweets. Please let me know if this explanation is sufficient. Thank you.

        Heather Reilly

        Seriously? When the courts want to know why their accounts gone protected/private/locked, Reilly (another complainant) provided an explanation to the crown and in said explanation asks the crown if it is sufficient? The closing submissions outline the argument why this practice of closing the account tantamounts to denying inspection of the evidence by the defense which then makes evidence gathering impossible because the exhibits (collected evidence) doesn't contain the context, which can ONLY BE FOUND in the tweets hidden by locking the account.

        [–]TriangleDimes 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

        In the closing submission, Stephanie Guthrie told a crowd at a "Stephanie Guthrie Appreciation Day" (I guess a meetup for her bullshit) that she wanted to teach elliot a lesson, just like she wanted to teach the creator of the beat-up sarkeesian game a lesson by ruining his life. That disagreeing with her has real life consequences.

        These people are fucking megalomaniacs.

        [–]raze2012Noticed by senpai! 16ポイント17ポイント  (11子コメント)

        I'm confused. I thought a court could subpoena for "private data" if they deemed it necessary evidence for the case (which can extend from getting phone data from the companies themselves, to full on search warrants.). If it was that easy to "hide" evidence, so much BS would have been glossed over in the past centuries.

        IANAL, so I may be wrong.

        [–]Mashiki 14ポイント15ポイント  (9子コメント)

        They'd have to pull a warrant instead of subpoena because it's covered under the federal privacy act. The fact that the crown allowed that, is an error in law, and didn't investigate fully. The defense can use this and probably will as one of the examples in appeal.

        [–]terfwarz[S] 23ポイント24ポイント  (8子コメント)

        Did you read the document? Do you think the courts will convict him? I really have a fear towards these sorts of women, I see them not as victims but more as if they are engaging in a very ruthless bullying through the legal system. It, personally to me, has a huge chilling effect. Even the idea that the crown/police won't investigate and collect the proper evidence is scary.

        Is there any consequences to their actions? Could elliot potentially sue them in civil court? As Stephanie Guthrie likes to say, "people should experience the consequences of their actions", is there any possibility that she could experience consequences from the legal system?

        The document mentions that the tweets provided in the dvd exhibits were screen grabs, and contextual tweets or tweets that involve the defendant had to be retrieved by the defense from twitter. That has to be a miscarriage of justice, right?

        [–]Mashiki 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

        I've about 20% of it, and will probably get through the rest of it later today or tomorrow. Toronto courts are generally a mess, and lean very, very, very left on a lot of issues. That usually leads them to having a lot of overturned convictions. In Canada the crown(prosecutor) has to use full disclosure meaning they have to turn over all evidence to the defense, that they didn't investigate fully doesn't mean too much, but gives the defense an amazing ability to pummel the crowns case. Once I read through the entire thing, I might be able to spot a few things but I'm not a lawyer, paralegal, or anything like that. But I've spent enough time reading and studying law to have an okay grasp of it.

        Consequences? Civil as you mentioned, other things? He could counter sue of course.

        As for your last sentences there, not really. The crown only has to collect what they want to use in order to prosecute, they don't have to investigate beyond what is in the original claim. The defense however, will do that, as I mentioned before the crown has to disclose everything to the defense. That the defense retrieved the information, doesn't mean anything other than the defense sought out information that was contrary to what the crown presented in court.

        [–]terfwarz[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I don't know if this makes sense but the defense couldn't get the evidence they wanted because the twitter accounts became protected/lock. Although they did find a lot more evidence from the accounts before they were lock and that wasn't part of the crown's exhibition, they couldn't do anything to get more evidence?

        Even to this day Stephanie Guthrie and Halley Orielly's accounts are locked/protected.

        [–]ChickenOverlord 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Did you read the document? Do you think the courts will convict him?

        That they let this travesty of a case get into court in the first place makes me doubt the judge's mental faculties, so yes I think there's a chance of conviction.

        [–]Alzael 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Guthrie is very politically connected in Toronto.That likely had something to do with how the case got into court in the first place.

        [–]Drop_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        I don't think the judge has quite that much control over the case. I don't know Canadian law THAT well but it is fairly similar to US law. In US law when it's the government bringing a case against an individual it tends to be a criminal matter. And criminal case = jury. And jury = the judge can not dismiss the case before the jury renders a verdict. Though this could be a bench trial, I can't really tell from what's been reported.

        In this case it is on the crown for bringing the case and pursuing it despite it being completely without merit.

        [–]Drop_ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        From what I read the judge seemed beyond skeptical. Particularly about the action of closing the account and making it private only. This exchange is telling:

        Attorney: There's no evidence before the court that can't be manipulated. And so, if Ms. Guthrie... If this goes to appeal...

        The Court: I understand

        Attorney: And Ms. Guthrie blocks her account and the Court can't see it ...

        The Court: I understood your point when you made it but I didn't understand how strong it was.

        ...

        The Court: Now I'm having a graphic demonstration.

        Now, I'm not an expert in Canadian law, but reading this it is very convincing and the responses from the court are somewhat telling.

        [–]terfwarz[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        The best thign about this document is that it literally reveals the inner workings of these folks. This document contains implications that Stephanie Guthrie works with and is a close associate to Natalie Walschots (aka nataliezed, the person who dubbed us, as part of DiGra , as deatheaters). The documents also illustrate compelling how these women tactfully amounted a campaign to destroy Elliot, by slandering him and telling lies. This is like the biggest mindfuck I've experienced in the longest while.

        I think think they can win on appeal, I wish we had the full transcript.

        [–]Selfweaver 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        They can likely demand the data, but I don't know of any warrent that requires you to make the data freely available on the internet.

        [–]Selfweaver 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

        That disagreeing with her has real life consequences

        Standard modus operandi of petty tyrants anywhere, also standard to be truely shocked when the tables are turned.

        [–]JustALittleGravitas 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        she can give access to anybody she likes, giving the prosecution and defense attorney follower accounts is simple enough.

        [–]sealcub 30ポイント31ポイント  (5子コメント)

        I, for one, want to preemptively thank Elliot this brave Feminist for raising public awareness of whatever this is supposed to prove. Remember: The point wasn't to win the court case but to raise awareness.

        EDIT: Mixed up the names. Edited them in to make it clearer this is a joking post.

        [–]terfwarz[S] 14ポイント15ポイント  (4子コメント)

        Are you serious? The point was to win the court case because Elliot is facing jail time over being charged with criminal harassment. He has to prove and win that what he did wasn't criminal harassment if he doesn't want to face jail time. This shit isn't like the honey badgers where brining awareness is good enough, Elliot faces jail time.

        [–]raze2012Noticed by senpai! 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I think he was making a joke. This was the same phrasing Ashley Burch and friends made from that survey that "proved that teenage boys detest sexy women" or something.... After KiA gathered that the data was from a freaking surveymonkey poll that was advertised through the authors' twitter and Facebook pages. The media would probably make a similar spin should they lose.

        But yeah, this case Sucks. Elliot doesn't really have a chance of losing against this... Logic, does he?

        [–]zero5reveille 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

        The fact that this even went to trial is worrying enough.

        [–]sealcub 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Ok, you got me wrong. I probably wasn't exaggerating enough and also mixed up the names (my bad, let me edit them in a minute). What I was referring to is the progressive media's tendency to spin even defeat in court as "raising awareness".
        For example, when Pao lost her gender discrimination court case she was hailed as a true feminist heroine for "raising awareness" of the "adversity women face in tech companies", even though the court determined that the allegations were bullshit. An additional example is the Rolling Stone hoax story. When it was found out that the story was a lie it suddenly wasn't about getting justice anymore but it was still great for "raising awareness".

        Incidentally, "raising awareness" is what untrustworthy scams charities do: For example they do not collect money for cancer research but for raising cancer awareness. Slacktivism for personal gain and agenda-pushing altogether.

        This is exactly what will happen when that feminist loses the court case. She will be heralded as a true feminist hero and the ruling will just be another piece of proof that the patriarchy is out to keep women down and living in fear. Heaven forbid if she actually wins that court case which would set a precedent that would be used by feminists all over Canada to silence their opposition.

        [–]WilburCharlotte 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Everything you posted is both disgusting & more than a little scary.

        Unfortunately it's also the truth...

        [–]BoiseNTheHood 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

        If Elliot wins, it'll be spun as another pathetic moral victory for "starting a conversation."

        Funny, I've never been privy to any of these grand societal "conversations" that always seem to be happening. Probably because the vast majority of people in this world either don't give a shit about the culture wars or are sick of the whole concept of political correctness in general. Talk about an overinflated sense of importance on SJWs' part.

        [–]vonmonologue 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        If they want to start a conversation, let's.

        Let's start a conversation about how self avowed feminists are trying to send a man to jail for standing in the way of their terrorist harassment campaigns.

        Remember, they're the ones who say doxxing and harassment are terrorism.

        [–]katsuya_kaiba 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        No, they'll do the same thing as with Pao and say "WE LOST THE CASE BUT WE WON BECAUSE WE DREW ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM OF BLURGH BLAP BLOOR..."

        [–]terfwarz[S] 105ポイント106ポイント  (24子コメント)

        A bit of background. Okay this person, Elliot, before he had a falling out with the feminist, was going to help support this feminist new organization by providing free design services. This feminist met her 'harasser' over dinner to discuss the services he wanted to provide for free. Everything changed the moment Elliot got 'angry' over this feminist wanting to ruin the life of the person who created the beat-up Sarkeesian game.

        The feminist is stephanie guthrie. Through her twitter she tweeted the handle and location of the creator of this game. She wanted his life to be ruin so that he could suffer the consequences of creating that game. She asked her twitter followers to also spread the word, and in her words she wanted to 'sic the internet' against him.

        So Elliot, when providing free services to her organization, was in her 'good' side. She never felt unsafe, or feared him UNTIL... Elliot called her out for requesting an internet army to ruin the life of the person who who created that game. Based on this 'fear', she and 2 other friends went to the police to get elliot charged with criminal harassment because, apparently, all 3 were harassed by Elliot.

        The closing submission document contains a lot of information about what happened in this case, like how all the complaining parties involved withheld evidence by making their tweets private.

        It's a long but every interesting read. THere is a lot of SJW rhetoric and rationale coming from the complainers.

        [–]BeardRex 60ポイント61ポイント  (5子コメント)

        I once offered to design posters and pamphlets for free for a rally/protest on a socjus topic. I told them to direct me to the information i would need to back up their claims. They told me "I'm not going to do your work for you". I said fine and tried to find the info myself. Then i came back and said i couldnt find anything, and they said "it doesnt matter anyway, we dont need proof. We need awareness." And i was like "no, sorry i am not going to do free design work that is full of unsubstantiated claims." Then i was called a bigot.

        [–]WilburCharlotte 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Unpleasant, but not surprising give how SJWs operate...

        [–]LostViking85 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

        we dont need proof. We need awareness

        Every day, feminism sounds more and more like a religion. "We don't need proof" = we have faith! "We need awareness" = we must spread the word! "Bigot!" = heretic/infidel!

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]ShadowShadowedDocumented "The Sir Keesian Method" 25ポイント26ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Holyshit

          Real talk: I will gladly forgo buying new games for months if it means donating to a legal fund in case Elliot loses (I think appeals would still be on the table right?).

          [–]terfwarz[S] 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

          He has an indigogo campaign to fundraise for the legal cost of him being charged with harassment. I gotta find it.

          [–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 18ポイント19ポイント  (13子コメント)

          Not to mention that even if he wins the case, he has been unallowed to use a computer and thus, work his job for 2 years.

          [–]WilburCharlotte 13ポイント14ポイント  (12子コメント)

          "Not to mention that even if he wins the case, he has been unallowed to use a computer and thus, work his job for 2 years.???

          Am I missing something here?

          Why exactly was he ordered to not use PC?

          [–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 15ポイント16ポイント  (4子コメント)

          It's a condition for breaking his peace bond.

          The thing is that during bond period you're supposed to be on good behavior and not cause any problems. At that point it was just ms. Guthries who had filed for harassment. During this time though, the other two women filed charges for harassment and for "breaking the bond" (if you look at the tweets offered as evidence, they instigated contact with him, with one of them calling him a pedophile who abused a 13-year old). Before the court case went into full swing recently, one of these women was no longer pressing charges.

          Of course the damage was done, which is what I imagine was their intention. He was disallowed from using the internet or a computer for 2 years, while the court case runs.

          [–]WilburCharlotte 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

          So if I understand correctly, they baited him by screaming to the world that he's a pedophile?

          [–]Kinbaku_enthusiast [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Amongst other things, yes. Only one of the three women called him a pedophile. If I'm not mistaken that's the one who stopped pressing charges earlier in the court case.

          [–]JustALittleGravitas 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          source?

          [–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

          For what part?

          Breaking the peace bond:

          http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/01/07/when_does_tweeting_become_criminal_harassment.html

          https://archive.is/qujHv

          The pedophile thing (taken from the linked document of OP):

          Consistent with the above passage, Ms. Guthrie’s refrain throughout her testimony was that she was just the deliverer of messages. She was just a messenger when she sicced the Internet on Mr. Spurr. And she was just the messenger when, in November 2012, she provided the OIC of Mr. Elliott’s investigation a tweet that suggested that Mr. Elliott was a pedophile:

          Q. Right. And just to be clear, the date November 12th which is on this exhibit [#40] is the date that you took that screen grab, right?

          A. I couldn’t possibly say.

          Q. Okay. But you understood that on or about November 12th, Mr. Elliott was being accused on Twitter of being a pedophile, right?

          A. Sure.

          Q. Right. And again, you didn’t feel it was your job to tell Detective Bangild that it was, actually, an adult?

          A. The young woman said that she was 13, so that was what people believed. She later said that she was not 13.

          Q. Right.

          A. But initially she said that she was.

          Q. But by the time you met Detective Bangild, you already testified to this, you were aware that she was either 18 or 19, agree?

          A. Yes.

          Q. Right. Good. So not really trying to help out Mr. Elliott when you’re not mentioning the fact it’s actually an adult, right?

          A. My position wasn’t really that I wanted ... I was not trying to help Mr. Elliott.

          Q. Right.

          A. He was stalking me. So no, I wasn’t trying to help me. I wasn’t trying to harm him unduly, but I was not trying to help him and I was not trying to ... yeah.

          Q. Right. In your view handing tweets alleging Mr. Elliott’s a pedophile without correcting the officers receiving them, is not trying to harm Mr. Elliott, right?

          A. Wasn’t trying to harm him, no.

          [–]thekindlyman555 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

          It's a condition of his bail right now. He's not allowed to use the internet or a computer for 2 years.

          If he gets let off though I suspect that that would be lifted.

          [–]kathartik [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          if he gets off, I sincerely hope he countersues for court costs and lost wages.

          [–]terfwarz[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

          This is just hyperbole. If he wins the case and found not guilty, there would be no consequences. He would be as free as he was before Stephanie Guthrie wanted to teach him a lesson.

          edit: I am wrong about this being hyperbole.

          [–]ithinkineedanap 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Is that hyperbole though if accurate since his arrest? It doesn't really matter if in October he becomes as innocent as he would've been in 2012 prior to the arrest, if for the last 3 years he'd essentially been prohibited from continuing his career. Damage would already have been done, so to speak.

          [–]terfwarz[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          I personally do not. Maybe as part of his bail conditions, he was forbidden from using a computer. What I do know is that in the submissions, it explicitly state that he was barred from contacting the defendants, and stephanie guthrie was putting him at risk of violating his bail conditions by insinuating that he threaten to kill her.

          [–]ithinkineedanap 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          So he's not actually prohibited from using computers, he's just doing it voluntarily to avoid her sabotaging him further? In that case I'd agree it's hyperbole, as he could instead just voluntarily remove himself from all social media, and still easily do his job and get work without being at the same level of risk from that sociopath.

          [–]terfwarz[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I am wrong, restrictions could be part of his peace bond. If someone lives in Toronto, they can gain access to that by going to the courts.

          [–]loyaltomyself 75ポイント76ポイント  (11子コメント)

          What we have here is a woman that will knowingly turn over evidence she knows to be false in an attempt to frame a guy for pedophilia. In her mind she did nothing wrong because she's just "the messenger" and therefore isn't committing any crimes. Yet disagreeing with her IS a criminal offense as (and I quote) "He's free to disagree with the world, but not with me".

          If this guy loses this court case, I am officially finished with the internet. I will become a hermit, find myself a tiny island, a pet turtle and a short bald dude to hang out with.

          [–]GreatRedYeti45k get! / Bakes a keen copysagna 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Let's call that "committing Roshi".

          [–]katsuya_kaiba 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Hey, it worked for Goku!

          [–]Predicted 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Who wrote this?

          It is submitted that Ms. Guthrie is more than just a messenger. To the contrary, it appears that Ms. Guthrie took an active interest in making sure that Mr. Elliott faced “real life consequences” for his actions. It is submitted that – during the Particularized Dates – it would have been utterly reasonable for Mr. Elliott to have concluded that Ms. Guthrie was, in fact, an abettor who was actively encouraging the “calling out” of Mr. Elliott.

          If that's the judge writing it looks good at least.

          [–]terfwarz[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The defense wrote it in their closing submissions. It's in the doc linked in the post.

          [–]Vorter_Jackson 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          That would probably be the defense.

          コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

            [–]the_harkonnenMove sea lion! For great ethics! 36ポイント37ポイント  (0子コメント)

            The arrogance is so thick you could pave a road with it.

            [–]bwv1056 37ポイント38ポイント  (3子コメント)

            Read through almost the whole thing, and it's funny. So many parallels with the evolution of GG.

            SJW/Feminists dislike the political stance of an enemy, then engage in an organized carpetbombing on twitter and in social media to paint their enemy as misogynistic harassers while actually doing most of the harassing themselves. Importantly, these documents show that it's completely intentional, they know that they're being dishonest, but consider it morally defensible because of how egregious they perceive their chosen enemy to be.

            And in both cases what is the enemy's crime? Disagreeing with feminists on the internet.

            [–]terfwarz[S] 24ポイント25ポイント  (2子コメント)

            They are abusing technological and legal means to go after people and it isn't just this feminist. It feels like this is the MO of the movement, to use whatever tools available to 'teach' people lessons. Harper, Wu, Sarkeesian, they are using whatever available to them, but it isn't just that. It feels 'organized', like they know what to do and how to do it. It's like a strategy they are all aware of, and are working from the same playbook.

            Again, feminism feels to me less about winning us over than it is about cultivating the tools to silence dissent, especially with feminist 'leaders'. Honestly, this man was someone who was left, who wanted to give his time and resources to a left/feminist women in politics cause. He is a father, married, with children. This is so fucked. It's not just like internet debates or circle jerks, Stephanie Guthrie said to a crowd that convened at a bar to celebrate 'stephanie guthrie appreciation day' that she wanted to teach Elliot a lesson.

            What is lesson do we learn from this? Is the lesson that there are serious wackos who will destroy you because you hurt their feels or question their politics? They seem even more whacked out than the harassing hordes of '/b/'.

            [–]bwv1056 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

            They seem even more whacked out than the harassing hordes of '/b/'.

            Indeed, and the most invidious part is that they aren't content to keep their activities confined to online spaces but are determined to take their "consequences" into the public sphere in order to ruin people's real lives, not just to chase them off twitter or whatever.

            I really hope Elliot wins this case, if he loses the ramifications could be really frightening.

            [–]Fedorable_Lapras 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

            This sounds so much like cyberbullying taken to the next level. Even the justification is the same.

            Swap "I don't like your face." with "You disagreed with me."

            [–]Irvin700 30ポイント31ポイント  (11子コメント)

            "It is submitted that Ms. Guthrie’s demeanor during her viva voce evidence

            on this point was extremely confrontational, volatile and aggressive. Counsel

            submits that when Ms. Guthrie was asked “that’s a pretty good point?” she

            banged her fist on witness box and answered in a very loud voice: “Are you

            kidding me?” This is important, it is submitted, because it demonstrates Ms.

            Guthrie’s ability and willingness to aggressively defend herself and her

            political/philosophical positions."

            Doesn't really translate well in court with your rhetoric, now does it?

            EDIT:

            "...on the evidence before the Court – cannot be considered reasonable. For

            whatever reason, Ms. Guthrie was completely unable to view Mr. Elliott’s tweets

            through the lens of valid, political commentary/opposition. Any feelings of fear

            that Ms. Guthrie allegedly felt were the result of Ms. Guthrie’s irrational

            conclusion that Mr. Elliott was obsessed with her."

            If the courts can see through the bullshit, I think we're in safe hands. For now.

            [–]terfwarz[S] 39ポイント40ポイント  (6子コメント)

            When she was confronted about trying to sic the internet against the creator of the beat-up sarkeesian game, the defense asked her about the consequences of doing so:

            Q. Okay. Sure. But Mr. Elliott is expressing a very important view point here. Would you agree that if people across the world are now aware of him, and are now expressing their hatred for him, there’s a good chance that this guy might do something to take his own life.

            to which she answered:

            That would be very sad if that happened, but if it did it would not be my fault. He made that game. He made it under his own name. He was very proud of it. He can ... whatever comes from that, he created those consequences, not me.46

            [–]wowww_ 39ポイント40ポイント  (2子コメント)

            typical sociopath in action.

            [–]CaesarCzech 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Im sociopath and even i dont do these things. Fuck sake this isnt just sociophaty this is full on Selfishess this is not because she was insulted this is because Someone DARED TO DISAGREE. \

            [–]terfwarz[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Here is the thing he didn't disagree with her on: the fact the game was bad, that misogyny is bad (he was her supporter),he only disagreed with her tactic of trying to destroy the 24 year old's life.

            [–]kchoze 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Why couldn't that argument be made by, say, Gawker when trying to explain away outing a gay man? "He was the one who decided to have sex with men, so if outing him results in his divorcing his wife, losing his job and being beaten by homophobes, he created those consequences, not me".

            [–]terfwarz[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Gawker needs her badly.

            [–]wulf-focker 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            That would be very sad if that happened,

            I don't think she would feel any sadness. A psychopath like her would rejoice that.

            [–]Selfweaver 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

            At least she is very very stupid/arrogant. Imagine if she was smart enough to appear scared when she saw him in court?

            We would be fucked.

            [–]Alzael 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

            I don't think it's stupidity.I think it's just because she doesn't actually understand empathy and emotions well enough.She did a tedx talk where she was talking about how to deal with "misogynyst trolling" on the internet.You could tell from her voice that she was trying to sound timid,kind of sad and horrified at the same time about all of the "terrible" things she was talking about.The thing is that none of it reached her face.Her expression was completely incongruous with the tone she was trying to use.

            Very uncanny valley.

            [–]signaljunkie [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            There is a "petulance" that socially-disconnected people have trouble repressing.

            [–]sfinney2 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I haven't come to any conclusions about this case yet, but saying "that's a pretty good point?" was a perfectly set trap by the defendant's lawyer, and she fell right into it. It worked so well it was almost like something you'd see on TV

            [–]ChinoGambino 28ポイント29ポイント  (15子コメント)

            Q. So you being the messenger of a message that ruins Bendilin Spurr’s life is okay with you, yes or no?

            A. Yes.

            later on...

            Q. Okay. Sure. But Mr. Elliott is expressing a very important view point here. Would you agree that if people across the world are now aware of him, and are now expressing their hatred for him, there’s a good chance that this guy might do something to take his own life.

            A. That would be very sad if that happened, but if it did it would not be my fault. He made that game. He made it under his own name. He was very proud of it. He can ... whatever comes from that, he created those consequences, not me.

            So I would happy with ruining the life of a complete stranger purely based on difference of opinion but I would feel very sad if he killed himself... She's a psycho, she has no empathy. It's not that she's so innocent she doesn't appreciate the gravity of what's she's doing, no she had misrepresented the contents of Spurr’s flash game in order to hurt him. How could anyone promote, cheer for, let alone pay for this person to do this all day? To just fill the air with hateful noise and try to erode civil society.

            This case is incredible, there is nothing to the accusation, no tweets that were submitted as harassment to cause the offense and they can't even swear to the veracity of any of the tweets brought before the court. The serial harasser blocked the complainants and never addressed either with the exception of one time; when they were spreading false rumors of him being a pedophile. The pair of them should be taken for all they are worth in damages and thrown in prison.

            [–]theboyfromganymede 9ポイント10ポイント  (14子コメント)

            I'm not sure how the law really works, but is there a chance Elliot could counter-sue or something like that?

            [–]Real_American 5ポイント6ポイント  (13子コメント)

            If anybody has any sort of legal background I would love to see a response to this question as well. Even if he takes no recourse, having none would make this is a terrifying precedent.

            [–]thekindlyman555 14ポイント15ポイント  (11子コメント)

            I don't see why he can't charge THEM with criminal harassment over their criminal harassment suit they launched at him. Which is basically what this all is, it's a very elaborate harassment campaign AGAINST Elliott.

            Elliott has lost his job, lost his ability to DO his job (cannot use internet or computers as a condition of his bail) and has had to spend nearly $100,000 in legal fees to defend his good name. He has plenty of cause to seek damages from these harpies.

            [–]AsteRISQUE 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

            So far, she submitted false evidence/ false testimony that implies Elliot is a pedophile.

            If Canadian law is anything like American law, it could be grounds for a mistrial.

            I didn't finish the entire document yet, but if Stephanie made a [false] police report to supplement that testimony, that'd be a criminal offense. So there's something.

            Otherwise, Stephanie thinks she'sverysmart by leading the court into an assumption without substantial evidence. But it seems to be a whole crock of shit as the judge's notes caught on to her act.

            So most likely, Eliot would win, but still have name tarnished. Stephanie would get off scot free. And the courts gets money, business as usual

            [–]NoOneWhere [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            Under European law you could be tried for misconduct, lying while under oath in the courtroom and a couple of other charges for what she and the other women have done (false charges, harassment, intention and execution of a campaign of harassment and false criminal claims). I think the US is the same - Canada shouldn't be any different, unless it's really has become an SJW-hellhole in the legal system.

            [–]Lhasadog 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

            The problem is the Prosecutor that brought this against him. That is what our Canadian friends need to be asking some serious questions of their government and press about. How could this feminist female prosecutor bring this case, which seems to clearly stand astride the Canadian Charter of Rights giving it the middle finger?

            [–]terfwarz[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

            How do we do this? We don't elect them, we don't have the equivalent of a DA.

            [–]bobcat [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

            The answer is right on the first page. You'll have to get rid of the Queen. Got Oliver Cromwell handy?

            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

              [–]JustALittleGravitas 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

              You can't charge people with a crime, only prosecutors can.

              Guess which side of this the local prosecutors are on?

              [–]thekindlyman555 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Can't he file a harassment complaint against them with the evidence that's come to light from this trial, though?

              I mean where else do prosecutors get cases like this from if not the victims bringing it to them?

              [–]JustALittleGravitas 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Sure he can, and the prosecutors can also ignore it, or come up with convoluted reasons why there's not enough evidence for a conviction.

              Conversely prosecutors could come up with a convoluted reason to charge you with 'hacking' based on something you've already done if you piss them off. (IE, in my state owning more than 4 computers is technically a felony, because of a very poorly written anti piracy law that's never been enforced, but might be one day by a shitty prosecutor).

              [–]mansplain 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              It's so glaringly obvious.

              How and why could this have ever gone to trial?

              [–]Cartesian_Duelist 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

              He could launch a civil suit for damages to his person based on slander potentially, yes.

              [–]A_random_otter 25ポイント26ポイント  (0子コメント)

              p. 15:

              "Q. If a kid makes a face punch game, and his life is ruined, and you’re just the messenger, that’s a-okay with Stephanie Guthrie?

              A. Well, 24 years old is not a kid. Certainly old enough to appreciate the severity of your actions. And I would not feel sorry about that. If that happened, that would be his actions that got him where he was. His choices."

              I am astounded by this level of hypocrisy. How the hell is that any different from victim blaming? She really seems like a sociopath...

              [–]Steampunk_Moustache 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

              He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, but not to me.

              Social justice in one sentence.

              'One rule for everyone else, another rule for me.'

              [–]Major_Dork 23ポイント24ポイント  (2子コメント)

              >8. By tweeting to, and about, Mr. Elliott – but yet at the same time demanding that Mr. Elliott not respond to her – it appears as though Ms. Guthrie had expected that the Twitter Rules would apply to everyone except her.

              Damn, pretty harsh burn coming from a legal document.

              [–]terfwarz[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Don't tell this to randi or any other lws.

              [–]WilburCharlotte 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Does anything more really need to be said other than that?

              [–]thekindlyman555 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Elliott tweet: ""Calling out a troll" is usually just "asking everyone you know to gang up on someone offering an opinion different than yours" #AOTID #dumb37"

              Q. Oh, you think [the above-referenced tweet is] an attack on Steph Guthrie too?

              A. That ... the quote of calling out a troll had actually been in reference to Stephanie’s speech during the session.

              Q. Oh, I see. So Mr. Elliott is taking a quotation from a speech that’s given online for the public to comment on. So he takes a quotation from

              Ms. Guthrie’s speech, right?

              A. Correct.

              Q. Then he calls it dumb, right?

              A. He’s also provided his own definition for calling out, as opposed to the definition that was stated within the session.

              What the actual fuck?

              Q. You were trying to ruin Bendilin Spurr’s life, correct?

              A. I was trying to let as many people as possible know that this was something Bendilin Spurr had done. And if they believed it was wrong, and if they believed it was disgusting, and if they took action that subsequently ruined Bendilin Spurr’s life, then he was the one who ruined it and not me, Mr. Murphy.

              Q. Right. So ...

              A. I was a messenger.

              Q. So you were the messenger. So a 24 year-old kid in Sault Saint Marie makes a face punch game for whatever reason he has to make it?

              A. Are you suggesting there’s a valid reason?

              Q. If a kid makes a face punch game, and his life is ruined, and you’re just the messenger, that’s a-okay with Stephanie Guthrie?

              A. Well, 24 years old is not a kid. Certainly old enough to appreciate the severity of your actions. And I would not feel sorry about that. If that happened, that would be his actions that got him where he was. His choices.

              Q. So you being the messenger of a message that ruins Bendilin Spurr’s life is okay with you, yes or no?

              A. Yes.

              Q. Thank you.

              Q. Okay. Sure. But Mr. Elliott is expressing a very important view point here. Would you agree that if people across the world are now aware of him, and are now expressing their hatred for him, there’s a good chance that this guy might do something to take his own life.

              A. That would be very sad if that happened, but if it did it would not be my fault. He made that game. He made it under his own name. He was very proud of it. He can ... whatever comes from that, he created those consequences, not me.46

              This woman is fucking unbelievable...

              Q. Right. In your view handing tweets alleging Mr. Elliott’s a pedophile without correcting the officers receiving them, is not trying to harm Mr. Elliott, right?

              A. Wasn’t trying to harm him, no.

              [–]YosharianWalks around backward with his sword on his hip 11ポイント12ポイント  (7子コメント)

              The most interesting aspect (for me) of this whole case is how it illustrates that men who express their sexuality in any way (like, at all) are seen as 'creeps'.

              It's like the male version of slut shaming, if you will.

              [–]terfwarz[S] 22ポイント23ポイント  (4子コメント)

              He wasn't expressing any sexuality. She was insinuating he was creep, had a creepy glare. He never said anything remotely sexual, it was all professional, but his eyes, apparently, told another tale and that tale became apparent to the feminist (Stephanie Guthrie) ONLY after he disagreed with her attempts to sic the internet against the creator of that sarkeesian beat-em up game.

              [–]YosharianWalks around backward with his sword on his hip 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

              I guess. I was just commenting generally on that topic since it was brought up.

              [–]terfwarz[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Your comment is still valid, even imagined expressions of male sexuality is creepy.

              [–]TheCyberGlitch [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              His lips said no but his eyes said yes?

              [–]Quintus_Pillus 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Unless the man complies with the two rules.

              [–]GeekOutGamer 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

              This thing is so long! I'm at page 39. Going to take a break. Be back in 2018

              [–]terfwarz[S] 14ポイント15ポイント  (5子コメント)

              But was it juicy so far? I can't stop reading it. It's like, OMG, I know these people. I feel like know Steph Guthrie even though I never met her. I see Harper, Wu, Sarkeesian, ZQ, and everyone else. They are a kind of people, a sort, a class, a type, an SJW. The consistency what they are, and how they act, how they think about things, it makes them like a real thing, not just a figment of an imagination. These people exist, and exist outside of the internets and they act this way outside of it too.

              [–]GeekOutGamer 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

              It really is good. The constant backtracking and turned tables is amazing. I honestly can't believe people like this actually exist. If anything, they harassed him. I'll tell you this...they are shit at lying.

              [–]terfwarz[S] 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

              They are probably scared at lying because they never know what evidence the defense has. It's totally different from their MO on twitter with their feelings of being so invulnerable. I cannot believe there was a meet-up organized around appreciating Stephanie Guthrie where she said she will teach a lesson to Elliot. Like, come on, she backtracked on that only because she was probably afraid someone tweeted that she said it.

              This is probably another reason why they do not want people to live tweet or use social media when they do their meet-ups or seminars.

              I really wish what I read in that document wasn't real. These women can't be real humans, how? The man is a father and they mock on tweets about him going to prison, having a laugh of him spending time in jail. In public tweets.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                [–]Jardinesky 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                I feel like know Steph Guthrie even though I never met her.

                If you need a break from reading at some point, here she is on TVO's The Agenda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLDHJ9kihfI

                The episode was titled The Left on Political Correctness and whoever booked the guests was a fucking genius. Akaash Maharaj is just awesome.

                [–]itsnotmyfault 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                If people are lazy:

                Akaash Maharaj has an epic smackdown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLDHJ9kihfI&t=21m18s

                The immediately following question directed at Steph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLDHJ9kihfI&t=23m52s

                She believes that Universities need to be safe spaces in order to allow learning and participation. A hostile environment that discourages participation of some members/groups is infringing on the discouraged group's right to free speech. "(25:37) All of a sudden, some of those people start dropping offline, because you know what, it's not worth it. It's not worth all the pain of being harassed to that extent. Why aren't we trying to feverishly defend their freedom of speech?" (I cut out a couple of words. Maybe a sentence)

                Contrast that to Akaash's "(21:47) ... if you are a liberal, you have an obligation to place your faith in the judgement of your fellow citizens".

                It sounds like the "fellow citizens" have judged SJW's to be wrong.

                I wish the Skype guy wasn't such a weak speaker: he got a great question about self-censorship, but didn't really deliver a good or thoughtful answer.

                [–]Smell-Da-Gluv 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                In March 2013 Ms. Guthrie alleged on her public Twitter account that she was concerned that Mr. Elliott had threatened to kill her while he was subject to bail conditions prohibiting contact with Ms. Guthrie.

                At the trial – prior to being confronted with her March 2013 tweet – Ms. Guthrie confirmed that she remained fearful of Mr. Elliott and that she would contact the police if she had any concern that Mr. Elliott had threatened to kill her:

                Q. No doubt about it. If you had any concern that Mr. Elliott contacted you, you would pick up the phone and phone the police, right?

                A. Yeah.

                Q. Right. I am assuming that if you had any concern that Mr. Elliott threatened to kill you, you would pick up the phone and phone the police?

                A. Of course I would. Where are you going with this?

                Following the above testimony, counsel put a series of tweets sent by Ms. Guthrie in March 2013 where she alleged on her public Twitter account that she was concerned that Mr. Elliott had threatened to kill her:

                Q. Right. Okay, so you won’t allege to the police that Mr. Elliott ... that you were concerned that Mr. Elliott was threatening to kill you, but you will allege to the Twittersphere that my client was threatening to kill you?

                A. I didn’t allege to the Twittersphere that your client was threatening to kill me; I alleged to the Twittersphere that it was possible that that was who it was coming from, and that that was one of my concerns.

                When asked in cross-examination whether Ms. Guthrie believed it was appropriate to allege criminal conduct on the internet, Ms. Guthrie answered:

                A. I think I can talk about the fact that that somebody has you know somebody is before the Courts for criminally harassing me. And when I receive a death threat, yeah, I think it’s reasonable for me to think that maybe he was the person who sent it. And, yeah, I think it’s okay to say that. I didn’t say anything certain. I didn’t indicate that it was very likely that it was him. I just said I was concerned about it. I think that that’s a reasonable thing to say, Mr. Murphy.

                Further, it is submitted that Ms. Guthrie’s testimony regarding the 2013 death threat revealed that Ms. Guthrie expected those viewing her tweets to engage in a nearly metaphysical analysis of each word:

                Q. You don’t see why you should not have expressed a concern to thousands of people that my client may have been threatening to kill you and breaching his bail. You don’t see any problem with that. Is that correct? Is that your testimony?

                A. Yeah, it is, because I didn’t say any definite. I didn’t even say it was probable. I just said it was a possibility.

                It is submitted that Ms. Guthrie never believed that Mr. Elliott had threatened to kill her in March 2013, for if she had actually been fearful of Mr. Elliott in 2013, and had she believed that Mr. Elliott had threatened to kill her, she would have called the police. It is further submitted that Ms. Guthrie’s March 2013 tweet wherein she accused Mr. Elliott of a very serious (and criminal offence) was sent for the sole purpose of keeping her story as the complainant in R v Elliott alive.

                Absolute gold. Pages 56 and 57 for source.

                [–]BendingBeifong 21ポイント22ポイント  (8子コメント)

                And this the slow decent of society takes a sudden leap off a cliff.

                [–]terfwarz[S] 36ポイント37ポイント  (7子コメント)

                Wonder what do they mean by educating women?

                This is from the testimony of Steph Guthrie

                Q: Okay. So you did feel some fear of Mr. Elliott starting at that dinner ...

                A: Yeah, but unfortunately we live in a world that teaches women to second guess those feelings. Oh, did I really feel creeped by him ... oh, because if you can’t point to a specific thing that the person said that ... or them grabbing you or doing something very specific, then everyone questions whether you really have a right to feel fearful. So I questioned it, and I wrestled with my feelings about things, but toward the end of the summer, yes, definitely.58

                That there is the example of their education in play. Their form of education, the rhetoric they spout, it isn't trying to convince us that we are wrong, to win us over. Rather, it serves as (and I know we all know this) mental gymnastics to justified their feelings, even if established after the fact. What is even more disgusting was that she eventually contradicted this, and said she only became fearful of an angry elliot after he became 'mad' at her when she tried to sic the internet on the creator of that sarkeesian game.

                [–]wowww_ 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Yeah, that quote basically boils down to, 'well no, he didn't do anything bad, I just DON'T LIKE HIM, hurr'

                [–]ShadowShadowedDocumented "The Sir Keesian Method" 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Reminds me of the court scene in the Crucible.

                [–]Strill 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                If you don't respect her confirmation bias, you're teaching women to second-guess their feelings.

                [–]Wolfbeckett 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                Yeah, the court better see through that shit. "He didn't take any scary actions, but I felt scared anyway and you can't disagree because MY FEELS!"

                Coming up next week: "Your honor, the prosecution couldn't locate any evidence that this man is a serial killer, but we just FEEL it, therefore we recommend life in prison."

                [–]terfwarz[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

                What you don't get was that she has evidence. The evidence is in his eyes, he has a creepy glare to it that scares her.

                [–]ZombyTed 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                "The train dwarf was real! He was looking at me with his dwarfy eyeballs!"

                [–]terfwarz[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Can you say for certain "without hyperbole that the creepy glint in his eye is visible a km away.50"?

                I personally can never provide this evidence because I'm freaking nearsighted.

                [–]ggdsf 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                This was the guy who said it was a bad idea to dox and harass the guy who made the punch anita sarkeesian game right and got sued for it right?

                [–]terfwarz[S] 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                He didn't get sued, he got charged criminally by the crown/prosecutor for harassing the person who wanted to sic the internet on that guy.

                If Wu and that massachusetts senator gets their way, this will come to america and sooner rather than later a woman, any woman, who dislikes someone for any reason, will yield this new tool to silence and destroy them. If you are a cis-hetro white male, any real harassment against you will go unnoticed.

                [–]arghsinic 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                These is always the best

                53 Ultimately, it is submitted that it would have been reasonable for Mr. Elliott to have believed during the Particularized Dates that Ms. Guthrie’s seething animus towards him had everything to do with Mr. Elliott publically disagreeing with her politics, and nothing to do with the fear he had allegedly non-threatening and politically-oriented tweets.

                wtf?

                Q. Right. Because primarily it doesn’t correspond at all with what you believe? A. Or with reality.

                Really, like wtf?

                Edit: editing.

                [–]CaesarCzech 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Wait he disagreed with her so she did this ? what about tweeting #Idisagreewithmodern feminist or something like that at her ? #iDisagree.

                [–]samaiwa 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

                Well I guess she deserves to get doxxed then

                [–]terfwarz[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                According to her, it is only acceptable if she had the consequences coming to her.

                [–]samaiwa 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Which she does, as I have deemed because I consider myself to be the one making such judgements, just like she does.

                [–]terfwarz[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                This line of reasoning is so problematic. I hope one day she realize how stupid she is/was.

                [–]opticon 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I might be having a seizure because it absolutely blows my fucking mind that this stupid twitter bullshit is being discussed in a serious tone and a court setting.

                It's no wonder nothing works. It's a miracle that we're not irradiated ash. We are a dumb motherfucking species.

                [–]kchoze 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

                Anyone has the prosecution's document, to be able to have their version of the facts too?

                Anyway, the transcripts here are damning enough to make my mind, what a couple of narcissistic, self-righteous lunatics. It is absolutely ludicrous that these women, who not only admit but are proud of mounting harassment campaigns against people on Twitter, hoping to hurt them in real life, can get a guy arrested for harassment for... disagreeing with them.

                In a just world, if there had been someone arrested for their harassing behavior, it would have been these women, not the man.

                [–]terfwarz[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                the prosecution hasn't released their closing submission and they don't have to, but both prosecution and defense has to cite (as is the case in this submission) evidence that has been entered to the court. Every transcription of the feminist answering questions was part of what was presented in court.

                [–]kchoze 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                I know that the transcript are true, verbatim. That's why I said they were damning enough for me to make my mind.

                I'm still curious how the prosecution can try to spin this.

                [–]Smell-Da-Gluv 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I'm still curious how the prosecution can try to spin this.

                Me too. According to this document they never even tried to prove the accused had access to the Twitter account in question. I'm no expert but if I was prosecuting I imagine that's the first thing I'd do.

                [–]Milkyrice 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                This:

                Q. Right. And just to be clear, the date November 12th which is on this

                exhibit [#40] is the date that you took that screen grab, right?

                A. I couldn’t possibly say.

                Q. Okay. But you understood that on or about November 12th, Mr.

                Elliott was being accused on Twitter of being a pedophile, right?

                A. Sure.

                Q. Right. And again, you didn’t feel it was your job to tell Detective

                Bangild that it was, actually, an adult?

                A. The young woman said that she was 13, so that was what people

                believed. She later said that she was not 13.

                Q. Right.

                A. But initially she said that she was.

                Q. But by the time you met Detective Bangild, you already testified to

                this, you were aware that she was either 18 or 19, agree?

                A. Yes.

                Q. Right. Good. So not really trying to help out Mr. Elliott when you’re

                not mentioning the fact it’s actually an adult, right?

                A. My position wasn’t really that I wanted ... I was not trying to help Mr.

                Elliott.

                Q. Right.

                A. He was stalking me. So no, I wasn’t trying to help me. I wasn’t trying

                to harm him unduly, but I was not trying to help him and I was not trying

                to ... yeah.

                Q. Right. In your view handing tweets alleging Mr. Elliott’s a

                pedophile without correcting the officers receiving them, is not trying

                to harm Mr. Elliott, right?

                A. Wasn’t trying to harm him, no.

                And on another note, TotalBiscuit aka cynicalbrit was named on point 125.

                1. On August 24 2012, both Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly were

                identified by their close associate @NatalieZed as being members

                of #teamawesome (“Team Awesome”). Exhibit 60 identifies other members of

                Team Awesome as @criticalbrit, @verylemonade, @PopeShakey,

                @neville_park, and the onetime complainant Paisley Rae. Indeed, on August 24,

                2012, Heather Reilly described Team Awesome as being the “winners” in their

                “epic” “#battlewithGAE”, who was “#Creepy” and a “#GAEhole”. The result of

                winning the epic battle against Mr. Elliott was a “#misandrysmackdown”.116

                1. On the same day, August 24th, but in a separate series of tweets,

                @NatalieZed declares that “GAE is INFAMOUS for being a complete harassing

                knob”, and apparently starts off a conversation with the members of Team

                Awesome by saying: “So many of us have had awful encounters with him”. Ms.

                Reilly then tweets, inter alia, the following:

                @cattoyoriginal @nataliezed @paisleyrae a waste of space. Creepy

                Men’s Rights Activist. Misogynist. sends unsolicited sexual tweets to ppl

                @paisleyrae @nataliezed @criticalbrit @verylemonade he claims to have

                respect for women but he clearly doesn't

                @verylemonaide @paisleyrae @nataliezed @criticalbrit ugh. We really

                shouldn’t have exposure to this cretin117

                [–]ReverseSolipsist 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

                In closing submissions of Feminist v. Elliot, feminist says implies in court that doxing someone is okay if they deserve it.

                Let's not make this sound worse than it is. It's bad enough.

                [–]terfwarz[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                From the document, the feminist said:

                I was trying to let as many people as possible know that this was something Bendilin Spurr had done. And if they believed it was wrong, and if they believed it was disgusting, and if they took action that subsequently ruined Bendilin Spurr’s life, then he was the one who ruined it and not me, Mr. Murphy.

                [–]ReverseSolipsist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Right. She didn't explicitly mention doxxing. So it's an implication, not a statement. Nowhere in the context is doxxing explicitly mentioned, either. Even ignoring the word "doxxing," even the concept of revealing someone's personal information isn't directly mentioned.

                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                  [–]terfwarz[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  The feminist wanted to create a webpage to tarnish Elliot's reputation.On page 32 of the document:

                  Further, on August 12th, Ms. Guthrie floated the idea of creating a website for Mr. Elliott similar to ones prostitutes use for “abusive johns”.97 In cross- examination, Ms. Guthrie confirmed that her idea of setting up such a website was a “broad stroke sketch”

                  Q. Where my client is going to be named as a vile, sexual predator, essentially?

                  A. We already said it publicly a number of times that we felt that he was. I have no problem with people being aware that I feel that your client’s behaviour was sexually threatening.98

                  This is so disgusting. She claims he was a pedophile with no evidence or proof that he was. He utter nothing sexually threatening through twitter nor did anything sexually threatening and yet she still felt she was entitled to create a webpage to ruin a person's life because that person disagreed with her.

                  Stephanie Guthrie, the feminist, would also tell the courts that she isn't a perfect victim, but nonetheless she is still a victim...?

                  [–]WilburCharlotte 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  I'm at a loss for words...

                  ...why exactly would ANYONE think this is acceptable behavior???

                  [–]terfwarz[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Stephanie Guthrie knows our @NatalieZed, and I wouldn't doubt if @NatalieZed thinks this is also acceptable behaviour.

                  God, it's like they are trying to pick fights on the internet in order to gain e-fame, and create villains they can slay, villains that aren't real villains or even dangerous but which they pretend are dangerous and build up so they can take them down.

                  edit: I just realized that in a mary sue article covering for NatalieZed, she claimed our tactics to 'destroy her life' was horrible and unethical. Yet these are the same tactics she and her ilk wanted to use against the defendant in the case. Wow, just wow. This is her crying to marysue about how 'bad' we are. HOLY FUCK.

                  [–]songsofthewoods 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I only hope that there is enough rational & logical people in the justice system to stop this. Either way this case will go, it will be the stepping stone to the "teh Internet is harassing me!" narrative. Good or bad depends on your POV.

                  [–]Trailing_Off 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  You know what I don't get about this, how is it that his actions constitute harassment--to the point that their DA (or w/e in Canada) chooses to prosecute--but their actions don't?

                  [–]godmodium 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Is there a timeline of events concerning this trial? I tried finding one online but didn't see it. For instance what brought this all up in the first place and how did it get to the point where we are right now?

                  [–]terfwarz[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  He and the feminist in question met up for dinner to discuss her women in politics organization. He offered design services, they were amicable. He was going to design a postern and a logo, but later just a poster and he was happy without getting any credit at all. Everything was fine until she decided to tweet something about siccing the internet against the creator of the Sarkeesian game. Elliot responded back, calling her out on that, saying she shouldn't ruin the guy's life. She blocked Elliot. Then her and a few of her friends went to the police saying elliot was criminally harassing her.

                  Here is the coverage after her and her two other friends pressing charges.

                  She waffles and contradicts herself hugely from that account given to that newspaper. She admits, as cited by the closing submission, that she only felt Elliot was angry (and therefore felt fear) when she doxxed the sarkeesian creator.

                  [–]Zerael25k get! Party! | Mod - @SpaghettiDrop[M] 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

                  Just a quick note, this is not Drama, this is definitely a [Misc.] Post, and an interesting one at that given the amount of traffic and comments this has generated.

                  We're not pulling it nor am I issuing you a warning, so this is just a friendly reminder to please keep this in mind for future submissions :)

                  [–]matthew_lane 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Jesus, the amount of projection & sociopathy on display in that document is just amazing. I mean it's clear that she is a terrible person & she even knows she's a terrible person, but instead she actually thinks she can convince a judge that her sociopathy is actually a positive & uplifting thing.

                  [–]terfwarz[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  She works as a gender and equity educator, or something of that matter. Gender Justice Consultant, http://stephguthrie.com/. I guess she is just using her skill as a gender justice consultant within the legal system blah blah blah.

                  [–]IrbyTumor 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I'm not even sure how feminism can claim it's for equality with great examples like this. I mean seriously, just replace the word 'feminism' with 'Egalitarianism' if you actually believe in that.

                  [–]lick_the_spoon 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Long read, but damn... That's worth, Elliott should easily walk away from this. More importantly SJW's will see that only genuine harassment is taken seriously.

                  [–]wuzizname 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  "Oh, did I really feel creeped by him ... oh,because if you can’t point to a specific thing that the person said that ... or them grabbing you or doing something very specific, then everyone questions whether you really have a right to feel fearful. So I questioned it, and I wrestled with my feelings about things, but toward the end of the summer, yes, definitely.58"

                  It took her fucking 3 months to wrestle with her feelings on whether or not she initially felt creeped out by someone, and lambastes societies need for irrational "evidence".

                  We have failed this generation...

                  [–]Iandrasil 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Reading this document is simultaneously a comedy goldmine and a rabbit hole of SJW insanity

                  [–]matthewhaleSurvived #GGinDC 2015 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  So I just read through the entire thing, those women are fucking insane, I really hope once this is all said and done that they go to jail for the shit they put this guy through. These people are sick and this shit needs to stop now.

                  [–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  This is not fucking drama. This is the court condoning vigilante harassment

                  [–]dsac 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  The court isn't condoning shit.

                  [–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Archive links for this post:

                  I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

                  [–]EmptyEmptyInsides 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  If this wasn't an actual criminal case it'd be hilarious in its absurdity. The crux of Guthrie's complaints of harassment is that Elliot kept @ messaging her after she blocked him. He didn't make another account or anything, just wrote tweets with her name that didn't end up in her feed. Her friends alerted her about this and she told him he'd better stop doing it.

                  If I blocked someone somewhere and my friends started relaying their messages to me I'd be annoyed with my friends, not the blocked person. I'd tell them I blocked them because I didn't want to see what they wrote. And I certainly wouldn't tell the blocked person that they needed to stop.

                  It's like these people are using the block function without actually wanting to filter out a person's messages but as some kind of strange statement of limitation that the blocked person has to comply with. As if the block is a restraining order.

                  [–]terfwarz[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  There is a GG connection to this. The person who dubbed us as Death Eaters is socially linked to the feminists who brought these charges. They are part of a group they dubbed amongst themselves as #teamawesome.

                  Quoting from the document:

                  On August 24 2012, both Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly were identified by their close associate @NatalieZed as being members of #teamawesome (“Team Awesome”). Exhibit 60 identifies other members of Team Awesome as @criticalbrit, @verylemonade, @PopeShakey, @neville_park, and the onetime complainant Paisley Rae. Indeed, on August 24, 2012, Heather Reilly described Team Awesome as being the “winners” in their “epic” “#battlewithGAE”, who was “#Creepy” and a “#GAEhole”. The result of winning the epic battle against Mr. Elliott was a “#misandrysmackdown”.116

                  [–]EliteFourScott [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  If the prosecutor has any discretion in whether or not to prosecute, he or she should be hanged for abuse of state authority. This is fucking ridiculous and while I've never been particularly impressed with Canada's government, this is the first time I've been embarrassed for it.

                  [–]NoOneWhere [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  Note to all Canadians who are concerned about it and feel that the Persecutor is making an unlawful case: Follow the procedure at http://ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/cmp-pln/index.html.

                  [–]Mug33k [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                  Where dis you get this? I want MOAR

                  [–]terfwarz[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                  We have to wait for a verdict. This person is also a close associate to Natalie Walschots, aka NatalieZed, aka the DiGRA researcher who called us death eaters. I am hoping when the trial ends, maybe we can crowd fund the cost to get the full court transcriptions typed up by a court reporter. (40 bucks canadian).

                  Also Elliot is trying to crowd fund the legal cost. https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/1357186

                  [–]EliteFourScott [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  I've just today learned that this all started from the defendant agreeing to do some (free!) work for the alleged victim.

                  All the more reason to never speak to, never interact with, and certainly never collaborate with a social justice warrior. Social quarantine is the only solution.

                  [–]Fyrex [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                  I'm not even half way through this thing and my god it's just pure insanity.

                  [–]codeGrit [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                  Q. You knew that ... you knew personally that Gregory Elliott was responding to defend himself?
                  A. He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, but not to me.
                  Q. Okay.
                  A. He’s not entitled to an audience from me, Mr. Murphy.
                  Q. Okay. And that’s what it comes down to, would you agree with me, that you don’t believe that Mr. Elliott is entitled to defend himself to you?
                  A. To me. Yeah ... no, I don’t believe he is.
                  Q. Right. Okay. No matter what you say to or about Mr. Elliott, agreed?
                  A. There were a lot of people who backed me up on what I said about him, a lot of people, Mr. Murphy.
                  Q. Two of whom are ...
                  A. Two of the dozens, yeah.
                  Q. Two of whom are the complainants in this case, right?
                  A. Yes. Yes.

                  This is the only summary of the case you need, right here. "I can say whatever I want without consequences".

                  Bonus points for making it known how "popular" you thought your opinion was, and how that somehow justified your desire to silence his defense of your libel.

                  [–]CaesarCzech 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  SJW believe themself Judge and Executioner. What they dont know that when time comes they will be judgED and execuTED

                  [–]ReverseSolipsist 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  This is a 70+ page document. Where is the section that contains what you claim, and why isn't this request the top comment already?

                  [–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  What page does it say that doxing is okay if someone deserves it?

                  [–]Clorine 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  What does Elliot think of GG supporting him?

                  [–]terfwarz[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  He has a go-fund me. It's been linked somewhere in this thread. He has a lot of legal costs and will have a lot more if he needs to go to appeal. I think funding him over honey badgers wouldve been a better use of money because if he wins the judgment, this will set a precedent and it will do our side wonders.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (15 返事)