Social Justice: Noble goal?

[moiraemachy]

Limiting the language of damage and problematic phrases is the first step to reordering social thinking towards a utopian inclusive playing field.

More like last step.

meanieheads want to eliminate social punching down, and whilst some are perceived to be behavioural police or doublespeak thinkpol, history has long taught us that unless you're Gandhi, polite dissent without resorting to controversial firebrand methods that some would find uncomfortable or distasteful never actually achieves anything.

That's the view most movements fighting for some form of social justice advocate, but it seems much more plausible that most social progress done in more or less democratic societies was due to old people dying and culture accommodating to a new economic reality.

[CorruptUser]

As a guy, I've only been molested once this year (in an elevator; eat your heart out Sarkesian!)

Sort of like the Anita Sarkeesian elevator incident. "Hey, I was hit on in an elevator, guys, that's creepy don't do it" somehow was reported as "Oh me yarm HALP SONE GUY CHATTED WITH ME ON AN ELEVATOR HALP RAPE RAPE!!!".

For some reason, I don't entirely trust your version of events.

I was in the elevator I take in my parking garage, St Patty's day, and a drunk middle aged woman grabbed me and kissed me on the cheek. That's pretty much it.

[KrytenKoro]

I think the end goal, if any, is basically The Culture.

I was in the elevator I take in my parking garage, St Patty's day, and a drunk middle aged woman grabbed me and kissed me on the cheek. That's pretty much it.

Pretty sure he means about Anita.

That's the view most movements fighting for some form of social justice advocate, but it seems much more plausible that most social progress done in more or less democratic societies was due to old people dying and culture accommodating to a new economic reality.

Nah. From the studies I've seen (there's probably a link in the news forum, sorry I'm lazy), the current generation is as bigoted and racist as the last generation, with the added bonus of a dunning-kruger like effect of thinking that racism and bigotry are no longer important problems that need to be combated.



Also, want to thank those who pointed out that cphite's version of the Yale events was off-the-mark. I have faith they didn't mean to spread the revisionist version of events, but it's good to see it being countered.

[mcd001]

Also, want to thank those who pointed out that cphite's version of the Yale events was off-the-mark. I have faith they didn't mean to spread the revisionist version of events, but it's good to see it being countered.

PeteP was the one who corrected cphite. He linked to an article from the Washington Post in order to debunk cphite's version of events. Except that it doesn't.

I read the linked article and it actually CONFIRMS what cphite wrote: 1) Yale put out guidelines for Halloween costumes; 2) A faculty member (Nicholas Christakis) put out an email suggesting that it might be better for students if they dealt with offensive costumes directly rather than have Yale do it for them; 3) students respond with calls for the removal of Christakis and his wife (who defended his email).

This is substantially (if not exactly) what cphite said in his post. I could not let this go unchallenged.

[Tyndmyr]

*reads link*

Yeah, it does actually confirm cphite's claims. It just doesn't do so in chronological order, so if, say, one skims, or reads only the first bit, it may not be readily apparent.

I also note that Nicholas's email seems reasonable. It's not based on hostility to standards existing, but rather on empowering the students to handle things themselves. That seems like a fairly reasonable viewpoint, and taking all quotes together, it seems written in a reasonable manner.

Jumping from that to discussing being the only black student in a classroom seems to be sort of a leap. Sure, discussing representation is fine, but it seems like the email is really being taken as an excuse for existing unrelated grievances, rather than being itself problematic.

[KrytenKoro]

PeteP was the one who corrected cphite. He linked to an article from the Washington Post in order to debunk cphite's version of events. Except that it doesn't.

I read the linked article and it actually CONFIRMS what cphite wrote: 1) Yale put out guidelines for Halloween costumes; 2) A faculty member (Nicholas Christakis) put out an email suggesting that it might be better for students if they dealt with offensive costumes directly rather than have Yale do it for them; 3) students respond with calls for the removal of Christakis and his wife (who defended his email).

This is substantially (if not exactly) what cphite said in his post. I could not let this go unchallenged.

Absolutely, flagrantly false.

A committee of students had suggested that guidelines for socially acceptable Halloween costumes be created.

This did not happen. The IAC put out a letter asking students to please keep in mind whether their costumes could be considered offensive, explicitly citing blackface and other faux pas. There was absolutely no call to action beyond "please think". There was no hint of creating any guidelines.

What the students were actually protesting - and I have to admit, I find it hard to even type this without chuckling a bit - is that a faculty member suggested that students, as presumed adults, should trusted to decide for themselves what costumes to wear.

This is not what the students are protesting -- or at least, it's hideously reductive to the point of being disingenuous. The second paragraph of the WP article states what they're agitating about:

...if he would call on his personal experiences in addressing student demands for additional black faculty, racial sensitivity training for freshmen and the dismissal of administrators viewed as racially inattentive.

It's followed by noting that the e-mail, in which a master of a residence hall rebukes a polite request to think before wearing blackface, is just one in a string of events dismissing racist incidents at Yale:

They pointed to an e-mail from an administrator last week who challenged those who take offense at culturally insensitive Halloween costumes and allegations days later that a fraternity discriminated against female party-goers on the basis of their race.

Furthermore, even the complaints about the e-mail itself are clarified to not be about "being asked to be adults":

Students at Thursday’s protest said the e-mail ignored the way people of color experience such insensitive characterizations, and they recounted how students have faced threats of physical violence when they have questioned their classmates’ costume choices.

So if you think the WP article supports how cphite summarized the incident, you should consider giving more attention to the things you read.

I also note that Nicholas's email seems reasonable. It's not based on hostility to standards existing, but rather on empowering the students to handle things themselves. That seems like a fairly reasonable viewpoint, and taking all quotes together, it seems written in a reasonable manner.

If the costume incident was the only thing that led up to the student's protesting, yeah, the e-mail would seem reasonable, and the protest would seem childish. And that's how a lot of media is choosing to report it, completely ignoring that the students are pointing out a long-standing and pervasive atmosphere of discrimination, and dismissal of attempts to improve it. Christakis's e-mail did not happen in a contextless vacuum -- neither did the student's protests.

Jumping from that to discussing being the only black student in a classroom seems to be sort of a leap. Sure, discussing representation is fine, but it seems like the email is really being taken as an excuse for existing unrelated grievances, rather than being itself problematic.

Well, yeah, that's kind of exactly the point. The students feel like they are being ignored, and ignored, and ignored, and then even a polite e-mail saying "hey, please think for a few minutes before wearing blackface" is responded to like it was the first steps to Stalinist Rightthink. If the e-mail was the only thing that had happened, the students would likely grumble but take it in stride -- that's kind of what they were doing up to this point.

[morriswalters]

This is not what the students are protesting -- or at least, it's hideously reductive to the point of being disingenuous.

The reality is that the Master(whoever thinks of these stupid names should be shot) ended up resigning from teaching and the significant other took a sabbatical. So whatever the students are protesting, they seem to have drawn first blood. I'm sure that they feel righteous, but I am unconvinced in the narrow scope of the the emails that they are right.

[KrytenKoro]

I'm sure that they feel righteous, but I am unconvinced in the narrow scope of the the emails that they are right.

As I've stated already, the "narrow scope of the e-mails" is a small, small piece of the issue, and trying to focus solely on whether those e-mails, alone, justify what's happening at Yale is enacting deliberate ignorance.

I'm not sure how else to illustrate this, since I already quoted them saying just that, so here's similar illustrations of the media portraying the last straw as the entirety of an issue.

Or, on another tack, would the "narrow scope" of the Tea Act of 1773 convince you that the US was justified in declaring its independence from Great Britain?

Yes, the "last straw" in an issue, trivial on its lonesome, often becomes the rallying cry of a movement that is fed up with putting up with unending bullshit. That's...fuck, that's literally how every single protest movement happens. Rosa Parks was "just" asked to move to the back of the bus, etc. If the protesters were claiming that the e-mail was the only issue they were angry at, you might have a semblance of a point here, but...no one is claiming that except the ones trying to dismiss them. Or at least, I've yet to see anyone on the protesters' side who's ignorant of all the other issues they're raising.

[morriswalters]

As I've stated already, the "narrow scope of the e-mails" is a small, small piece of the issue, and trying to focus solely on whether those e-mails, alone, justify what's happening at Yale is enacting deliberate ignorance.

It doesn't matter. This is the face that people see, and it's petty. It distracts from those other fights, and gets the students portrayed as pampered babies. The thing is this. If it isn't about the email, why did they demand the resignations? What made these people so important? You say it isn't about them, but the protesters made it so, rightly or wrongly.

[mcd001]

There were several unrelated issues that caused the protests. Got it. But is the Christakis's losing their jobs a right and proper outcome for the email that Nicholas Christakis sent?

[PeteP]

There were several unrelated issues that caused the protests. Got it. But is the Christakis's losing their jobs a right and proper outcome for the email that Nicholas Christakis sent?

You are mixing up him and his wife. (Yes it is not that important but you already did in your last post so I thought I would point it out.)

[mcd001]

Sorry, I did get the two mixed up. This changes the actual question I would like to see answered by someone who believes the student protests are justified: Is the Christakis's losing their jobs a right and proper outcome for the email that Erika Christakis sent?

This is an important question. KrytenKoro indicates the Christakis email was the 'last straw', just one of many provocations:

If the costume incident was the only thing that led up to the student's protesting, yeah, the e-mail would seem reasonable, and the protest would seem childish. And that's how a lot of media is choosing to report it, completely ignoring that the students are pointing out a long-standing and pervasive atmosphere of discrimination, and dismissal of attempts to improve it. Christakis's e-mail did not happen in a contextless vacuum -- neither did the student's protests.

So should Christakis lose her job for an action that, taken by itself, even KrytenKoro says would seem reasonable? Yet the protesters called for her removal.

As an outsider looking in, I don't see a group of brave young students fighting for truth and justice. I see a pack of spoiled, entitled brats who meet the slightest offense, real or perceived, with overwhelming, non-proportional force. When I look at Christakis, I see someone who sent an email that I found completely reasonable and would not have hesitated to send myself being driven from her job.

This is the face of 'Social Justice' to the rest of America: howling mobs demanding blood for trivial offenses. If we object, we risk accusations of bigotry, racism, or worse. Any meaniehead's (or whatever the correct term is) on this forum might want to ponder this, although I'm not sure there's much you could do about it.

[KrytenKoro]

As an outsider looking in, I don't see a group of brave young students fighting for truth and justice. I see a pack of spoiled, entitled brats who meet the slightest offense, real or perceived, with overwhelming, non-proportional force. When I look at Christakis, I see someone who sent an email that I found completely reasonable and would not have hesitated to send myself being driven from her job.

I am not one of the students, and don't know exactly why they demanded the resignation. I'd hazard that, like I said earlier, neither of the e-mails happened in a vacuum.

"Let them eat cake" is a perfectly reasonable response to hungry peasants outside your gates, if looked at in a "narrow scope". The Christakis were Masters in charge of student living (and thus, ensuring an atmosphere conducive to learning), being aware of the situation and trying to ensure that everyone feels safe enough to engage in free speech is a big part of their jobs, and so it doesn't make sense to treat them as if they were completely blind to any of the prior grievances and events.

However, I am willing to say, due to my ignorance of what prior incidents there may have been with the Christakis's in particular, that demanding their resignation may have been unfair, and done in a fit of pique. That doesn't change that what has been said about the Yale students being "anti-speech babies" is ludicrously dishonest and ignorant.

This is the face of 'Social Justice' to the rest of America: howling mobs demanding blood for trivial offenses.

Yes, the rest of America is very adept at totally ignoring all pertinent context and trying to sweep things under the rug until they explode. That's how Ferguson, etc. all happened. That's a massive, self-destructive flaw in the rest of America, not a fault in the people demanding respect.

If we object, we risk accusations of bigotry, racism, or worse.

Such accusations, if inaccurate, are hurtful, yes. They are also almost entirely toothless.

So should Christakis lose her job for an action that, taken by itself, even KrytenKoro says would seem reasonable? Yet the protesters called for her removal.

The e-mail itself, on its own, seems reasonable. That someone with Christakis's specific job sent it is less so. What it was sent in response to, even less reasonable. And so on.

Depending on whether Christakis herself had been involved in dismissing past incidents, this kind of action would definitely require at least some kind of formal rebuke and possibly require retraining. A Master's job is, yes, to foster an atmosphere of academic inquiry, but also are in charge of the residences -- so doing anything that makes the students under their care feel unsafe is actually them failing to do their job. This isn't "hey, some jobber said something politically incorrect that doesn't actually affect their job performance at all, we demand they be fired to teach them a lesson." This is someone literally doing their job very badly wrong.

[icanus]

If we object, we risk accusations of bigotry, racism, or worse.

Such accusations, if inaccurate, are hurtful, yes. They are also almost entirely toothless.

Except when you lose your job and get banned from using the internet - ask Gregory Elliott.

[PeteP]

If we object, we risk accusations of bigotry, racism, or worse.

Such accusations, if inaccurate, are hurtful, yes. They are also almost entirely toothless.

Except when you lose your job and get banned from using the internet - ask Gregory Elliott.

No that is an accusation of harassment.

[icanus]

No that is an accusation of harassment.

After Guthrie blocked him on Twitter, he continued tweeting both political criticism and has been accused of making personal insults towards her and other local feminists. However it has been confirmed by both Guthrie and the investigating officer that "there’s no allegation that Elliott ever made sexual comments to Guthrie or the other two complainants in the case, or that he even threatened any of them". Guthrie and some of her associates also continued to tweet mockery and accusations about Elliott after blocking him, including false accusations of pedophilia.

[PeteP]

I see nothing to contradict my point?

[icanus]

There's no allegation of threats. He's accused of continuing to tweet his disagreement after she blocked him. While she and her coterie did the same (and worse) to him.

It's one of those irregular verbs, I guess: She take a stand against misogyny, He harasses.

Funny how "silencing" is only problematic sometimes.

[KrytenKoro]

...so the guy is being charged by the state with criminal harassment, and you're alleging that instead of that, it is the Social Justice movement of the Americas that took away his job and banned him from the internet for objecting to someone complaining about something that, as far as I can tell, is an incitement to violence against a specific person?

Can you..you can see how this is a terrible example for trying to rebut what I said, right? It doesn't fit the paradigm mdc alleged in the least.

There's no allegation of threats.

There doesn't need to be, because that's not what the charge requires. That's like saying "I can't be accused of robbing the bank, it's not on fire anymore."

He's accused of continuing to tweet his disagreement after she blocked him.

No he's not. This is a legal case, there's court documents specifying what he's actually accused of and they're not difficult to find.

His harassment of her (and two other complainants, who haven’t testified yet) is alleged to have consisted of deluging her with unwanted Tweets, shadowing the events she organized, and keeping tabs on her movements by watching the hashtags she followed.

There's quite a bit more being charged than whatever the outrage culture has been feeding you.

While she and her coterie did the same (and worse) to him.

"Your honor, I can't be accused of cruelty to animals, because many animals eat other animals too."

If what she did falls into the legal bounds of harassment, she can just as easily be charged.

It's one of those irregular verbs, I guess: She take a stand against misogyny, He harasses.

Where in that article is anyone claiming that? Who is claiming that it would be wrong to prosecute her for crimes, if she is found to have committed any crimes? Have you identified any legal statutes that she violated? Maybe you should inform the Crown of those! Or are you talking out your ass?

Funny how "silencing" is only problematic sometimes.

Yes, if someone has been silenced, or lost 100% freedom of assembly, etc., under the due process of law to put a stop to a crime they were committing, that is a lot less problematic than it being done just because the person was part of the outgroup. In other news, restraining orders and gag orders exist, and their existence isn't really that troubling.


Personally? Yeah, she sounds like an absolute asshole, with her idea that doxing the game-maker was okay, and that "if the guy chooses to kill himself, that's his fault not mine". Depending on if more evidence comes to light to show she intended him harm, I can see charging her with criminal harassment. But Elliot's not being charged for simply disagreeing with her, and the criminal case against him is not being held in Social Justice Court.

[Tyndmyr]

As an outsider looking in, I don't see a group of brave young students fighting for truth and justice. I see a pack of spoiled, entitled brats who meet the slightest offense, real or perceived, with overwhelming, non-proportional force. When I look at Christakis, I see someone who sent an email that I found completely reasonable and would not have hesitated to send myself being driven from her job.

This is the face of 'Social Justice' to the rest of America: howling mobs demanding blood for trivial offenses. If we object, we risk accusations of bigotry, racism, or worse. Any meaniehead's (or whatever the correct term is) on this forum might want to ponder this, although I'm not sure there's much you could do about it.

This is also my perception.

I mean, if there are worse things happening, then sure, react to those. But...this is a cause I can't get behind. It's an extremely reasonable email, one I might have sent myself in the circumstances. If there is a pattern of that, well...so what? That's just administrators doing their jobs in a reasonable fashion. For the students to have a claim, you have to assume a pattern of something worse. Something they haven't actually bothered to highlight, and which apparently was NOT worthy of protest and upset, though this was.

I am not familiar with the specific case listed later, but yeah...publicly proclaiming politicial opinions, even with attached insults is not inherently harassment unless there's something greater there. Otherwise, half the internet has harassed Trump.

[leady]

Personally? Yeah, she sounds like an absolute asshole, with her idea that doxing the game-maker was okay, and that "if the guy chooses to kill himself, that's his fault not mine". Depending on if more evidence comes to light to show she intended him harm, I can see charging her with criminal harassment. But Elliot's not being charged for simply disagreeing with her, and the criminal case against him is not being held in Social Justice Court.

Except that he is in principle and justice is not blind in either where it is applied or its outcomes. I could never see the grand dragon (wizard?) of a certain organisation ever seeing the inside of a court room because he was being harassed through constant disagreement from a single person.

So yes in effect he is being tried because of "social justice" rather than blind justice. Some of this is codified in law.

[Tyndmyr]

His harassment of her (and two other complainants, who haven’t testified yet) is alleged to have consisted of deluging her with unwanted Tweets, shadowing the events she organized, and keeping tabs on her movements by watching the hashtags she followed.

There's quite a bit more being charged than whatever the outrage culture has been feeding you.

Watching hashtags doesn't...seem like harassment. The entire purpose of a hashtag is to make something public in an easily indexable format.

The others, well, potentially, depending on circumstances, but that one seems odd.

[Chen]

When he asked her to point to one — just one — that had instilled fear in her, she snapped, “That’s not how feelings work, Mr. Murphy. They develop over time.” When the lawyer suggested she wasn’t fearful, that she’d made fun of Mr. Elliott and taunted him, she sighed theatrically and said, “There’s no perfect victim, Mr. Murphy, and no perfect way to respond to being stalked. Sometimes you have to fight back a little bit…. I’m sorry if I wasn’t a perfect victim.”

Mr. Murphy then suggested that what Mr. Elliott had been doing was defending himself, and his views, when he was being attacked on Twitter by her and the other complainants. Wasn’t he entitled to do that?

“He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, Mr. Murphy; he’s not entitled to do it to me.”

“No matter what you say about or to him?” Mr. Murphy asked.

“Not to me,” she said.

That's from a National Post article on the matter. Murphy being the defense attorny, the back and forth here being Murphy and Mrs. Guthrie. Maybe there's more to that, but that whole last bit makes absolutely zero sense to me and seems wildly hypocritical.

[KrytenKoro]

Watching hashtags doesn't...seem like harassment. The entire purpose of a hashtag is to make something public in an easily indexable format.

The point I was trying to highlight was that he's accused of keeping tabs on where she was at all times, with the hashtags simply being the means. If he did that, and in a way that she knew about it in order to accuse him of it, that definitely says "harassment" to me.

That's from a National Post article on the matter. Murphy being the defense attorny, the back and forth here being Murphy and Mrs. Guthrie. Maybe there's more to that, but that whole last bit makes absolutely zero sense to me and seems wildly hypocritical.

Like I said, she sounds like an asshole to me too. I don't see how that proves anything beyond "the social justice movement includes some assholes", much less "the social justice movement took away this guy's job and banned him from the internet." Him committing acts that fell under criminal harassment caused those things, unless the sources I've read are very, very mistaken.

Except that he is in principle and justice is not blind in either where it is applied or its outcomes. I could never see the grand dragon (wizard?) of a certain organisation ever seeing the inside of a court room because he was being harassed through constant disagreement from a single person.

The charge was not mere "constant disagreement". It was actual harassment, according to what is being accused. I could definitely see a Klan member seeking prosecution if they were being stalked by someone -- I see no reason they should be denied justice in that regard. Two wrongs don't make a right, which is where I differ with parts of the SJ movement that think doxing is acceptable.

[leady]

The charge was not mere "constant disagreement". It was actual harassment, according to what is being accused. I could definitely see a Klan member seeking prosecution if they were being stalked by someone -- I see no reason they should be denied justice in that regard. Two wrongs don't make a right, which is where I differ with parts of the SJ movement that think doxing is acceptable.

Harassment is manifestly a subjective crime at the best of times and you know that. Tweeting against someone in opposition to their broadcasts that aren't threats, I strongly question is that harassment in any meaningful sense even if it "seems" personal?

You also fully know that the klan member would get absolutely zero equivalent justice. Two wrongs don't make a right, but neither does one wrong. The Klan should be open to constant criticism and so should anyone else especially on impersonal media.

[KrytenKoro]

Harassment is manifestly a subjective crime at the best of times and you know that. Tweeting against someone in opposition to their broadcasts that aren't threats, I strongly question is that harassment in any meaningful sense even if it "seems" personal?

As has been stated multiple times, the harassment claim wasn't made based on tweets alone.

Why is the default response to claims of harassment or oppression to try and ignore all of the highlighted context and laser-focus on one specific incident? It feels a lot like global warming denialism -- "Well, it started snowing today, so clearly the Earth isn't getting warmer." Come on, guys, I shouldn't have to keep repeating every two posts that the claims are more substantial than you're claiming.

You also fully know that the klan member would get absolutely zero equivalent justice. Two wrongs don't make a right, but neither does one wrong. The Klan should be open to constant criticism and so should anyone else especially on impersonal media.

http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk ... imination/

Seriously, where are you getting this claim from?

[icanus]

Watching hashtags doesn't...seem like harassment. The entire purpose of a hashtag is to make something public in an easily indexable format.

The point I was trying to highlight was that he's accused of keeping tabs on where she was at all times, with the hashtags simply being the means. If he did that, and in a way that she knew about it in order to accuse him of it, that definitely says "harassment" to me.

The only evidence for this I'm aware of being that she publicly advertised an event on the hashtag #TOpoli (a hashtag used for local politics in Toronto, where Elliott and Guthrie both live), and he made reference to the event in a tweet.

It's not "keeping tabs" to notice when someone publicly announces their whereabouts. It's also not unreasonable to keep an eye on the tweets of someone with a history of doxxing those she disagrees with if you've had a disagreement with her.

Why is the default response to claims of harassment or oppression to try and ignore all of the highlighted context and laser-focus on one specific incident? It feels a lot like global warming denialism -- "Well, it started snowing today, so clearly the Earth isn't getting warmer." Come on, guys, I shouldn't have to keep repeating every two posts that the claims are more substantial than you're claiming.

Do you mean the context where Guthrie has a history of harassment of those she disagrees with, or the context where Guthrie and her friends were posting insults and accuastions about Elliott?

The "laser-focus" on him mentioning her in tweets after she'd blocked him is because that's all he's accused of.

Of course, I could be totally misinformed - please feel free to provide a source that claims he did anything beyond:
1. Read tweets posted publicly by Guthrie and friends (including many that were about him, including insults and false allegations of paedophilia)
2. Make tweets that mentioned them (containing no threats or sexual harassment, but plenty of disagreement and insults.)

[KrytenKoro]

It's not "keeping tabs" to notice when someone publicly announces their whereabouts. It's also not unreasonable to keep an eye on the tweets of someone with a history of doxxing those she disagrees with if you've had a disagreement with her.

"Noticing" is different from informing the person you're keeping tabs on them.

Do you mean the context where Guthrie has a history of harassment of those she disagrees with, or the context where Guthrie and her friends were posting insults and accuastions about Elliott?

Irrelevant. If she committed a separate crime, that does not excuse Elliot's crime, if any. Furthermore, the consequences continue to be enacted by the actual legal court, not a fanciful "court of social justice".

Once more, I'm not arguing that Guthrie is a saint. I'm arguing that (1) this is not example of public shaming taking away someone's rights, and (2) that the charges against the guy appear to be valid, at least enough to go to trial.

The "laser-focus" on him mentioning her in tweets after she'd blocked him is because that's all he's accused of.

Bullshit. Just on the tweeting front, he's not accused of merely disagreeing with her, as multiple people keep claiming -- including the one I was responding to.

Of course, I could be totally misinformed - please feel free to provide a source that claims he did anything beyond:
1. Read tweets posted publicly by Guthrie and friends (including many that were about him, including insults and false allegations of paedophilia)
2. Make tweets that mentioned them (containing no threats or sexual harassment, but plenty of disagreement and insults.)

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/201 ... trial.html

Whether or not Guthrie and Reilly were reasonably afraid of Elliott is central to the legal claim of criminal harassment. Both said they were, and testified that some of Elliott's tweets made it obvious he knew where they were and what they were doing.

"Mr. Elliot sent copious amounts of obsessive, harassing tweets where he tweeted 'at' the complainants, mentioned their handles, mentioned the hashtags created by Ms. Guthrie, sent subtweets at the complainants, monitored their feeds, etc. He did this knowing that they blocked him and that they did not want contact with him,” Goldenberg wrote.

http://knlive.ctvnews.ca/toronto-harass ... -1.1628352

Gregory Alan Elliott was in court today accused of criminal harassment for messages allegedly posted to Twitter. A woman, who can’t be named, alleges Elliott sent her sexual messages and continued doing so even after she asked him to stop. She says she feared for her safety during the time Elliott was sending tweets. Two more women came forward last January and were added to the number of complainants.

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014 ... sment.html

Guthrie had met Elliott via Twitter when looking for someone to design posters for a group she founded, “Women in TO politics.” They met once in person, and Guthrie later told the investigating officer Det. Jeff Bangild that she felt “seedy” just sitting across from him, court heard Tuesday.

She then discovered that Elliott had a history of sending tweets she considered sexually harassing and offensive to women, and decided not hire him. In the months that followed Guthrie told the Star she received several harassing tweets from Elliott, and finally went to the police in November 2012.

After Elliott was charged with criminal harassment on Nov. 21, two of Guthrie’s fellow political-feminist Twitter users Heather Reilly and Paisley Rae came forward and two more charges were laid in January 2013.

Rae told Bangild that it was “exhausting” being regularly tweeted at with the hashtag “#fascistfeminist,” Elliott’s defence lawyer Chris Murphy told the court.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/ ... alone.html

The exchanges became increasingly hostile that month, with @greg_a_elliott tweeting that Reilly was a “hateful b--tch” and accusing her and other women he dubbed “#fascistfeminists” of ganging up on him, Reilly said.

He also posted tweets like “Heather’s fat ass gets fatter” with the #TOpoli hashtag but without mentioning her Twitter handle in the tweet (known as sub-tweeting), the court heard. Sub-tweeting means the other Twitter user mentioned won’t be automatically notified that he or she is being discussed.

http://o.canada.com/news/national/blatc ... ect-victim

What followed was that Guthrie blocked him on Twitter, but he kept on top of her movements by watching the hashtags she followed and shadowing the events she organized.

It may very well be found by the court that the above doesn't, in the end, cross the line into criminal harassment. However, from the evidence that was brought forward, it seems reasonable to have the case in the first place.

[Tyndmyr]

Watching hashtags doesn't...seem like harassment. The entire purpose of a hashtag is to make something public in an easily indexable format.

The point I was trying to highlight was that he's accused of keeping tabs on where she was at all times, with the hashtags simply being the means. If he did that, and in a way that she knew about it in order to accuse him of it, that definitely says "harassment" to me.

By 'keeping tabs', do we mean "subscribed to her twitter feed", or do we mean "has a massive spreadsheet in the basement, next to photos of her with the eyes cut out"?

Because it looks like the former, and that doesn't qualify as harassment in my book. What were the bad things he did as part of this harassment?

It's not "keeping tabs" to notice when someone publicly announces their whereabouts. It's also not unreasonable to keep an eye on the tweets of someone with a history of doxxing those she disagrees with if you've had a disagreement with her.

"Noticing" is different from informing the person you're keeping tabs on them.

Mentioning that someone is going to be at an event is a really normal thing to pass along. I mean, if you have explicit threats or something associated with that, then yeah, there's a problem, but merely mentioning an event that the person themselves has publicly advertised is...not harassment. It's utterly normal behavior. "Don't go to event because person x is there, and they're awful" is an utterly normal part of boycotting campaigns and so forth.

This just seems like two people on the internet really disliked and disagreed with each other, and had a spat. Redefining this as harassment would set the bar sufficiently low as to make a great many people online guilty of it. A lot of the assumptions here seem to be that things like "he talked about me after I blocked him" are inherently bad, which...okay. I don't understand why that's an assumption in the first place.

[KrytenKoro]

By 'keeping tabs', do we mean "subscribed to her twitter feed", or do we mean "has a massive spreadsheet in the basement, next to photos of her with the eyes cut out"?

Because it looks like the former, and that doesn't qualify as harassment in my book. What were the bad things he did as part of this harassment?

The stuff described in the excerpts I posted, mostly.

This just seems like two people on the internet really disliked and disagreed with each other, and had a spat. Redefining this as harassment would set the bar sufficiently low as to make a great many people online guilty of it. A lot of the assumptions here seem to be that things like "he talked about me after I blocked him" are inherently bad, which...okay. I don't understand why that's an assumption in the first place.

I'm saying the evidence was good enough to take him to trial over it, not that it's definitely good enough to convict him on. This is definitely not open-and-shut harassment by any means, no arguments there, but it's close enough that it's worth investigating, and it doesn't appear to be a simple case of "disagreeing with an meaniehead gets your job and internet access taken away."

My argument is that he lost those because of compelling evidence that he committed a crime for which he is standing trial, not that he had an unpopular opinion. Something the in-depth coverage noted that I noticed wasn't discussed here was that the spat is claimed to have started before the flash game incident, and that he was accused of making sexualized tweets at Guthrie and two other women as well.

That he had an unpopular opinion is definitely fuel for the spat, but describing this as "man points out that meaniehead is being oppressive, meaniehead has him fired and banned from the internet" is very reductionist.