...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.
icanus wrote: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.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.