Gregory Alan Elliott not guilty in Twitter harassment case

"BRAH" said
My friend has screen caps of everything as do I but the police can't do anything even though they know who he is as she's not the first woman he has done this to (expect the hacking incident) because the laws are out of date.

Are you or someone you know being STALKED?

Are you afraid for your safety or the safety of someone known to you because of the words or actions of another person?

Is someone repeatedly following you or someone known to you from place to place? Repeatedly is more than one time and does not have to be for an extended period of time. The incidents may have occurred during the same day.
Is someone repeatedly communicating with you, either directly or indirectly?
Directly can be by telephone, in person, leaving messages on answering machines, or sending unwanted gifts, notes, letters or e-mails.
Indirectly can be by contacting people you know and having messages sent through them or simply by making repeated unwanted inquiries about you.
Is someone persistently close by or watching your home or any place where you or anyone known to you live, work, carry on business or happen to be?
Have you or any member of your family been threatened by this person?

If you can answer YES to any of these questions you or someone you know may be a victim of CRIMINAL HARASSMENT - STALKING.

"peck420" said
It would have no bearing for your friend.

This case was not precedent (I'm not quite sure why the media keeps insisting that it is) setting by any means. This was nothing more than a trial with a lack of evidence, ergo a not guilty verdict.

After a legal battle that dragged on for three years , Gregory Alan Elliott has been found not guilty.

In 2012, Elliott was charged with criminal harassment after arguing with feminist activists on Twitter. He’s suffered through a tortuous court case that has cost him nearly one hundred thousand dollars.

Anyone following this case knows that Greg is only guilty of the crime of wrongthink. He was arrested for critically engaging with people who disagreed with him. It wasn’t any different from what people do on social media platforms every day.



Greg’s tweets were far milder than some of the vile garbage I’ve seen come through my notifications. He never threatened anyone, and he never gave anyone reason to fear for their safety.

All he did was argue with people that hated him so much they demanded he be shut down.

I don’t believe Stephanie Guthrie or her cronies felt victimized for a second. We’re talking about people who have posted images of themselves drinking from mugs with “male tears” written on them, after all.

They wanted Elliott to pay for having challenged them, nothing more.

The charges in Elliott’s protracted legal case have prohibited him from using the Internet, forced him to quit his job, and left him bankrupt.

The last three years of Greg’s life have been hell, and he won’t ever get them back.

Despite all this, I am joyful, Greg is joyful, and his sons are joyful. Free speech has won the day, and Greg won’t have to deal with the prospect of months of jail time or heavy fines.

People opposed to speech rights won’t get the satisfaction of seeing Greg behind bars.

Most importantly, legal precedent has been established to defend free expression.

Canada is infamous for its ineffectual provisions for freedom of speech. Establishing the legal default to favour allowing offensive speech is a boon for speech rights in Canada.

A new chapter of Greg’s life starts now. He’ll be able to return to some semblance of his prior life, free of the burden of ongoing criminal proceedings. He’ll be able to return to work, and continue making the artwork for which he is renowned.

It’ll be a rocky road, but he has a lot of people on his side.

I hope you’ll be one of those people. Greg still has legal fees to pay and is hoping to get back to designing and doing his artwork.

"BRAH" said
EPS, RCMP they've done nothing the only hope she has is if it can be proved he was ether behind the hacking of her bank account or knew who did it as he made public threats to have her hacked. Other than that they can't or won't do anything because to them it's a civil matter.

"peck420" said
EPS, RCMP they've done nothing the only hope she has is if it can be proved he was ether behind the hacking of her bank account or knew who did it as he made public threats to have her hacked. Other than that they can't or won't do anything because to them it's a civil matter.

"BRAH" said

The bank hacking incident is being looked at and she was told even though he made threats to have her hacked still proving he was behind it easier said than done. The bottom line is the laws are out of date in dealing with online cyberstalking and harassment even after the death of EPS Const Woodall was who was trying to arrest a supect who cyberstalking a family online.

"andyt" said
Sounds like a good verdict. Otherwise every discussion board would be in trouble.

A wise colleague remarked, as at the Old City Hall courts Judge Brent Knazan was reading aloud his decision in the infamous Twitter trial Friday, virtually all the players in the case were a little unhinged.

Or, as he put it, “There isn’t a hinge to be found” among them.

He was acquitted, not, the judge was at pains to point out, because he didn’t find Guthrie and Reilly credible when they testified they felt harassed and were genuinely fearful, but because that fear was unreasonable.

He believed they genuinely felt harassed, as the Criminal Code defines it, but found that Elliott couldn’t have known this, at least in part because, for instance, even after Guthrie “blocked” him from tweeting to her, she occasionally communicated with him.

And Reilly retweeted false and very damaging allegations against Elliott.


“On the evidentiary record,” Knazan wrote, and here he was talking about Reilly, “asking a person to stop reading one’s feed from a freely chosen open account is not reasonable. Nor is it reasonable to ask someone to stop alluding to one’s tweets.

Of the Guthrie complaint, the judge said that she didn’t distinguish “between valid debate and the right to express wrong views on the one hand, and harassment by repeated tweeting on the other… Though she testified that Mr. Elliott had a right to give his opinion, she took the position that she could demand that she be excluded from receiving it — which is her right — but also that he had to comply and co-operate, which is not her right.”