Gregory Alan Elliot has been Acquitted

For the uninitiated, Gregory Alan Elliot is the Canadian national who has been disallowed from using the internet for several years and was facing jail time over disagreeing with a group of feminists online. TL;DR: They made a bunch of shit up, got him taken in under false charges, and then were getting ready to essentially get this man thrown in prison for disagreeing with a group of feminists online and ultimately, triggering them. I am not joking about this.

Sargon covered this earlier in the lead-up to his crowdfunding his defense. Suffice to say it made its target goals in a matter of hours, and the usual retards who were fond of declaring personal jihads against anyone who besmirches Saint Anita of Sarkeesian were quick to try to frame the incident as....

You know what? Fuck it, I refuse to put in more effort than Margaret Pless herself did:

Today, the Judge essentially threw the case out of court due to the sheer volume of evidence that showed that Elliot didn't do anything wrong. A lot of groups are running this like it's a victory for free discourse online - and it is - but the price was high, to say the least.

Elliot had to crowdfund a huge amount of money for his legal defense and due to being banned entirely from the internet for the last three years, has essentially been unable to do his job. So whilst I do think his acquittal is something worth celebrating, we need to also bear in mind the insanity that led to this case coming to trial in the fucking first place.

Because we really need to tie a face to this trial. And said face was nice enough to remind us all of this with one image that says everything:

 

[chimpburgers]

Yeah this was all over Twitter this morning. I'm glad that his name has been cleared.

 

[Crisseh]

A loss for SJW's is always a good day.

Shame he had to go through all the legal shit, just to be able to have his own opinions.

 

[AnOminous]

For the uninitiated, Gregory Alan Elliot is the Canadian national who has been disallowed from using the internet for several years and was facing jail time over disagreeing with a group of feminists online.

Jaimas is not being at all hyperbolic here. This is the sole basis of the criminal charges against a guy who did nothing but say things that people didn't like.

It's not that he said ambiguously threatening things. It's not that he harassed anyone. In fact, the impetus of the case was he disagreed with his prior compadres harassing someone and said maybe that wasn't very nice.

He was literally criminally prosecuted just because self-described "feminists" didn't like him personally and then he said things.

As a legally trained person I usually try to phrase things and present stuff so as to express what both sides are actually saying, so that the audience can understand it, but in this case, that's literally all there is to the case.

There is nothing this guy said or did that anyone who posts to this forum hasn't said or done. Actually, he's fucking innocuous compared to every single one of us. He was criminally prosecuted for literally fucking nothing. I have scoured the case record in vain for anything he said or did that violated any law.

No, seriously. Look at this case. What did this guy do that was prosecutable? Literally NOTHING! I'm not kidding.

Nevertheless, years of his life were wasted and he is nearly financially ruined apparently because someone didn't like him.

Thanks a lot, Canada. I think there's this group in Oregon with lots of bags of dicks. Maybe you can eat them, too.

 

[KatsuKitty]

This is why I have to remind my generation over and over again why "Hate Speech" laws are a terrible idea and not compatible with US jurisprudence.

 

[AnOminous]

This is why I have to remind my generation over and over again why "Hate Speech" laws are a terrible idea and not compatible with US jurisprudence.

And this bullshit case would never have even happened in the United States.

Fuck all America-haters.

 

[Arkangel]

The only winner in this whole situation is the person that sold her the "Male Tears" hip-flask.

 

[AnOminous]

The only winner in this whole situation is the person that sold her the "Male Tears" hip-flask.

The only winner in this situation is the judge who is somehow not being removed from office for not granting a motion to dismiss this entire case for being completely baseless.

 

[An Ounce of Vagina]

Sure would be nice if he can sue them for damages.

 

[Ravenor]

I am really happy that this guy won, it won't stop them from trying to pull this kind of stunt again most likely agenst a weaker target that can't fight back but hopefully it might give them pause before they do so.

@AnOminous Does this guy have a case to sue for deformation or loss of earnings from them?

This is why I have to remind my generation over and over again why "Hate Speech" laws are a terrible idea and not compatible with US jurisprudence.

Yea sadly they are creeping into EU laws as well they just have no place in the modern western legal system, just because you have feels does not mean that you can bitch and moan your way into being a protected class, and good intentions are now being abused by certain groups. Sadly in the UK we also have really retarded libel laws allowing for some cripplingly dumb legal decisions and the less I say about super injunctions the better.

 

[Splendid]

Sure would be nice if he can sue them for damages.

@AnOminous I know this is Canada, but do you have any insight as to how likely this is?

 

[Pickle Inspector]

Yea sadly they are creeping into EU laws as well they just have no place in the modern western legal system, just because you have feels does not mean that you can bitch and moan your way into being a protected class, and good intentions are now being abused by certain groups. Sadly in the UK we also have really retarded libel laws allowing for some cripplingly dumb legal decisions and the less I say about super injunctions the better.

Thankfully the bill to make anti-feminism talk illegal was rejected, it was pretty sneaky how the bill grouped together Racism, Homophobia, Anti-semitism and feminism, to quote one part:

1. (b) "Group libel" means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

 

[RP 520]

I am really happy that this guy won, it won't stop them from trying to pull this kind of stunt again most likely agenst a weaker target that can't fight back but hopefully it might give them pause before they do so.

@AnOminous Does this guy have a case to sue for deformation or loss of earnings from them?



Yea sadly they are creeping into EU laws as well they just have no place in the modern western legal system, just because you have feels does not mean that you can bitch and moan your way into being a protected class, and good intentions are now being abused by certain groups. Sadly in the UK we also have really retarded libel laws allowing for some cripplingly dumb legal decisions and the less I say about super injunctions the better.

It's also creeping into the U.S. via some college campuses that are catering to the SJW groups that call for safe spaces, segregation and the like, the tricky thing about the U.S. is all (to my knowledge) of the campuses that do cave are private colleges, which means they can do whatever they want on their grounds since it is their property. On state campuses though the institution is ran by the government so it is considered a public space and falls under state and federal regulations and thus, the constitution.

For instance there was one state campus near here that had to let a representative of a Neo-Nazi party give a speech in the auditorium because if they blocked him they would be in violation of the Constitution itself as they would be preventing a person from exercising their freedom of speech in a public facility.

 

[Jaimas]

 

[AnOminous]

It's also creeping into the U.S. via some college campuses that are catering to the SJW groups that call for safe spaces, segregation and the like, the tricky thing about the U.S. is all (to my knowledge) of the campuses that do cave are private colleges, which means they can do whatever they want on their grounds since it is their property. On state campuses though the institution is ran by the government so it is considered a public space and falls under state and federal regulations and thus, the constitution.

Very few colleges do not accept federal funds, which makes them somewhat subject to federal pressure. It doesn't make them government entities to the extent that they can't have speech codes and similar things, but federal funding can be yanked. One example is the so-called Solomon Amendment, which yanks federal funding to any school that prohibits military/ROTC recruiting.

Issues relating to this happened a lot when people were protesting anti-gay policies of the military and many universities tried to exclude military recruiters for basically the neutral reason that they refused access to any other employer with discriminatory policies. When student bodies and the university at large had overwhelmingly voted to ban these but were forced by the government to accept them anyway, a lot of these recruiting operations were still hobbled by the fact that they'd be basically besieged by protesters every minute they were in operation. (A couple schools, including Vermont Law School, still told the feds to fuck off and refused funding.)

Anyway, private or not, a lot of institutions of higher learning are subject to federal pressure of some sort.

For instance there was one state campus near here that had to let a representative of a Neo-Nazi party give a speech in the auditorium because if they blocked him they would be in violation of the Constitution itself as they would be preventing a person from exercising their freedom of speech in a public facility.

I would make a wild guess that this auditorium was also, to some extent, open to other members of the public. If it had been a facility that, for instance, was only ever used for classes, it wouldn't be considered a public forum.

However, if an entity does create a public forum, it can't discriminate based on viewpoint. So, for instance, you couldn't have a forum that allowed only speech that was viewed as progressive.

It should also be noted that while people usually mean the First Amendment when they talk about "free speech," every state constitution also has free speech provisions, and in many cases, those are actually more expansive than those protected under the federal constitution. New Jersey is one example.

In all the bitching and complaining from this lynch mob, do you see a single substantive complaint about what the guy actually did other than disagree with someone? But no, he's a "dudebro" so convict him of. . .whatever.

I have never seen a more vacuous, frivolously, and maliciously brought criminal case. The prosecutor who brought this should be removed from office.

 

[Huitzilopochtli]

Far more articulate than I would have put it. The only thing I have to add is that the universities that do run into issues like this are taking a wag the dog interpretation on Title IX, which is an nondiscrimination law for race and gender. Wheaton College is actually under investigation for a real title ix violation, while Mizzou was actually violating title ix the moment faculty got behind race based safe spaces.

 

[RP 520]

I propose that instead of feminists or feminazis we should just start calling these people "Silencers". It's become very obvious they have no real, rational good ideas of their own, could give two shits about real female issues or rights, and instead spend a bulk of their time trying to silence people that have opinions online, retweeting and believing click-bates from ill-reputed sites, and occasionally protesting or rioting at some college campus.

The main reason though is that naming them after a gun attachment would probably offend them since I imagine a majority probably are staunchly anti-gun.

 

[AnOminous]

Far more articulate than I would have put it. The only thing I have to add is that the universities that do run into issues like this are taking a wag the dog interpretation on Title IX, which is an nondiscrimination law for race and gender.

So far as I know, they generally aren't directly citing Title IX to ban military recruiting, but their own nondiscrimination policies, by which they ban other employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, which is not directly protected under Title IX anyway. That particular issue is moot, at least for the purpose of sexual orientation, since the military no longer overtly does that. It turns out that while they could force their recruiting operations onto universities against their will, people would not actually join up.

A lot of the reason for abandoning those dumb, discriminatory rules was that both straight and gay people were offended by them enough it was seriously hurting recruiting.

 

[Sweet and Savoury]

Sure would be nice if he can sue them for damages.

He was charged by "the crown" or in Yankee speak "the state".

So he has no ability/right to sue the prosecutor as she was simply representing the criminal justice system.

As for a civil suit against Guthrie? I'm not sure he has grounds to form a case as she only lodged the complaint that caused the investigation and subsequent charges to be laid against him by the crown.

I wish he would though, after reading the judges brief it's clear these three delibertly set out to destroy his life and ability to earn just for disagreeing with them.

If you get time read the transcript; Guthrie is a perfect example of a stereotype.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj35/2016oncj35.html


As it turns out, putting Guthrie on the stand was a big mistake on the prosecutors part as she was very clearly batshit insane.

 

[AnOminous]

He was charged by "the crown" or in Yankee speak "the state".

So he has no ability/right to sue the prosecutor as she was simply representing the criminal justice system.

As for a civil suit against Guthrie? I'm not sure he has grounds to form a case as she only lodged the complaint that caused the investigation and subsequent charges to be laid against him by the crown.

There is generally near absolute immunity for prosecutors in bringing cases, unless it can be demonstrated that they actually knew the case was bogus and pursued it with actual malice. This is virtually impossible to prove.

However, the factual nature of the acquittal may pave the road to pursuing defamation charges against Guthrie for any lies she has publicly stated about the defendant during the course of the proceeding, as well as any media outlets which have made false reports about him while it is ongoing.

I'm not sure. The dude may just want to move on with his life. But if he were pissed off and seeking vengeance, he probably has a plethora of targets, some with deep pockets, that he could sue the fuck out of. But I'm saying that from an American point of view. Canadians are pathetic wimps when it comes to litigation.