A Toronto court room was filled with disappointed looks this afternoon, as Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared of all harassment charges laid against him.
Elliott was being charged with criminally harassing two Toronto women over Twitter back in 2012.
Judge Brent Knazan said his decision was dependent on the nature of Twitter and freedom of expression.
“There is no doubt that Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly were harassed by Gregory Alan Elliott, either due to the volume or content of his tweets, but that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction,” Knazan said.
The complainants were Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly. Both are women’s rights activists who claimed Elliott became fixated with their Twitter feeds in 2012. They claim that Elliott began tweeting to them constantly, which eventually led them to block him.
Elliott continued to bother them, only this time by using hashtags to get their attention.
Judge Knazan made sure to point out that Elliott’s tweets were insulting and homophobic at times, but they were never sexual or physically threatening to either women.
Reilly said she became concerned about her safety as online harassments became personal when Elliott tweeted about a bar she was at with friends: “A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight.”
Guthrie, on the other hand, testified that it was the sheer volume of tweets that Elliott sent her that made her feel uncomfortable.
Elliott’s lawyer rebutted by saying that the entire exchange was nothing more than “an ugly political debate during which both sides resorted to childish name-calling,” the Star reported.
Elliott also claimed that he has the right to express valid political commentary and to disagree with others on Twitter.
Today, Knazan came to Elliott’s defence and told the court that people need to “tolerate the annoyance” that might come from opposing views as part of that Charter of Rights.
But what happens when this “annoyance” gets out of hand?
During the escalating exchanges, both women would respond back to Elliott on occasion, trying to defend themselves. They ended up pressing charges in November 2012 when they began to fear for their own safety. Elliott was arrested shortly after.
Knazan said that while both women may have actually feared Elliott, there was no proof that he had any potential to become violent that would surpass the standard of reasonable doubt.
After the verdict was read, Elliott told media outside of the courtroom that the judges decision proved he had done nothing wrong.
“I’m not guilty and everything I did I thought was within the law, so I don’t know if I would change anything,” he said.
“Freedom of speech is about expressing your opinions, your emotions, and if it’s taken out of context or misunderstood or misconstrued by others, you shouldn’t have that forced upon you.”
While this may be the first time that alleged criminal harassment over Twitter was taken to the Canadian courts, it sheds light on just how far online harassment can go and when the law needs to, at the very least, get involved. In this case, as long as Elliott was within his rights and showed no real sign of harming these women, he was free to tweet to them as he pleased.
Whether you agree with the ruling or not, it certainly seems to set a precedence for future online consequences in this country.
[ad_bb1]