What are the boundaries of debate on social media?
A man charged with criminal harassment over his dealings on Twitter with two Toronto women's rights activists has been found not guilty, but the debate about what is acceptable on social media is sure to continue. What do you believe are the boundaries of debate on Twitter and Facebook?
-
Welcome to CBC Forum, a live, hosted discussion where readers can talk about stories of national interest and the issues that arise from them.
CBC Forum is here to encourage a different kind of conversation. Our aim is to have a thoughtful debate on issues that matter to Canadians and to reflect a diversity of opinion.
Tell us your story. Give us your unique point of view. We will attempt to feature as many voices as possible in our discussion, and we will showcase some posts and stories on other parts of CBCNews.ca.
This CBC Forum is now closed. Thanks for reading and participating.
-
Good morning/afternoon, welcome to the latest CBC Forum.
-
This story is today's starting point for our discussion:
Ontario man not guilty in Twitter harassment case
A man charged with criminal harassment over his dealings on Twitter with two Toronto women's rights activists has been found not guilty — ending a trial that is expected to set a precedent for cases of online harassment. -
Gregory Alan Elliott was accused of harassing Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly over several months in 2012.
The judge ruled that Elliot was largely explaining himself and furthering his views "however offensive or wrong they may be," the judge said, while recognizing the language could be "vulgar and sometimes obscene." -
I don't believe there should be any limits to free speech no matter what forum you're using. The only exception to free speech is when you are intentionally inciting others to violence through the use of lies. Other than that, all you are doing by censoring is removing things that you don't like. -
Thanks for getting the conversation started, Peter_T. Not even other items in the criminal code? Not libel or slander?
-
My experience on twitter is there is great freedom of speech, and the ability to block or mute ppl you don't want to interact with.
Having said that, there is rarely a twitter debate that is one sided. Trying to shut ppl up with such charges is taking one 'right' to bash others w/o reactions to extremes.
I'm glad the Canadian court saw through the motives, and set the rules straight. Bravo, for once the court took a courageous stance for free speech that's being challenged globally. -
I don't think there should be any boundaries. All we do when we shut people up is drive them underground. There is a whole strata of opinion out there that is hidden..I'd like it all to see the light of day.. yup.. even those i consider to be crazy. Besides..i despise censorship. I'm an adult, give me the truth, i'll decide what i think about it. -
Hi, Catherine. What about criminal behaviour? Slander? Threats of violence?
-
Trolls who frequent discussion groups and make outrageous posts are cowards with most of them hiding behind fake FaceBook accounts. I think all groups should require that anyone posting identify themselves to the moderators before they are allowed to comment. Logging in with a FB account just doesn't cut it.
-
-
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of expression and freedom from malicious prosecution trumps peoples rights to being offended by opinions, points of view and beliefs. This case was strictly a case where those who didn't like what Greg said, abused the law to prosecute him and force him from the internet. This was not a real harassment case and the Crown should have known better. I think it is time that perhaps we look at the reasoning the Crown took 4 years of this man's life away and cost him 10's of 1000's of $ to protect his innocence and rights.
Greggoreat 2:44 PM -
It's quite simple: don't threaten anyone, and make sure your irony is obvious.
-
In response to Rick Mercer's recent rant posted below:
Rick, when you vote for a Federal or Provincial leader, do you write your name on the ballot? do you publicly post your ballot for the world to see?
Greggoreat 2:45 PM -
Our society is far too sensitive in this day and age...a person is no longer aloud to have an opposing view, in the fear they may offend someone... As long as the debate is not threatening or hate speech people need to grow back their spines
-
All views should be given the opportunity to be mocked, ridiculed, disregarded, upheld, praised or accepted after being revealed once. In a country where a diversity of cultures is literally enshrined in laws, a diversity of thought must also be enshrined. As long as no one is being directly harmed, someone's thoughts should be able to make you feel outraged, depressed, exuberant or joyous. This is what freedom of speech is. It's like a free market. If an opinion is worthless, let you and others cast it away after looking at it.
-
Motive means opportunity can rarely be found on twitter. These are elements required to prove one is fearful for their safety. Stick to tweeting with people in another country if you have concerns.
I'm more concerned about Islamic terrorists using twitter to spread their propaganda and recruit followers. They need to be shut down, but are not. -
Anything short of calling for violence against a person/group is fair game.
Simply disagreeing with a lifestyle, choices, or ridiculing a person for the outcomes of idiotic actions does not constitute hate speech.
The only thing hurt by works are feelings. They'll grow back. -
-
Justice has not yet been served even though Elliott was found not guilty. Since he was charged, he was ordered not to use the internet until such time as the case was settled even though his business relies on attracting and dealing with potential clients on the internet. Further, his legal bills are in the neighborhood of $100k just to defend himself for a charge that never should have been laid in the first place. There is no penalty for the two 3rd Wave Feminists to complained to the police in the first place. Even though he was eventually vindicated, the fact that this case was ever prosecuted is a sad realization of the fragility of the principle of Freedom of Speech in Canada. And while Justin Trudeau may be doing many positive things for Canadians over his tenure as Prime Minister, hopefully his 3rd Waver attitudes won't result in laws that, if in place today, might have resulted in a conviction against Mr. Elliott.
-
Normally I try to be objective, but in these sorts of cases, it really is a subjective judgement call to make. So long as no one threatens or harasses anyone else in a way that a "reasonable" individual would call harassment then why make a stink? My friends and I make dirty, highly insulting, and sometimes racist jokes towards each other and close friends, and no one get offended because we all know we are joking. If everyone knows everyone else if joking and not actually believing it or taking it seriously, then why create unnecessary problems? Some people also naturally talk in a way that is highly offensive but that is just the culture they were raised in and don't usually mean it. Should these individuals also get in trouble? I would say no.
-
There is really only one rule and that is when an ad hominen attack occurs. Otherwise it is open season.
-
Hi, Robby Canuck. Are you saying that's the way it should be or that's the way it is?
-
When commenting on Facebook I never use profanity, threaten, bully or make fun of those who comment. I use fact based arguments to support my position or attack other positions. If a comment includes a threat, I tell the person. I have reported comments to Facebook and have had accounts suspended for 24 hours. Having been to Israel a number of times I criticize both supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinians if I believe their positions to be wrong. The same is true for those who attack the NDP govt in AB where I live
-
While civil discourse and intelligent debate (and expression) should be encouraged, there are limits. That said, we need to be careful of going too far with the political correctness self-meme'ing we seem hellbent on tarring our society with. Yoga classes supposedly deemed cultural appropriation, Halloween costumes in the US leading to professors forced abdications over disagreement, not harassment.
It's all intertwined. PC language on the internet is part and parcel- how many people have been doxxed or otherwised harassed for offering an opposing viewpoint? How many have been driven to tears (or worse) over actual online harassment, that may bleed into real life?
There is no simple answer, here. But we need to be careful about jumping to banning/populist "think of the children!" nonsense that will silence people on important subjects.
it's all connected- to protect citizens we should not stifle the opinions (even if unpopular) innocent. -
@CBC News JM
Both subject of course to obscenity, threats etc.
It is important we recognise the need to honour free speech as guaranteed by s.2 of our Charter of Rights but the attacks should be on the comment or the thought or opinion expressed, and not on the person who makes it. For example - "Donald Trump's comments are devoid of rational thought and reason" is OK.
The problem is many comments on social media come from really ill informed people and it is OK to say that their comment is a really ignorant comment because it shows the person does not understand the issue.
In addition many people just spout simplistic rhetoric and that should be called out always. -
Perhaps a bit offtrack but here goes. Social media is destroying the art of conversation. Individuals feel they somehow have a right to say things on social media that they would never say during a real conversation, with no eye contact or ability to read another persons reaction or to read social queues. I feel that a world leader tweeting a condolence (as opposed to picking up the phone or handwriting a card) is as naughty as using profanity. There cannot be boundaries on social media. It is a false way of communicating.
-
By not standing up against harassment and violence against women, it seems this judge has promoted it. Sorry to hear of women being harassed online in the aftermath of this decision.
-
Comments on social media should, like those in the traditional media, be limited to those willing to sign their names and have their submissions verified as being from them. Sadly unattributed comments are what has opened the door to the kind of vitriol that dominates the social media. CBC can verify my comments as they have my name and contact info, as well as my user name. However, the social media has no way to verify those who use the various platforms.
-
Hi, Saltwater Sailor. Thanks for taking part. Aren't there good reasons to remain anonymous - say a whistleblower or a victim who fears further harassment?
-
I support the verdict. We have evolved into a society that defines itself by what we're outraged by. Here's a newsflash...we do NOT have the right to NOT be offended. My views may offend you. I am NOT required to change them. You DO have the right to question me or call me out for them, and I DO have the right to either ignore or respond to you as I see fit. She made statements. He didn't like them. He disagreed and called her out for it. At no time did he threaten her. At no time did he make sexual comments regarding her. He simply dared to disagree with her and did so using vulgar language.
-
I know Mr Elliot personally. A real gentleman, and in fact a very gentle man indeed. I do not know anybody who would as helpful as he is.
He got involved in a silly quarrel on Twitter and criminally charged for this. This was a big pile of b..s.
For the justice system it was a learning exercise.
However Mr Elliot had to pay for this: lost his job, gained notoriety, got ruined by legal fees.
Mr Elliot was an internet / Twitter teacher for his lawyer. Lawyer was a student and teacher paid for lawyer time and expenses.
I hope the legal establishment will sober after this and reimburse Mr.Elliot for their education .
JanJ. Toronto -
Yes, these platforms should be a free-for-all. After all, who is the authority on what is and isn't acceptable to debate? Isn't this a culture where freedom is one of our most valued possessions?
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
- George Orwell
People who don't want to be told things they don't want to hear should simply avoid the Internet. -
It was a garbage lawsuit. The taxpayer's time and money was wasted on somebody's ego.
The facts as we are able to know them, don't even come close to harassment. It would have been a terrible precedent had he been found guilty. The misuse of the court system was far more offensive than anything this guy said. -
An important ruling that could have gone so wrong.
In this respect anyone using a hashtag for support or criticism would open themselves up to criminal liability.
This victory is half the battle however as the would be bullies, using the courts to silence opponents, need to be pursued for distress.
Disagreeing with someone online or having an online debate, no matter how vigorous, should not involve the courts. -
People who don't want to be questioned or criticized should post their ideas on a website and not on a discussion forum. -
This happens all to often on social media, Facebook, Twitter the list goes on.. Good rule of thumb if you do not like what someone posts keep scrolling or block them! On another topic if your harassing someone that's not good either!
-
Freedom of speech is good and constantly under attack. One should remember though freedom of speech means you are free to speak; not that you are free from consequences. I think death threats take it too far, even if the person says there were only joking. Same with stalking. Clearly there are a lot of people who don't like a comment they read and for some reason they have to stop and type out a personnel attack on the person. Just move on if you had nothing to add to the discussion or debate other than personal attacks/name calling.
-
The freedom of speech doesn't exist anymore. Even if you're not found guilty you could still lose your job. This is the new world we live in. Kind of stinks.
-
Worth noting: The acquittal was not due to the accused lacking knowledge that he was harassing the complainants. The court found that the accused *did* know he was harassing one of the women (Reilly), and was reckless regarding the potential for harassment of the other (Guthrie). Recklessness is an alternative to knowledge (in the context of a charge of harassment). I think the article overlooks this in the last few paragraphs, which might confused people.
The accused was acquitted because, in the court’s view, there was a reasonable doubt regarding whether the women’s fears for their safety were reasonable in the circumstances. The court found that the women were asserting a fear of physical or sexual harm, and not psychological harm (which is also a basis for a charge of harassment), and found that there was nothing in the tweets “of a violent or sexual nature or that indicated [...] irrationality” which would render those specific fears rational.
(Disclaimer: Although I am a lawyer, I’m not a criminal lawyer. This isn’t legal advice!) -
this is why you never use your real name on the internet. classic mistake by this guy
-
The rules online should be the same as they are face to face ... If it's likely to get you a busted nose, don't say it.
-
From our story:
Speaking to reporters outside the court, Elliott stood by his actions and indicated he would not behave differently — if given the chance to do it all over — despite the judge's at-times unflattering assessment of his behaviour."Everything I did was within the law," he said. "I don't know if I would change anything."
"I've always loved and respected women, but I also love and respect freedom of speech," he added.
He did, however, say being away from Twitter for more than two years as the case worked through the court has left him with a renewed appreciation for face-to-face contact. Prior to stopping in 2012, he said he was sending out about 300 tweets per day.
Elliott said he's "thinking" about going back to Twitter.
Later that same day, he tweeted the message "You can stand for something, but you can't misunderstand for something."
-
It is a disgrace that charges were ever laid in this case and that it took three years to conclude the trial during which time Elliott was unable to work -
Freedom of speech lives another day! The two accusers engaged in the exact same rhetoric, but didn't seem to like it in kind (read the entire judgement). Sad they had to try to ruin someone's life because of an inability to accept critique of their rightfully questionable views. That was the only crime committed... false, baseless accusations. They cost an innocent person his job, ability to support his family, his reputation, and so forth... not to mention a whole lot of tax dollars over a temper-tantrum. Equality = good ; censorship of opposing views = bad, very bad.
Long live #freedomoftweets !! -
That's it for tonight, folks. Thanks for participating and watch for another CBC Forum tomorrow.
