[ SECRET POST #3288 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3288 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #470.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

[(Anonymous)]

Wait not so fast cancuck

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

and lets not get started on little sisters bookstore my northern friend

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

[ariakas]

That's not hate speech, that's criminal harassment. Which has always been a crime (and is in the US as well), it has only now broadened to include social media.

Also, he was charged. Not found guilty. If the prosecutor can't prove that he he harassed them by the standards of Canadian law (i.e. to the point that they feared for their safety), then the charges will be dropped and his accusers will pay damages.

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt, Yikes, that case is ridiculous. And, unfortunately, the fact that it is dragged into court is a huge financial burden even if he is found innocent - not to mention the time wasted, and the fact that he has lost his job. And that anyone who Googles him will now see his name linked with legal troubles. There's no way reparations would cover that, if they are actually ordered. I did look to see if there were updates, but couldn't find them.

I think is probably an abuse of what the online anti-harassment laws were made for, and it's also not surprising that the laws morph outside their original intent. But the fact that that dispute was elevated to court doesn't seem a good thing to me at all.