Judge In Free Speech Case Over Twitter Fight Apparently Fooled By Parody Account
from the ouch dept
We just reported on a good ruling in Canada that threw out a criminal (yes, criminal) harassment case over what appeared to be a somewhat ridiculous Twitter spat. As we noted, basically no one came out of the spat looking particularly good, but to argue that such a spat should be criminal seemed ridiculous no matter how you looked at it. In the ruling, the judge did find that the tweets sent by Greg Elliott were harassing, but that it wasn't criminal because of the circumstances, including the fact that it was a public discussion and many of the tweets involved Elliott trying (perhaps aggressively) to defend himself against attacks against himself. However, as the very first commenter on our post pointed out, and which other reporters have now reported as well, at least one of the tweets that the judge pointed to as an example of Elliott's aggressive language actually came from a parody account.The tweet in question came from the @greg_a_eliott account, which is ever so slightly from Greg Elliott's real account, which spells his name (as it is spelled) with two "Ls" instead of just one: @greg_a_elliott. But apparently the judge missed that and assumed the following homophobic tweet was from Elliott:
His language is vulgar and sometimes obscene, and once inexplicably homophobic...It didn't really have an impact on the case, as the judge still tossed out the charges, but it does still seem at least mildly problematic, as the judge clearly regularly referenced that tweet, even though admitting that it wasn't in the evidence that was submitted, but which he found on his own. The judge went through a somewhat long explanation, noting that he found the tweet on his own and was at least somewhat confused why it had not been entered into evidence originally, suggesting that the search tool used by the police, called Sysomos, did a bad job.
Again, in this case, it didn't really matter, but this may be something to watch out for in future cases, where such mistakes could have a huge impact.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, criminal harassment, free speech, greg elliott, harassment, parody account, twitter fight
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle, the record reflects that one litigant was homophobic. The system the police are using is inherently flawed if it was unable to separate a "parody" account from the real one.
So when does this rubicon get crossed with an even worse outcome for someone, where a failed search gives a Judge outside information and a ruling is made that seals the defendants fate... because no one thought to double check the results because the tech is good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't think they were supposed to do that. Maybe things are different in Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if the evidence presented is the same as what he finds, he could still have his verdict coloured by linked opinion pieces, tweeted reactions or accusations that hadn't been posted before the trial started, etc. IANAL, Canadian, etc., but all of this seems weird to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The article has exactly the right caveat wrt using the internet as a repository for evidence. Seems like the procedures for doing so are too ad hoc and mistakes will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the US system, that's what the attorneys for the two sides are supposed to do. Letting judges go out looking for additional evidence on their own under the guise of "getting the complete picture" would mean that they could always do that. I don't see how it could be a fair trial if instead of facing a prosecutor and a judge, the defendant was facing two prosecutors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So? If those are important, then the pages they linked to should also be presented to the court. In fact, given that the target can be changed at any time, it's important that these be gathered as close to the start of the case as possible.
"Context was important because of the nature of the charge."
Then, surely this is what the lawyers are meant to be doing? They either present evidence in the correct context or the opposing lawyer can present this to protect their client if they feel the current context is incorrect. Having the supposedly impartial judge do it instead is very dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the way things are going now this is very worrying because following some ISIS page could get me in the wrong lights to our scaredy, overzealous law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't the prosecutor also have been fooled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't the prosecutor also have been fooled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta say, it's nice to read about this case in such a neutral tone, there's no indication given as to whether the author is feminist or anti-feminist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm curious - what's your definition of feminist or feminism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rule on the law and facts brought before them.
While I say "kudos" to the Judge for at least taking an interest - alas they are supposed to be restricted to the law and the facts BROUGHT BEFORE THEM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: http://asymptom.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose the defense could technically move to strike such language from the decision, but they probably don't want to risk any sort of reopening of the case after a favorable outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]