TORONTO - A controversial acquittal in what's believed to be Canada's first criminal harassment trial involving Twitter is being hailed by some as a victory for freedom of speech and condemned by others as a green light for online attacks.

Murmurs rippled through a packed Toronto courtroom Friday as Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared on all charges stemming from his dealings with two local women's rights activists, Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly, on the popular social network.

The decision, which focused heavily on the nature of Twitter and freedom of expression, also made waves online, with supporters and opponents weighing in on the verdict's significance.

"It's not surprising that it's controversial and also not surprising that people are taking extreme views," said Cara Zwibel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

"It's a significant decision because the judge spent some time grappling with freedom of expression and thinking through how people communicate on Twitter and what the implications of it are or could be, but it's also very context- and fact-specific and looking specifically at the evidence in this case," she said.

"So in that sense I think it has somewhat limited value as a precedent because it's always going to depend on the specific facts and context that we're talking about."

Elliott, a graphic designer and father of four, was arrested in November 2012 after months of tweeting back and forth with the activists.

The pair testified at the trial that they believe Elliot kept tabs on them and their whereabouts through social media, even after they blocked his account.

He continued to contact them, they said, in part through the use of hashtags he knew them to be involved with.

While there is "no doubt" that Guthrie and Reilly were harassed by Elliott, either due to the volume or content of his messages, that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan said.

In order to convict, the Crown must prove the accused knowingly or recklessly harassed another person through conduct that caused them to reasonably fear for their safety.

Elliott's tweets contained nothing of a "violent or sexual nature," and there was no indication he intended to hurt the women so their fear could not be justified, Knazan said.

In the posts, Elliott 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."

Guthrie and Reilly were unreasonable in expecting Elliott to keep out of Twitter conversations they were involved in simply because they asked him to, nor could the use of hashtags be considered an attempt to contact them directly, he said.

"Once someone creates a hashtag, anyone can use it," he said. "Everyone has to be able to use it freely; anything less will limit the operation of Twitter in a way that is not consistent with freedom of expression."

Elliott's lawyer, Chris Murphy, said outside court that the ruling should be reassuring to all social media users.

"If you're defending yourself and speaking politically, you don't have to worry about someone's fear being reasonable," he said.

Elliott said he felt vindicated that 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."

Shortly afterward, he tweeted for the first time since his arrest: "You can stand for something, but you can't misunderstand for something." - Gregory Alan Elliott #freedomoftweets #thankyou #3years2months"

Many were quick to express their support.

"Congratulations @greg_a_elliott on your historic victory for free speech. And welcome back to the internet! #FreedomOfTweets," one wrote.

"Welcome back, mate, and congrats. Free speech prevails," another tweeted.

Others denounced the verdict, like the Twitter user who called it "A victory for creeps, misogynists & trolls of all kinds."

 Peregrine wrote:
Even the worst TFGs have a right to free speech.

The pair testified at the trial that they believe Elliot kept tabs on them and their whereabouts through social media, even after they blocked his account.

 dogma wrote:

The pair testified at the trial that they believe Elliot kept tabs on them and their whereabouts through social media, even after they blocked his account.

How does one regulate Facebook stalking?

OgreChubbs wrote:
He sounds like a ass who should of got sued.

“Blaming the majority of normal men for rape…is wrong,” Mr. Elliott, a 53-year-old Toronto man, wrote back in September of 2012. “Rapists are not normal men; they’re crazy. Why not blame the mentally ill?”

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I heard about this. It sounds like he's a bit of an donkey-cave, but the response he got was completely unwarranted. There was also (apparently, I'm not 100% sure about the accuracy of thing) doxxing and various attacks against him, including possibly getting him fired.

Consistent with the above passage, Ms. Guthrie’s refrain throughout her
testimony was that she was just the deliverer of messages. She was just a
messenger when she sicced the Internet on Mr. Spurr. And she was just the
messenger when, in November 2012, she provided the OIC of Mr. Elliott’s
investigation a tweet that suggested that Mr. Elliott was a pedophile:
Q. Right. And just to be clear, the date November 12th which is on this
exhibit [#40] is the date that you took that screen grab, right?

A. I couldn’t possibly say.

Q. Okay. But you understood that on or about November 12th, Mr.
Elliott was being accused on Twitter of being a pedophile, right?
A. Sure.

Q. Right. And again, you didn’t feel it was your job to tell Detective
Bangild that it was, actually, an adult?

A. The young woman said that she was 13, so that was what people
believed. She later said that she was not 13.

Q. Right.

A. But initially she said that she was.

Q. But by the time you met Detective Bangild, you already testified to
this, you were aware that she was either 18 or 19, agree?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. Good. So not really trying to help out Mr. Elliott when you’re
not mentioning the fact it’s actually an adult, right?

A. My position wasn’t really that I wanted ... I was not trying to help Mr.
Elliott.

Q. Right.

A. He was stalking me. So no, I wasn’t trying to help me. I wasn’t trying
to harm him unduly, but I was not trying to help him and I was not trying
to ... yeah.

Q. Right. In your view handing tweets alleging Mr. Elliott’s a
pedophile without correcting the officers receiving them, is not trying
to harm Mr. Elliott, right?

A. Wasn’t trying to harm him, no.47

sirlynchmob wrote:
he was the victim in all of this because he dared to tweet to a SJW:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-the-twitter-trial-of-gregory-elliott-is-becoming-much-like-twitter-itself-shrill-and-uber-sensitive

“Blaming the majority of normal men for rape…is wrong,” Mr. Elliott, a 53-year-old Toronto man, wrote back in September of 2012. “Rapists are not normal men; they’re crazy. Why not blame the mentally ill?”

he pissed off the SJW's and they went out to destroy his life and did a good job at it. A SJW who had ties to the police force & politicians which is why it was allowed to proceed as far as it did.

 Peregrine wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
he was the victim in all of this because he dared to tweet to a SJW:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-the-twitter-trial-of-gregory-elliott-is-becoming-much-like-twitter-itself-shrill-and-uber-sensitive

“Blaming the majority of normal men for rape…is wrong,” Mr. Elliott, a 53-year-old Toronto man, wrote back in September of 2012. “Rapists are not normal men; they’re crazy. Why not blame the mentally ill?”

he pissed off the SJW's and they went out to destroy his life and did a good job at it. A SJW who had ties to the police force & politicians which is why it was allowed to proceed as far as it did.

Nice job ignoring the part where it was way more than a single tweet in disagreement with someone. He continued to bother them after they asked him to stop and tried to block him. The court found that he had been harassing them, but that his actions weren't technically a crime because there was no violent or sexual content:

While there is "no doubt" that Guthrie and Reilly were harassed by Elliott, either due to the volume or content of his messages, that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan said.

In short: it's a ruling that he didn't commit a crime, not a ruling that he's a good person.

sirlynchmob wrote:
his tweets were benign, worse things get posted in OT.

there's no reason to assume he's not a good person. He is a good person, standing up to those who sought to destroy someones life, is a good deed.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I thought this article about the judge's decision was pretty interesting.

sirlynchmob wrote:

“Blaming the majority of normal men for rape…is wrong,” Mr. Elliott, a 53-year-old Toronto man, wrote back in September of 2012. “Rapists are not normal men; they’re crazy. Why not blame the mentally ill?”

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I thought this article about the judge's decision was pretty interesting.

In any event, people being free to harass others hurts free speech by letting them harass people until they stop speaking.

 Peregrine wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I thought this article about the judge's decision was pretty interesting.

So, this pretty clearly supports the idea that Elliot is a terrible person and the judge felt that his behavior was inappropriate, but not technically illegal.

One of the most shocking moments in Elliott’s trial was when it was when Guthrie admitted that she and her friends held a secret meeting about Gregory Alan Elliott in August, 2012. The event was held at the home of (former) alleged victim Paisley Rae- other participants included alleged victims Stephanie Guthrie & Heather Reiley, and their friends Rachel MacKenzie, and @PopeShakey (who’s managed to keep their name secret through the trial).

Curiously, Guthrie and fellow alleged victim Heather Reiley couldn’t remember who else attended the meeting- neither could they remember details about what was discussed at the meeting.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I mean, you get that harassing people lowers the quality of discourse in our society, right? It detracts from productive discourse because people who could be engaging in positive discourse are instead harassing/defending from harassment, and because harassment and its defense lower the signal to noise ratio of the discussion. It also stifles speech, because people don't feel like they can participate safely in the discussion.

Creating a society where speech that damages discourse is held sacred makes speech worth less, not more.

Justice Brent Knazan wrote:
Was Ms. Guthrie harassed?
I accept that Ms. Guthrie was sincerely harassed within the meaning of the Criminal Code as interpreted in Lamontagne and Kosikar above. She was certainly vexed, disquieted and annoyed, but Kosikar holds that this is not enough. Using other synonyms in the Court of Appeal’s resort to the dictionary in Kosikar, she was not tormented or chronically plagued. She did feel troubled, bedevilled or badgered. But harassment has an identifiable meaning without resort to the dictionary, and that is how Ms. Guthrie felt.

The fact of her harassment came from different beliefs and positions that she held and the large volume of tweets that Mr. Elliott sent to her or about her. It came from her view that Mr. Elliott could not use Twitter in the way that he did. It came from her understanding that every tweet from Mr. Elliott that mentioned her was meant for her – even if it was a retweet of someone else’s tweet that had mentioned her. It came from her perception that she could tweet on topics without being exposed to what she viewed as his spurious, invalid tweets about the same topic – even if the topic was him, his online behaviour alleged or factual, his opinion on subjects she discussed, or insults to him.

As for the hashtags, Ms. Guthrie’s view was that when he used one associated with her – even when exercising the freedom of discussion that hashtags permit – he was intending to communicate with her, and that contributed to the fact of her harassment. But she was harassed.

 Kojiro wrote:
People might find this interesting.

The full reasons for judgement are available here if people are interested.

All of Mr. Elliott’s tweets at issue were responses to the attacks on him that I have listed,

she was afraid by the very fact that he tweeted.

She did dislike Mr. Elliott, as made clear on July 28 when she attended a function in her honour, “Steph Guthrie Appreciation Day”. At the event, she agreed, it is possible that she said that she was planning to “teach Mr. Elliott a lesson.”

She was fully participating in a campaign to educate him about his harassment of women.

But the reason that neither Ms. Guthrie nor Crown counsel rely on any threatening or sexually inappropriate comments in the tweets is because there are none.

 Compel wrote:
Generally at this point, what would have happened is any particularly bad tweets would have been deleted by twitter.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I think the thing is, I can dislike and disagree with mr elliot while still acknowledging that losing 3 years of his life over this isn't in anyway a fair punishment for having an argument on the twiiter. His accusers seem equally as odious as he is.