Post: #1

Goodbye to free speech!





http://www.infowars.com/man-faces-6-mont...n-twitter/

Post: #2

Worth shouting about I guess.

Post: #3

done! I think I should have left it... that's mess up!

Post: #4

The article pretty well sums up the very real situation facing any man these days

Quote:54-year-old Greg Elliott could be charged with criminal harassment simply for expressing his opposition to a campaign by activists Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly to publicly shame a young man in Northern Ontario.

Father of four Elliott was arrested in 2012 and fired from his job as a graphic designer after he opposed Guthrie and Reilly’s plan to generate “hatred on the Internet” targeting the designer of an online video game which allowed players to simulate punching feminist blogger Anita Sarkeesian in the face.

Elliott felt that the two activists’ plot to publicly shame the young man “was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game,” and could cause the young man to commit suicide, urging Guthrie and Reilly not to follow through.

Guthrie and Reilly then claimed that Elliott’s refusal to endorse the plot (he had previously helped Guthrie’s feminist group by offering to design a free poster), represented “criminal harassment.”

Under Canada’s draconian anti-harassment laws, the victim merely has to claim that the offending conduct made them “fear for their safety.”

In other words, if Elliott is convicted, feminists in Canada could claim that anyone who disagrees with or offends them is engaging in “criminal harassment” and demand they be sent to prison.

Guthrie and Reilly also claimed that Elliott was engaging in harassment merely for tagging them in tweets. At no point did Elliott make any remarks directed at the two that could be construed as sexual harassment, hate speech, or violent rhetoric, according to Toronto Police Detective Jeff Bangild.

The very worst comment that Elliott made in reference to the activists was a tweet in which he indirectly referred to the women as “fat” and “ugly”.

The National Post’s Christie Blatchford writes that the ruling, expected to be made on October 6, will have, “enormous potential fallout for free speech online.”

“Basically what he did was disagree politically with these young women….he just disagreed with some of their politics,” said Blatchford.

The notion that someone could be arrested and incarcerated for engaging in vigorous online debate “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter,” said Elliott’s attorney Chris Murphy.

The astounding thing about this case is that Elliott himself was clearly subjected to harassment by Guthrie and Reilly when the two activists sent him a barrage of hateful tweets. Another supporter of Guthrie and Reilly even pretended to be a 13-year-old girl to try and portray Elliott as a pedophile.

“If anybody was being criminally harassed in this case, it was my client, it was Mr. Elliott,” Murphy told Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan.

Guthrie and Reilly also met in August 2012 to discuss how they would attempt to disparage Elliott.

“That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence … they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott,” said Murphy.

This case once again illustrates how politics is downstream from culture. The sewer pipe of social justice warrior mental illness, once restricted to the dark recesses of Tumblr and Twitter, is now infecting law and government – posing a direct threat to free speech.

It’s bad enough that Twitter acquiesces to contrived hate mob outrage and bans prominent anti-feminists from its social media network, but to actually send people to prison for politely expressing disagreement with feminists represents a staggering lurch into unbridled authoritarianism.

Important parts bolded for emphasis. I hope this becomes national news so that when the counter harassment/slander/defamation suit that follows fucking destroys these women (unlikely I know, they're women after all, but we can dream, right?), feminists will finally learn some kind of lesson in ethics.

How did we get here? Humanity had so much potential..

Post: #5

(07-17-2015 09:29 AM)Architekt Wrote:  How did we get here? Humanity had so much potential..

Like, this much....

Post: #6

At the very least men should start withdrawing from the police forces in response to this stuff. Lets see the government try to attack men when it has no men in its ranks. Would be a brief engagement.

Post: #7

It hasn't made front page news compare to this dirty hoe who has! I haven't read any western news in 2 months but fuck.... it never sees to amazing me on how degenerating it has become!


'I'm not ashamed of viral public threesome video', woman says in brazen message to 'haters'





Alexis Frulling, 20, became an internet sensation after outdoor group sex romp - here's her VERY RUDE response to critics

The 20-year-old woman at the centre of a viral video scandal has said she "doesn't regret" indulging in a public threesome with two men in cowboy hats.

An unknown camerawoman shot a film of Alexis Frulling "getting down" in an alleyway in Calgary, Canada, during the Stampede festival.

This video nasty was uploaded to Reddit, where it was watched by hundreds of thousands of people - some of whom were able to identify its star.

Now Frulling has released an astonishing video response to the "haters", in which she simulates oral sex with two cucumbers, fondles her breasts suggestively and apologises for being "drunk".

"I can't say I'm really proud of what happened, but I'm not really ashamed," she said in her "Trampede" film.

"People have asked me if I regret it - and I don't.

"If you regret things, how are you going to move forward with your life?

"Who doesn't make bad decisions?"

Described as a "hero woman" by Vice and a "slut" by Reddit commenters, Frulling has been at the centre of a storm ever since her identity was revealed.

"This isn't fair," she told Vice.

"I don't see why I should get bashed for it when the guys don't get bashed for it."

"We meant for this to be just between us and our friend group, but it all backfired."

The person who shot the video has not been identified.

According to the Calgary Herald, under Canadian law it is illegal to" distribute intimate images without consent".

Police have launched an investigation to discover who filmed and posted the video.

Feminists are furious about the reaction fo Frulling's broad daylight sex romp, which The heated response to the video has been described as "slut-shaming".

“We need to move away from questions about collective conduct and ask what is it about our society that shaming, hating and turning on people online is a form of public entertainment,” said Rebecca Sullivan, the University of Calgary's head of women’s studies.

“We shouldn’t be discussing whether people should be doing this or not, we should be discussing why it’s OK for everyone to be so abusive.

"To the abusers: ‘What are you getting out of it, what are you achieving, and what is it about yourself that you like yourself as an abuser?'”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-...ic-6079542
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-ameri...7445621343

Post: #8

Quote:"The investigating officer who charged Mr. Elliott has acknowledged in his testimony that Mr. Elliott never threatened either of these women, he never used any sexual innuendo, he didn't do anything that you would typically associate with harassing behavior."

Quote:"If the alleged target of tweets ... feels as though you're harassing them, maybe you are harassing them."

Post: #9

I saw this coming years ago, but it all became real when the Subway spokesman got raided by hypocritical FBI agents for saying what every real man thinks: a few ninth grade girls are hot. Why? Because they act like GIRLS. They do not act like unshaven, tattooed harpies with pierced lips, nipples and dyke haircuts. It is any surprise this happened on Twitter? The place is swarming with them. The few times I've wandered over, I felt like I was fighting off those harpies in Witcher 3 again.

Western woman have become the faggots of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Post: #10

No good comes from social media and even attempting to use it as a soap box unless your jobs/brand depends on it. If you don't have a public persona or brand in which you need to be out there then there is no point as no good comes from it. I question if these harpoons would of went after the man if they had no public tweets to rest on, them having to dig up even the slightest bit of evidence would be to much work.

Example:

A woman in Toronto accused a restaurant she previously worked at of harassment both verbal and physical in a sexual nature and decried the macho culture of the kitchen. She went to the press with this and the restaurant was slammed for it and the questioned staff fired. The staff in question want to take the woman to court so, under oath, they can claim this woman is telling fairy tales and to attempt to clear their names. The woman though does not want to go to court as it would be to "dramatic" (where have we heard that before...) even though she called up the city newspaper peddeling her story.

Since all woman are cowards they will never take the lead into incriminating men unless it is minimal effort with max protections involved (domestic abuse and the police for example) if she is even inconvenienced in any way she will get very passive and not perdue. So IMO you never give them anything to work with, if it is in real time then that's what it is and she can do as she please. But give her a tweet or some other nonsense to stick on you and she will use it.

Post: #11

Relevant

Post: #12

He was found not guilty:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.ht...dian-first

The interesting part of the testimony was:

Twitter would not censor active conversations. Nevertheless, Ms. Guthrie testified to the following during cross-examination:

Q. You knew that ... you knew personally that Gregory Elliott was responding to defend himself?

A. He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, but not to me.

Q. Okay.

A. He’s not entitled to an audience from me, Mr. Murphy.

Q. Okay. And that’s what it comes down to, would you agree with me, that you don’t believe that Mr. Elliott is entitled to defend himself to you?

A. To me. Yeah ... no, I don’t believe he is.

Q. Right. Okay. No matter what you say to or about Mr. Elliott, agreed?

A. There were a lot of people who backed me up on what I said about him, a lot of people, Mr. Murphy.

Q. Two of whom are ...

A. Two of the dozens, yeah.

Q. Two of whom are the complainants in this case, right?

A. Yes. Yes.4

What's interesting is how the judge in the case goes out his way to say how great the women are to be feminists and how terrible the guy's opinions are (he was mostly a feminist himself). But the guy can't be put in jail for that (yet) the judge decided. The original twitter argument was that they all agreed that a different guy that made a anti-feminist video game was a jerk, but Mr Elliott didn't agree with the women that the programmer should be doxxed and fired from his job for making the non-PC game. This is just the left eating their own. And what feminists really think about their male feminist associates.

Post: #13

(01-22-2016 02:29 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  Q. You knew that ... you knew personally that Gregory Elliott was responding to defend himself?

A. He’s entitled to defend himself to the world, but not to me.

Q. Okay.

A. He’s not entitled to an audience from me, Mr. Murphy.

A major dichotomy for these hamsters.

This:




But also this: