Scottow verdict: Guilty

[DeployTheTut]

I have no words. Reports from Joani Walsh and Maya Forstater at the Trial in St Albans

twitter.com/mforstater/status/1228261217212522497?s=21

twitter.com/joaniwalshi/status/1228259484801359872?s=21

There are posts on this thread and the other correcting the misconceptions around this.

as a slight aside - I note that Kate was charged in relation to the Communications Act 2003 which superseded the Telecommunications Act 1984. Facebook was founded in 2004, YouTube in 2005, Twitter in 2006. People are being prosecuted using outdated legislation that does not reflect the realties of social media in the 21st century.

It's the correct result because she committed the crime she was charged with. That was plain to see. She used a few different aliases to harass the victim (or whatever the longwinded wording is of the charge). She was subject to a court agreement where she agreed to stop, but she kept at it. I hope a lot of you on here take some cautionary advice from her tale.

Wow Sharon. Don’t warn me on anything

EVER

A judge has found her guilty of the crime ergo she committed the crime. It was obvious that she had anyway, even to a layman.

You're letting your fervour about this issue cloud your better judgment of the law.

Courts sometimes get things wrong - that's why things are overturned on appeal.

Well apparently it's illegal to do what Kate did, so I hope we've all learned our lesson @SpartacusLangClegicus

No, Sharon.

I'm sure you've oft hear that ergo your username.

Back to aibu as it's the best place for ya

I hope a lot of you on here take some cautionary advice from her tale.

I bet you do.

From the Harry Miller judgment:

261.Warning the Claimant that in unspecified circumstances he might find himself being prosecuted for exercising his right to freedom of expression on Twitter had the capacity to impede and deter him from expressing himself on transgender issues. In other words, the police’s actions, taken as a whole, had a chilling effecton his right to freedom of expression. That is an interference for the purposes of Article 10(1).

In Hayden's statement on twitter Hayden says at point 6, 'I hope (Scarrow) learns from this experience'.
Which experience, the internet stalking that Hayden did to track Scarrow down?

We're discussing Kate here I thought?

Looking forward to the appeal.

We've all learnt a lot about Stephanie Hayden.

Sharon

Stop telling me what to and what to think

This is not your job to police me

As an adult I can manage that without your uninvited help.

A judge has found her guilty of the crime ergo she committed the crime. It was obvious that she had anyway, even to a layman

This. I don't profess to be any kind of expert (I'm really not) but from what I've been reading, she set up multiple accounts and even if the tweets weren't sent directly "at" the person, if it's at an individual being targeted repeatedly on social media that's harassment.
It doesn't have to be sent to you directly, the internet is still open, everyone can see stuff on it.
Even through blocks you'd see screenshot stuff from other people for example.
A comparison would be on here, MN - writing pages about me (well, not me, I'm nobody interesting lol) but you get my drift.
Talking about me, character pulling, discussing me - it'd be upsetting.
Nothing to do with "hurty feelz." Anyone human wouldn't like that.

We've all learnt a lot about Stephanie Hayden

I've learnt she doesn't take shit from people abusing her online.
Which is fair enough, albeit I can see the eeek factor too as seems a bit draconian.

Yes, and I'm glad of the outcome - not just in relation to this particular discussion, but in relation to harassment on SM in general. I can take it, but I worry about the younger generation.

The other area that needs looking at is the actions of the police in Kate's case.

From arresting her in front of her children, through detaining her for hours while she was lactating and menstruating and what appears to be a complete failure to meet both her sex-based needs and the best interests of her breastfed child, through interviewing her without legal representation and relying on that interview as evidence while conveniently losing the tape, to presenting Kate's tweets without reference to the context of Hayden's doxxing and harassment.

Shit stinks.

Anyone human wouldn't like that.

Caroline Farrow certainly doesn't. Odd how the complainant has no problem with doing this to others, only with it happening to them. It's an excellent reason why judges shouldn't be spending their time and huge amounts of tax payer money regulating playground spats on Twitter.