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

The idea that anyone should go to jail for upsetting someone else on the internet is an absolute disgrace

Why is it OK to constantly tweet about an individual (ie targeted), why is it a disgrace to think you shouldn't be abusive towards people online?
I don't get it.
How is that OK?

I think we should all raise complaints and ask the CPS to prosecute each & every time that we receive the "Die TERF" or "Suck my girldick" on Twitter

See, to me. there's a glaring difference there.
Is it just the one off tweet of someone posting a disgusting tweet, and you're referring to singular tweets and people, or does the same person repeatedly send tweets about you?
There's a difference

Nobody is going to jail as far as I know?

SpartacusLangClegicus

I get you, I do but I trust some people more than others.

I'm letting Kate gather herself before asking if the judgment can be made public. I think she deserves that much

before asking if the judgment can be made public

It's in the public domain?

Nosharon

I can't say I'm happy to see a conviction if I'm honest but that has no reflection on whether or not I think it was deserved or not. I just don't like to see people ruin their future prospects when emotions get the better of them. A conviction of this nature is unlikely to be great for a career in foresic psychology. Sad really but we could also say actions have consequences.

For many it is a shock when the law intervenes in a matter they are personally and emotionally involved in and acts in a very black and white manner with respect to things like have we made out the points to prove beyond reasonable doubt? In KS case I'm not sure the grossly offensive bit would have stood up to heavy scrutiny? Many people get called much worse. That's not to say it was acceptable.

In a way in respect of both judgements it's heartening to see that the law is no prisoner to emotion and will not be swayed by bluster from either trench. The judge in Harry's case did well to balance his personal freedom of speech whilst preventing him having the prize of an open season on minority groups whilst refusing them recourse to complaint.

I'm letting Kate gather herself before asking if the judgment can be made public

What's this referring to, the judgement is public, was found guilty?

@WotchaTalkinBoutWillis

Yes there is a difference. You are right to spot it.

Why is it different - because repeated , targeted messaging can be threatening.

This is similar conduct that female MPs have to endure. The same offences are used to prosecute the offenders.

You have to be very careful to keep it about debate, not personalities. Being provoked is not a real defence.

The person Kate was found guilty of upsetting with her hurty-words appeared in court for 21 offences and was once locked up for 6 months

Worth repeating.

Yet women are told to be kind.

Willis, are you seriously arguing that an organized harassment campaign against a woman by a gang of men is a one off tweet while one person saying something twice is a crime?
Criminy!

Putting aside the attempts at a creative writing workshop, does anyone here know whether Kate Scottow was found guilty of an offence under section 127(2), or was section 127(1) invoked?

Any of us could fall foul of this law if it suited someone to complain to the police and if it suited the police and the CPS to pursue the matter.

This is a catch-all law.

It's illegal to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to someone by the persistent use of a public electronic communications network. The courts have ruled that social media platforms such as twitter or fb are public electronic communications network. Persistent use would include your responses in any prolonged argument you get into, with anyone, about anything, anywhere on social media.

I wonder if the courts would decide that forums like Mumsnet are public electronic communications networks. I see no reason why they wouldn't be, if twitter and fb are.

Some people on this thread are causing me annoyance right now.

The Communications Act 2003 is not compliant with international human rights law because it disproportionately interferes with our Article 10 rights to freedom of expression.

Sharon

Did you see what I said up the thread about all the threats women receive on SM.

any thoughts ?

Sharon
Did you see what I said up the thread about all the threats women receive on SM.
any thoughts ?

Speak to the police if you feel threatened or harassed!

You have to be very careful to keep it about debate, not personalities

I agree, there's a fine line

Willis, are you seriously arguing that an organized harassment campaign against a woman by a gang of men is a one off tweet while one person saying something twice is a crime?

That's just, it, isn't it? How can you not see if you were sending tweets/public messages on social media repeatedly harrassing trans people by saying "bunch of men" or "bunch of women" or whatever, how is that OK?
You shouldn't target individuals online the fact you're male or female is neither here or there.

Did you see what I said up the thread about all the threats women receive on SM

Targeted from one person? Or multiple people?

Do you think that calling male people 'men' is the equivalent of telling women to die in a fire or to suck your 'girldick'?

I'm asking purely out of general interest, obviously all of these examples could fall under the catch-all category of 'causing annoyance'.

How Sharon

Threats just say die terf. Or rape a terf or die in a grease fire

Death to,terfs and so on

Or send a picture of a baseball bat.

from numerous accounts

You worry about young people on SM

I am feeling especially annoyed this evening.

I hope The peelers are ready for multiple reports tomorrow morning.

It happens to women politicians. Women journalists.

It happens to,women

Twitter were pulled up about by a parliamentary committee.

Does it stop

Nope

Do you think that calling male people 'men' is the equivalent of telling women to die in a fire or to suck your 'girldick'?

Why is it an either or situation? Obviously telling women to die in a fire or to suck your 'girldick'? is beyond disgusting.
Why is it OK to repeatedly call trans women men or repeatedly harass them online though? (Generally speaking, not about one person in particular)

Speaking the truth is a hate crime equivalent to death threats? Srsly?