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

Kate

The difference is that you agree with the people tweeting "Die T*RF" and so on, Willis, much as you don't want to admit it, and don't agree with the things Kate was saying. Which is interesting in that the former is a threat and the latter was at worst a bit rude.

The legal distinction should be threats illegal, rudeness not.

Who were you speaking about Willis

Just say it.

Or are you just pondering on this thread about Kate Scottow

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)

The former has violent and rapey intent. The latter is just the objective truth, in some contexts it might be impolite but it's a dangerous road to go down to force people to repeat lies.

In the context of discussing the rights and material reality of women and girls it doesn't cut it in most situations to pretend we are talking about women when we mean men. It makes it near impossible to talk about gender and sex coherently, form meaningful analysis and recognise the axis of oppression.

Which of course is why some people want to criminalise calling men men, so we can't have those discussions.

The difference is that you agree with the people tweeting "Die TRF" and so on, Willis, much as you don't want to admit it*

Never, EVER have I said I agree with people saying that. Read what I put. I said anyone saying that is beyond disgusting.
Which they are.

You're sympathetic to their viewpoint even if not the specific words they use and it's influencing your judgement, Willis. If it wasn't you'd be able to see the different between a threat (X should die in a fire) and a comment that might hurt someone's feelings (X is a man).

To add, I don't think harassing people is okay but Twitter is not real life. The whole platform is set up to follow individuals and comment on their content. It's not the same as standing outside someones home or following them to their workplace.

The latter is just the objective truth, in some contexts it might be impolite but it's a dangerous road to go down to force people to repeat lies
OK, but why would you (general you) go down the route of repeatedly saying things about a person?
Trans women aren't doing anything wrong if they're just going about their lives, minding their own business. Why would anyone single people out? That's the issue here

Exactly ova

Who’s done that Willis ?

Trans women aren't doing anything wrong if they're just going about their lives, minding their own business

That's not exactly an accurate description of the person in question.

OK, but why would you (general you) go down the route of repeatedly saying things about a person?
Trans women aren't doing anything wrong if they're just going about their lives, minding their own business. Why would anyone single people out? That's the issue here

Are you talking about Hayden here? Because I dispute they are someone just going about their life. If they were we would never have heard of them.

I don't randomly search out those who identify as TW in order to call them men but if they start putting out misogynistic content, attacking women's rights or cheating at sports then as a feminist I do want to be able to point out the obvious behaviour patterns in straightforward language.

Done what? Which bit are you referring to? You can quote me, I don't mind

To add, I don't think harassing people is okay but Twitter is not real life. The whole platform is set up to follow individuals and comment on their content

Yeah, I agree the whole platform is set up to comment on their content, how does that expand to personal shit or abuse though?

Yeah, I agree the whole platform is set up to comment on their content, how does that expand to personal shit or abuse though?

I agree personal abuse isn't nice but half of the platform is made up of people slinging insults at each other. Twice today I saw a well known comedian single someone out calling them a cunt.

I can't support the police getting involved in twitter spats especially when they are cherry picking who they go after. In the case of Kate v Hayden the latter is not without blemish and can certainly give as good as they get.

If things get taken offline as is the case with Caroline Farrow then police intervention is appropriate (though funnily enough they seem a lot less bothered about that). When it's twitter based name calling and back and forth rows then the block button and report system should suffice.

Being offended and having feelings hurt is not nice for anyone but to go down a road of policing meanness is a recipe for disaster (credible threats of harm obvs fall into a different category).

Why is it an either or situation?

Well of course it's not in terms of the Communications Act 2003.

Telling women to die in a fire or suck girldick
Calling male people men
Wotcha's persistent, irritating, faux naive Mumsnet posts

All of these fall under the catch-all category of annoying someone on the internet. That's why I said:

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

In the case of Kate v Hayden the latter is not without blemish and can certainly give as good as they get

No I agree, that's fair enough - that's not to do with the verdict today though?
Regardless of the latter being able to give as good as they get, had no bearing on the result today or any relevance really

We'll have to disagree on that point. I think it has plenty of relevance.

We'll have to disagree on that point. I think it has plenty of relevance

What has someone being able to give as good as they get got to do with anything though?
If as a result they were tweeting/messaging/whatever counter harassment ok, can see that.
If not, multiple accounts set up talking about you can see how that would be seen as harassment if so.

wotcha

Won't be problem lies in having more than one Twitter account to post out abuse? Right?

This twitter thread covers much of why I think it has relevance

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1228105053279588352

Won't be problem lies in having more than one Twitter account to post out abuse? Right?

Sorry, what?

Just reading that Twitter thread. if somebody makes an appearance with a new account but shows from a picture tweeted it's the same person albeit under a new name.

Why should person think no, I'll let slide, I'm imagining things?
What has anyone breastfeeding got to do with anything if you've been guilty of harrassing online?

Regardless of anybody's views on women's rights, brexit, party politics, whether someone should LTB, whether you should own a loo brush, bla bla ... this law says that if you cause annoyance to someone by persistent use of a public electronic communications network then you have committed an offence.

Online debate is potentially illegal if it annoys someone.

Everyone should have a problem with this, even people who hate women.

Indeed. The law has been struggling to keep up with the internet for a while, and this law is an example of doing so poorly. Whether or not the stifling of free speech potential was intentional or unintended consequence we could debate for several threads, but as written it's a bad law that threatens other important legal principles.