Email a copy of 'Blatchford Nails "Twitter Troll" Case, But Misses One Important Point (Feat. Gregory Alan Elliott)' to a friend
Yesterday marked the closing remarks of Gregory Alan Elliott’s trial. The best single word I can think of to describe the charges against him is “creepy”. The hardest evidence presented against him was testimony from alleged victim Stephanie Gurhrie saying he made her feel “creepy”. Elliott originally had three accusers until one dropped-out in the middle of the trial- the case against him has looked increasingly weak ever since.
The creepiest part of Elliott’s charges is that they actually made it to court- Toronto Detective Jeff Bangild testified that Elliott never made threats, sexual innuendo, or anything else of the sort. It was equally creepy listening to Guthrie testifying how she felt she was justified putting another man’s life at risk of harm in one of her many slacktivist campaigns against people she disagrees with.
I’ve been following this trial closely but was unable to make it to the courtroom yesterday. Christie Blatchford has been doing an outstanding job covering the story. She’s been brutally honest towards to both sides, but kept her eye on what’s most important about this trial- it’s a test of people’s freedom to communicate online. I recommend reading her take on what happened yesterday.
There’s only one thing I think Blatchford missed- the trial has already had a significant fallout for free speech. Elliott has been banned from using the Internet for over three years, simply because vigilante social justice warrior called him “creepy”. If claims that Elliott’s accusers were politically motivated to get him offline are true then they’ve already won.
What could be creepier than that?