An interesting criminal law case wrapped up this week as Toronto’s Gregory Alan Elliott was found not guilty of criminal harassment for his Twitter interactions with two women. Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly, both Toronto women’s right activists, accused Elliott of harassment over several months in 2012.
In reporting on the verdict, the CBC said the trial is “expected to set a precedent for cases of online harassment,” while the National Post stated that “experts and civil right leaders said [the verdict was] a major test of freedom of expression in Canada and the limits of free speech.”
Guthrie first met Elliott in 2012 when she considered hiring him to design a poster for an event she was working on. He was not hired, and the two parties became involved in a series of heated Twitter exchanges which led to both Guthrie and Reilly blocking Elliott from viewing their accounts. Elliott continued to post disparaging tweets – which Judge Brent Knazan called “vulgar and sometimes obscene” in his decision – to hashtags he knew the complainants frequented.
Guthrie and Reilly eventually came to fear for their safety through both the volume of Elliott’s tweets and the belief that he was keeping tabs on their physical whereabouts. In particular, one of Elliott’s tweets made reference to a bar Reilly was at with her friends. Elliott was arrested in November 2012 and charged with two counts of criminal harassment.
In court, Elliott’s defence team argued that the exchanges were part of an “ugly political debate,” and that he had made no physical or sexual threats toward the women. Chris Murphy, Elliott’s defence attorney, also suggested that his client was being targeted and harassed by a group of Twitter users, including the complainants, and was merely expressing his beliefs.
“Canadian politicos who decide to dish insults out to their opponents cannot reasonably be fearful if their political opponents decide to dish it right back,” Murphy said in court.
Under the Criminal Code, a person is prohibited from knowingly harassing another person in a way that causes the victim to reasonably fear for their safety. As such, Judge Knazan was forced to consider whether Elliott knew he was harassing the complainants, whether the complainants genuinely feared for their safety, and whether their fear was reasonable before he could be found guilty under criminal law
In the end, the judge decided that because Guthrie responded to Elliott’s tweets, he did not understand that he was harassing her. Murphy also argued that the complainants responses and “taunts” suggested they were not genuinely afraid, to which Crown prosecutor Marnie Goldenberg responded that the complainants had a right to speak about their harassment and to warn others about their harasser, and that “to suggest otherwise sends a very negative message to victims that they should remain silent so that a “harasser” can continue preying on other individuals.”
Judge Knazan’s “not-guilty” ruling was greeted with audible displeasure from a packed courtroom.
Guthrie and Reilly have yet to issue statements regarding the decision, but Elliott spoke to reporters outside the courthouse:
“I’m not guilty and everything I did, I thought was within the law, so I don’t know if I would change anything. Freedom of speech is about expressing your opinions, your emotions, and if it’s taken out of context or misunderstood or misconstrued by others, you shouldn’t have that forced upon you.”.
