This past week, Canada partook in its first ever Twitter harassment trial, which concluded with the decision that harassing women online is not a crime.
Yes, you read that right.
In the case, proclaimed feminists Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly accused Gregory Alan Elliot of criminally harassing them via Twitter.
However, Elliot was found not guilty by Judge Brent Knazan.
Knazan gave the following reasons for the not guilty verdict: Elliot was ignorant he was harassing the women, the women were not seen explicitly fearful due to his harassment and the fear of the women was not deemed reasonable enough.
These women did everything in their power to steer clear of Elliot’s stalker-like harassment, from blocking him on Twitter all the way to filing a formal complaint with police after he seemed to be getting out of control.
Guthrie reported to the police that she had several “heated” interactions with Elliot in the summer of 2012, Vice reported.
He even made it known to her that he had information of her general whereabouts as well as knowledge of the neighborhood she lived in.
Reilly explained her concerns to authorities pertaining to Elliot’s harassment via his “extensive and misogynistic tweets.”
Because the two women didn’t explicitly state their fear due to his harassment online, Knazan ruled their allegations as unreasonable fear.
Knazan thought Elliot was not aware he was harassing Guthrie and Reilly.
Basically, what Knazan actually ruled was harassment of women online is perfectly normal, perhaps even to be expected.
Canadian politician Cheri DiNovo told Vice, “My reaction to that ruling was, ‘Great, it’s open season on women now.’”
By deeming these women’s fears unreasonable, Knazan is undermining women’s fears of violence.
He is silencing their voices and any future calls for help against online harassment.
Knazan could have sided in the women’s favor, seeing as there was enough evidence to convict Elliot of harassment charges.
Knazan said himself, “It is reasonable that fear can arise just from the fact of someone continuing to contact someone after being asked to stop.
That behavior could reasonably signify the person who continued the contact was capable of anything since they ignored the request.”
Instead, however, he chose to play on their words by claiming Reilly testified she was “concerned,” instead of “fearful.”
Her fear was unreasonable, and Elliot’s comments were apparently not harassment.
With this decision, Knazan deemed the concerns of Guthrie unimportant.
It also applies to other women who experience the same harassment online.
Knazan is sending an enticingly dangerous message to Internet users, especially men, their stalking and harassment online will be shrugged at by authorities.
It makes it completely OK and normalized.
The verdict of this harassment trial not only accepts violent, irrational behavior towards women online, but creates a toxic atmosphere for cyberbullying to fester.
prhurst@indiana.edu
@IDSPeyton
