You’re a parody.

Yes, opposing views are so inconvenient.

No.

It’s a genuine problem, but this doesn’t seem like the strongest, clearest case to establish a precedent.

Yeah, I understand the knee-jerk reaction of support for the accusers given the topic at hand, but when you start looking into this case, they come out looking as bad if not worse than Elliott does in any of his tweets

A lot of people are upset about this, but what’s the alternative? Criminal punishment for repeatedly being rude to people? This is not the same thing as guys who threaten physical and sexual violence, and I’m worried those cases will be all the more ignored.

That hurt my feelings. You’ll be hearing from my lawyers soon.

“Does this feel like judicial mansplaining to anyone else?”

Is this a serious comment?


eta: Channeling basic principles of proving the alleged offense here.

Yup. I always ask which tweet from Elliott people take issue with, and it turns out they've never read a single one. They can't even quote any of the exchanges.

Thank God that the case turned out as it did. Seriously. I am glad that he was found not guilty.

“Judicial mansplaining”? Like, the judge didn’t treat the complainants as though they were fellow judges?

Which tweet from Elliott, specifically, do you object to?

Why didn’t you mention the fact that Elliott was also targeted by the feminists? They ran accusations saying the man was a pedophile, when the “13 year old” abused girl was in reality 18 - 19 years old. And she wasn’t abused at all.

Shh...men are always guilty, based only on the word of a woman. Proof and evidence is a construct of the white male Patriarchy, and if you disagree, you’re a straight white cishet shitlord MRA pissbaby rapist pedophile.

he was found innocent, Stephanie Guthrie was spouting a bunch of BS. you want the guy to be punished even though there was no evidence of any illegal acts on the man’s part. You’re a piece of shit.

I love Jezebel, I’m a Canadian, and I identify as a feminist. I was wondering, have you read the 75 pages of court proceedings that are available online? I’m part way thought it and it doesn’t seem so cut and dry like this article seems to make it out to be. I think we should believe anyone when they say they have…

You do know this is Jezebel, right?

You can be afraid without there being any real reason to be afraid, and that’s okay. The law doesn’t need to step in and punish someone else for your fear, unless there’s a compelling reason.

While I don’t think what he did was good, right, or moral, based on the letter of the law, I agree that it wasn’t criminal. Also, there were a few things that the judge listed as reasons he found the women did not really fear him that you’ve somehow failed to mention in your article.

Good for him. Poor guy lost 3 years of his life over an internet argument. lol