I like that picture - I imagine that is how many of the Jezebel regulars look when trying to form a cohesive argument.

Lol at anyone needing a special forum to talk about “men’s issues”

Because you’re comparing the laws of two different countries. This case was tried in Canada. There are no “stand your ground” states here. You would have to prove that your fear is reasonable if you killed someone as well.

“I have had death threats made against me on Fb, I’ve reported it... and guess what happened? 0 a big fat fucking zero.”

“sounds an awful lot like when a rape victim ‘couldn’t prove she fought back.’”

It is next to impossible to determine if someone is “genuinely” fearful, which is why the standard that such fear be “reasonable” in the given circumstance. That is the real legal test in a harassment case anyway.

I believe what Guthrie and her partner did was appalling, however I also disagree that Elliott should have the right to sue Guthrie for bringing criminal charges against him. I wouldn’t want to see a precedent set where someone who files a police complaint has to worry about the accused being acquitted and then facing…

As we celebrate another win for Freedom of Expression in Canada, a blast from the past for those who may remember when university newspapers actually had the freedom to post real satire:

“Just as an ammendment, I know we have freedom of expression laws in Canada, I’m not ignorant of the Charter. I was comparing the US and Canada.”

From what can be gathered from the facts of this case, your lawsuit would fail. His on the other hand, may just make this whole social experiemnt a very expensive lesson for Guthrie and co.

What’s wrong - can’t handle someone disagreeing with you?

You “gleefully” remind everyone that you don’t know anything about the rights enshrined in your own country’s constitution? Good to know.

“These are the dumbest comments ever. My god.”

You mean the traditional legal system that says that disagreeing with someone isn’t a crime and that the prosecution has to actually prove a crime was committed before a defendant can be found guilty? Yeah, I can see why such a system wouldn’t be equipped to handle a case like this. *eyeroll*

Reading the case and the “sisters” background here, it’s hard to imagine any reasonable people who would be.

Sorry, meant first amendment.

“Canada does not have freedom of speech... or 1st amendment protection like the good ol’ US of A has... a fact that I gleefully remind everyone on. (I’m Canadian)“

“Why is it that everytime someone has an opinion you don’t like, then they’re MRA’s?”

...aaaaaaaand....

So what - the judge should have just said “not guilty” and not given any legal explanation why?