Yale Students sign "Petition" to repeal the FIRST Amendment...

[Gravekeeper]

If so, then what benefit does that have? She's still going to hold those points of view, whether or not she expresses them. Not to mention, unless you want to get to a thought police state, there is no way to even enforce such laws.

The report is specifically about public statements of hateful/offensive speech. You're still misrepresenting it or misunderstanding it. One of the two.

And, yes, I am slagging on non-Americans. I do find any government who dictates what anyone can say, even if it's against horribly offensive things, to set a scary precedent.

Yes, a "scary precedent" which has totally turned Canada into a Orwellian surveillance state over the last 30 years its been in effect.

Oh wait.

In the US, we already have laws against certain speech, such as speech that is genuinely threatening to a group, or speech that directly conspires to incite violence. For me, that is sufficient.

You have laws against making direct threats, yes ( the target is irrelevant to the laws ). We all do. But no, you don't actually have laws about speech conspiring to incite violence. Or more specifically that only works if the speech in question is inciting a clear, imminent criminal act. For example "<insert group> should all be killed" is acceptable as a statement under the First Amendment. "Let's kill all the <insert group> at <location> tomorrow afternoon" is not.

The only big exception is inciting a riot.

As for that being sufficient, given the current ( insane ) political climate in the US and the very real, dangerous affects that irresponsible/hateful speech has had; It's probably a conversation Americans should be having.

It wasn't too long ago that they were proposing laws against burning the flag under very similar reasons: That it's offensive and hateful speech.

Burning a flag is not hate speech and they have been trying to pass that particular amendment for over 20 years. Since, you know, when the Supreme Court ruled that the laws against burning the flag were unconstitutional. Because prior to 1989 it was illegal to burn or desecrate the flag. A law originally put into place against Vietnam war protesters.

Also the driving force behind said attempts are the Republics.

Nice try on stretching that far to pin me as a sexist and a racist, though.

That is not what I was doing at all and you know it. My argument was clearly about the context of the numbers and your application of "scary".

[TheHuckster]

The report is specifically about public statements of hateful/offensive speech.

And the Internet is public, which is where a vast majority of public statements are made nowadays. And, trust me, given the nature of the current government's disregard for privacy, there would be some scrutinizing of people's social media and blog posts.

Yes, a "scary precedent" which has totally turned Canada into a Orwellian surveillance state over the last 30 years its been in effect.

I find some of the cases like these to set a scary precedent. If I say the wrong thing on the Internet, I could owe the government thousands of dollars, or at least stand trial for it. Nunavut has language in its laws that make the government sound like a kindergarten teacher's rules, saying in so many words if one hurts another's feelings, they are lawfully obligated to apologize.

Certain cases that were dismissed still cost the defendants a lot of time and money to clear their name, as was the case for Ezra Levant.

As for that being sufficient, given the current ( insane ) political climate in the US and the very real, dangerous affects that irresponsible/hateful speech has had; It's probably a conversation Americans should be having.

So, we have idiots who proclaim racist stuff, which I agree is a problem. A problem that should be fixed via a better education system, less sensational media pointing them out solely for the entertainment value, and other actions that don't make these idiots political prisoners (said: martyrs) which hardly fixes the actual problem: That they have these ideas in their heads at all.

Burning a flag is not hate speech and they have been trying to pass that particular amendment for over 20 years. Since, you know, when the Supreme Court ruled that the laws against burning the flag were unconstitutional. Because prior to 1989 it was illegal to burn or desecrate the flag. A law originally put into place against Vietnam war protesters.

The point I was making was if we have laws similar to Canada's "let's all say nice things or pay fines and apologize" laws, it will get struck down by the Supreme Court. I could see certain alterations to our existing laws (e.g. saying "let's all kill the black people" being the same as conspiring to kill) being deemed constitutional but not a more general law stating that any speech promoting hate or offensive ideas should be prosecuted.

That is not what I was doing at all and you know it.

To be honest, I have no idea what your point was or how it was at all relevant. You were saying that because a higher percentage of women and minorities supported a view that I found scary, it meant I find women and minorities scary. That's a false equivalency, just like saying because the idea that vaccines cause autism is stupid, and there's more minorities than non-minorities who don't trust vaccines, then that's saying that non-minorities are stupid.

[Gravekeeper]

And the Internet is public, which is where a vast majority of public statements are made nowadays.

You quite literally just argued such laws would be pointless because a person could still hold such views without expressing them. Which is what I was responding too. Please at least try to follow your own argument even if you can't follow mine.

I find some of the cases like these to set a scary precedent.

What? Did you even read what you're linking? The precedent that case set was that the guy's remarks were *not* illegal despite him being a complete asshole.

Nunavut has language in its laws that make the government sound like a kindergarten teacher's rules, saying in so many words if one hurts another's feelings, they are lawfully obligated to apologize.

No, that is not what it says at all. What it actually says is that the tribunal investigating a violation of the Nunavut human rights act has the power to order the guilty party to apologize in a manner the tribunal feels is appropriate.

It is not a law. It is one of the various powers the tribunal has at their disposal as defined in the act. Should they choose to use it. Its no more lawfully obligated than you're lawfully obligated to hold up a sign saying your a thief after you shoplift. Its a power granted to the judge should they choose to use it. Not a legally defined punishment for a specific crime.

I assume you're getting this from the misleading footnote about Nunavut on the wiki and specifically the term "injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect". So, fyi, in Canadian law under human rights tribunals that term is basically just equivalent to "emotional distress".

Certain cases that were dismissed still cost the defendants a lot of time and money to clear their name, as was the case for Ezra Levant.

That is a terrible example. Levant is an unrepentant, racist, libelous asshole who has lost basically every libel case brought against him. As well as numerous professional disciplinary actions. He has never "cleared his name".

The guy toured with Ann Coultier for fark sakes.

So, we have idiots who proclaim racist stuff, which I agree is a problem. A problem that should be fixed via a better education system, less sensational media pointing them out solely for the entertainment value, and other actions that don't make these idiots political prisoners (said: martyrs) which hardly fixes the actual problem: That they have these ideas in their heads at all.

Should be fixed via something that will likely never happen and even if it does would take a few decades to show results? Meanwhile the country continues to fester and you continue to have violence and stupidity driven by hatred.

Yes, some assholes have these ideas in their heads. However, they normally keep them to themselves and don't act on them because they recognize they are socially unacceptable. But when the TV and their political leaders all start telling them their horrible ideas are not only totally okay, but actually right they come out of the woodwork. They begin to lose the social stigma that was keeping them in check from doing anything horrible.

That is the problem and the one coming to a head during this particular election cycle.

The point I was making was if we have laws similar to Canada's "let's all say nice things or pay fines and apologize" laws, it will get struck down by the Supreme Court.

Not what our laws are. But you haven't bothered to read up on anything so far so why stop now? -.-

To be honest, I have no idea what your point was or how it was at all relevant. You were saying that because a higher percentage of women and minorities supported a view that I found scary, it meant I find women and minorities scary.

Jesus, even the one part of my post you evidently read you *still* got it wrong even on a straight factual basis. And how the fuck do you not know what my point was still? The only way you could walk away with the impression you have is if you literally only read 3 sentences of it while looking for something to get upset about then decided that was enough and hit reply.

[TheHuckster]

What? Did you even read what you're linking? The precedent that case set was that the guy's remarks were *not* illegal despite him being a complete asshole.

I said cases. There is more than one in that link. Yes, some have been dismissed, but not all. And the fact that you can even stand trial for some of them (even if you're found not guilty) is concerning anyways.

That is a terrible example. Levant is an unrepentant, racist, libelous asshole who has lost basically every libel case brought against him. As well as numerous professional disciplinary actions. He has never "cleared his name".

Perhaps "cleared his name" is the wrong term. Yes, he's an asshole. Yes, he's been found guilty of libel in other cases. I'm talking about this specific case which cost him $100,000 in legal fees. People with far better reputations have made more offensive satire and could have to pay lawyers to defend themselves if a complaint was made accusing them of thought crimes.

I mean, hell, given what some people like the writers of South Park or Family Guy have done, they'd have to spend their entire downtime defending themselves in court, even if they kept getting acquitted.

Should be fixed via something that will likely never happen and even if it does would take a few decades to show results? Meanwhile the country continues to fester and you continue to have violence and stupidity driven by hatred.

Yes, some assholes have these ideas in their heads. However, they normally keep them to themselves and don't act on them because they recognize they are socially unacceptable. But when the TV and their political leaders all start telling them their horrible ideas are not only totally okay, but actually right they come out of the woodwork. They begin to lose the social stigma that was keeping them in check from doing anything horrible.

And yet you seriously think if we, say, jailed Trump, Coulter, and Limbaugh, it will fix that?

Jesus, even the one part of my post you evidently read you *still* got it wrong even on a straight factual basis. And how the fuck do you not know what my point was still? The only way you could walk away with the impression you have is if you literally only read 3 sentences of it while looking for something to get upset about then decided that was enough and hit reply.

So are women scary then? Its a close margin. 13 vs 10. There's also a significant racial divide of 15. So are brown people scary?

This is what you said. I took that to mean you're implying I find brown people scary because of the fact that there's a disparity in the breakdown. What the fuck am I missing?

Is it that I mentioned 18-34 year olds in the link? Then, fine. I won't even break it down. I still find the idea of limiting free speech to force people to withhold offensive speech to set a scary precedent, regardless of who holds the view.

[Gravekeeper]

I said cases. There is more than one in that link. Yes, some have been dismissed, but not all. And the fact that you can even stand trial for some of them (even if you're found not guilty) is concerning anyways.

Again, read. There are only two cases in your link. I did not mention the second one as I can't believe you would seriously use it as an example. Given that the second case involves a school teacher who was teaching his students that the Holocaust didn't happen and it was all an evil Jewish conspiracy. Then he would give them tests on said Jewish conspiracy.

I'm talking about this specific case which cost him $100,000 in legal fees. People with far better reputations have made more offensive satire and could have to pay lawyers to defend themselves if a complaint was made accusing them of thought crimes.

You mean Levant vs Awan? That was not satire, it was a libel case. Levant is not a satirist. He wrote some odd 75 articles about or involving Awan publicly calling him everything from a liar to a Jihadist. The judge ruled based on the pattern of malicious intent and complete disregard to do even the most basic fact checking.

The fact checking part is important because Levant tried to use fair comment as a defense. IE it was not libel because it was true and revealing it was in the public's interest.

I mean, hell, given what some people like the writers of South Park or Family Guy have done, they'd have to spend their entire downtime defending themselves in court, even if they kept getting acquitted.

Not how it works and a pointless argument given that you're trying to make it from the incorrect basis that Levant is somehow a satirist. There are numerous legal protections for satire and parody in both our countries.

And yet you seriously think if we, say, jailed Trump, Coulter, and Limbaugh, it will fix that?

I did not call for any of them to be jailed. Though, from a purely sarcastic point of view, can you really say the world wouldn't be a better place if they were? =p

This is what you said. I took that to mean you're implying I find brown people scary because of the fact that there's a disparity in the breakdown. What the fuck am I missing?

Context? You know, the entire thing my argument was about? You classified the opinion of an entire group as "scary". I pointed out that when placed in context it was not and highlighted that there were other groups with similar results. As well as highlighting the baseline poll result ( 28% ).

I still find the idea of limiting free speech to force people to withhold offensive speech to set a scary precedent, regardless of who holds the view.

And that is fine, but as I pointed out prior, that's not what the report you linked was about. Nor is it what hate speech laws are about. Nor is it what such laws in Canada and other western nations are about.

[Canarr]

Honestly, I find Guthrie vs. Elliot a lot more concerning. The fact that you can be tied up in court for years, banned from using the internet for two years, all without any objective measures being applied to your actions, all on someone's "feelings"... THAT is a problem, IMO.

[TheHuckster]

Again, read. There are only two cases in your link. I did not mention the second one as I can't believe you would seriously use it as an example. Given that the second case involves a school teacher who was teaching his students that the Holocaust didn't happen and it was all an evil Jewish conspiracy. Then he would give them tests on said Jewish conspiracy.

Sorry, my link was admittedly hard to follow. If you scroll down to the Provinces and Territories section of the article, you will see examples of individuals' territories application of the law and who was taken to court. Some of the cases were related to satire (e.g. Khanna v. Common Ground Publishing Corp for a magazine cover, and the complaint filed against the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for a cartoon) which, while ultimately dismissed, must have involved spending expensive legal fees to defend the baseless complaints.

And, since you've mentioned the western world a bit, let's look at some of the cases outside of Canada:

A singer arrested for saying The Bible is "unbelievable" written by people "drunk on wine and smoking some kind of herbs"

Ake Green, who delivered an admittedly tasteless sermon against homosexuality, but was not calling for violence against them, got jailtime for his speech

You mean Levant vs Awan?

No. I'm talking about the specific case on the Wikipedia article that dragged through two years and resulted in $100,000 of legal fees because he published cartoons in Denmark. The cartoons weren't even published in Canada. As I say above on this post, other cartoons have been challenged in court.

Not how it works and a pointless argument given that you're trying to make it from the incorrect basis that Levant is somehow a satirist. There are numerous legal protections for satire and parody in both our countries.

In the specific case that was against Levant, it was about a satirical cartoon, not libel.

Context? You know, the entire thing my argument was about? You classified the opinion of an entire group as "scary". I pointed out that when placed in context it was not and highlighted that there were other groups with similar results. As well as highlighting the baseline poll result ( 28% ).

I classified the opinion of a segment of a group as "scary." And, yes, 28% as a baseline is also a scary figure for me. As I said, I'd be alright with some alteration of the laws to better define what true fighting words are. If someone is intentionally riling up a group to encourage violence against others, then that should be something that should be considered in court for criminal charges, especially if it does lead to a violent crime. I just feel as though the laws written out outside of the US are too loose and result in too many court proceedings that often just end up with a dismissal because it was found to be "OK" to say (OK meaning legal, not acceptable that is). The problem with these dismissals is that people are spending a ton of money to avoid... a fine. They basically end up still paying a ton of money for a crime that the judge decides didn't actually happen.

[Rageaholic]

Honestly, I find Guthrie vs. Elliot a lot more concerning. The fact that you can be tied up in court for years, banned from using the internet for two years, all without any objective measures being applied to your actions, all on someone's "feelings"... THAT is a problem, IMO.

Yes, I find that concerning too. Especially when you take into account that she was just as guilty and even conspired to get Eliot charged with pedophila.

Even if it's determined that he wasn't guilty, he's still been punished enough being dragged through the courts, and banned from using the internet for several years. (I think he's been banned until the trial is over)

[Gravekeeper]

Honestly, I find Guthrie vs. Elliot a lot more concerning.

Both sides are assholes in that one. But that is a harassment case not a hate speech case and its not as if the rest of us don't think its absurd. It is concerning but we won't find out how concerning till Jan. Even if it goes the absurd way it likely won't stand on appeal.

while ultimately dismissed, must have involved spending expensive legal fees to defend the baseless complaints.

That's not quite how it works. It falls under human rights and thus are examined first by a commission to see if they have any merit and if they do, passed on to a tribunal for investigation. Its not exactly like a standard criminal trial where everyone shows up with high priced lawyers.

No. I'm talking about the specific case on the Wikipedia article that dragged through two years and resulted in $100,000 of legal fees because he published cartoons in Denmark. The cartoons weren't even published in Canada. As I say above on this post, other cartoons have been challenged in court.

The one involving the Western Standard? Those were published in Canada and Ezra also put them on his website specifically on the day of the hearing. The cartoons only originated in Denmark he didn't publish them in Denmark ( Those cartoons were rather infamous if you recall ). He republished them in Canada.

Its also a much more nuanced case. He was not charged with a hate crime. The Crown ( aka our version of a DA ) declined to press charges almost immediately citing no intent to incite hatred.

Two human rights complaints where made by differing Muslim groups against his magazine over it. Both complaints were dismissed citing freedom of speech. As for his legal fees the reason that has no citation is because he's the only source for the claim. Its one of his favourite talking points you could say. The fees ( whatever they may have been ), however, were born by his magazine, not by him.

So I would take it with a grain of salt.

And, since you've mentioned the western world a bit, let's look at some of the cases outside of Canada:

Well, first of all no legal system in the world is free of at least some absurd cases. Second of all, Poland isn't exactly the greatest example. Given that it basically has blasphemy laws due to the potent influence of the church. Those charges won't hold up under the European court which supersedes local law. She also got railroaded by a local jurisdiction. Think backwater county sheriff in Kentucky.

As for Green, he was acquitted. So the system worked in setting the right precedent there.

As I said, I'd be alright with some alteration of the laws to better define what true fighting words are.

"Fighting words" is kind of a weird thing I discovered while looking into your laws on the matter, yes. They only seem to apply to a person to person confrontation as well.

I just feel as though the laws written out outside of the US are too loose and result in too many court proceedings that often just end up with a dismissal because it was found to be "OK" to say (OK meaning legal, not acceptable that is). The problem with these dismissals is that people are spending a ton of money to avoid... a fine. They basically end up still paying a ton of money for a crime that the judge decides didn't actually happen.

Well, first of all you can't really say "I feel" when referring to statistics. You don't know how many cases are heard per year or what percentage are dismissed. So you have no basis. If you are going by an impression of the handful of cases Wiki presents, remember Canada has been operating with these laws for 30 some odd years. So that'd a pretty damn good track record if those are the only noteworthy cases.

Second of all, the system in Canada is set up specifically to prevent this. A tribunal is not formed to investigate and hold hearings unless the commission actually deems a complaint to have merit. There's already a filter.

Third of all, other countries don't tend to have America's legal system in terns if sheer costs and profit seeking. You seem to be thinking of this along the lines of the US's problem with frivolous civil lawsuits? But that's not really how it works. These laws aren't some crazy new untested system. They've been refined for decades.

All that said, a similar system would be admittedly futile to implement in America unless it was specifically set up at a Federal level. If left up to the States themselves, well, we can already see how well that's going. It'd be further compounded by the America system of electing legal officials putting an inherent political bias in the system.

Something really needs to be done down there though. This election cycle is just going to get uglier and uglier at the rate its going. No one takes any responsibility for the shit that comes out of their mouths. Both on stage and on camera. Even when they know full well they are lying out their ass.

[Canarr]

Both sides are assholes in that one. But that is a harassment case not a hate speech case and its not as if the rest of us don't think its absurd. It is concerning but we won't find out how concerning till Jan. Even if it goes the absurd way it likely won't stand on appeal.

Oh, I agree on your assessment of both people involved, no questions asked. Both are assholes. And yes, I realize it's not a hate speech case, per se. But it's still a free speech case, and a case where a judge sat down and thought, "Yeah, that's bad; I find it reasonable to subject this guy to huge legal fees and ban him from the internet for years."

This is what worries me, personally. Not the threat of going to prison over hate speech on faceboot, because I don't post hate speech on facebook (or anywhere else, for that matter). Objective criteria for legal actions don't scare me, because I can learn those and keep within their legal boundaries.

But when someone's - anyone's - subjective criteria, their feelings, start to become relevant in legal proceedings? That scares me. Because it's easy to inadvertently do something that causes someone else to feel offended, or threatened. And why, exactly, should that be enough to land you in prison, or endanger your livelihood through a civil suit? Why would a judge not say, "Sorry, Madam, but since you state the defendant did not actually do anything that could be objectively called threatening, and since your feelings are not relevant to these proceedings, the case is dismissed!"?

That is concerning, IMO.

[protege]

But when someone's - anyone's - subjective criteria, their feelings, start to become relevant in legal proceedings? That scares me. Because it's easy to inadvertently do something that causes someone else to feel offended, or threatened. And why, exactly, should that be enough to land you in prison, or endanger your livelihood through a civil suit?

Even if no offense is meant, there are still some people who will use any excuse to get offended. To these people, getting offended over something minor...is a full time job.

[Gravekeeper]

But it's still a free speech case, and a case where a judge sat down and thought, "Yeah, that's bad; I find it reasonable to subject this guy to huge legal fees and ban him from the internet for years."

Its not really that cut and dry though. There were 3 counts of criminal harassment ( as originally there were 3 women in the case ) as well as breaking a peace bond. Meaning he was ordered to stop by the court but continued to go after them.

So regardless of the merit of the harassment he was ordered to stop contacting them while it was sorted out and he violated that order. I'm guessing that in particular is what got him in real shit with the judge and got him booted off the internet.

Most of the whargarble around the case makes it sound like he was jailed just for hurting someone's feelings in a case of PC run amok. But there's more to it than that. The trial itself was pretty bad as well between Guthie and the defense. But the reason it seems like such a mess is because the defense released all of its documents to the public while the prosecution did not. Seemingly in some sort of attempt to have Guthie tried in the court of public opinion so to speak.

That's one of the main reasons it seems so hard to find any unbiased accounts of the case and also why you would be hard pressed to even name the other two women. They didn't offer up anything for the defense to run with. Also, during the trial no one involved can speak to the press of the goings on of the trial. Leaving the pundits to speculate on bullshit either way for months while neither Guthie or Elliot can speak out to correct them.

I've tried to sift through the mountain of tweets but there's months worth of crap between them before she asked him to stop contacting her. From that point its really hard to get a handle on what went on. He certainly seems to have went out of his way to let her know he was still watching her social media and shadowing her events after she blocked him.

But its a tangled mess and thats why its still in the courts.

But when someone's - anyone's - subjective criteria, their feelings, start to become relevant in legal proceedings? That scares me. Because it's easy to inadvertently do something that causes someone else to feel offended, or threatened.

Well, courts deal with the subjective all the time. Hence the legal term "reasonable person" when trying to make an objective ruling on something subjective. Such as someone feeling threatened or in fear for their life, etc. As well as dealing with the concept of intent.

[Canarr]

Its not really that cut and dry though. There were 3 counts of criminal harassment ( as originally there were 3 women in the case ) as well as breaking a peace bond. Meaning he was ordered to stop by the court but continued to go after them.

So regardless of the merit of the harassment he was ordered to stop contacting them while it was sorted out and he violated that order. I'm guessing that in particular is what got him in real shit with the judge and got him booted off the internet.

Ah, okay... that "breaking a peace bond" thing went under my radar. A peace bond is Canada's equivalent to a cease and desist order?

That would make a bit more sense, I guess. But if I'm not mistaken, then the only contact they had - aside from emails at the beginning of their "relationship" - was through their Twitter accounts. Maybe that's where some of the difficulties lie: if I'm ordered not to contact someone, and I keep sending them emails, call them on the phone, show up at their home and work... it's clear I'm still trying to contact, I am harassing them.

But if I just write crap about them on my Twitter account, for the public to see? Somewhere they have to actually make the effort to check on my Tweets in order to see what I'm doing, then it's not so black and white anymore. How can it be harassment, if the victim has to actively go looking for it?

Most of the whargarble around the case makes it sound like he was jailed just for hurting someone's feelings in a case of PC run amok. But there's more to it than that. The trial itself was pretty bad as well between Guthie and the defense. But the reason it seems like such a mess is because the defense released all of its documents to the public while the prosecution did not. Seemingly in some sort of attempt to have Guthie tried in the court of public opinion so to speak.

That's one of the main reasons it seems so hard to find any unbiased accounts of the case and also why you would be hard pressed to even name the other two women. They didn't offer up anything for the defense to run with. Also, during the trial no one involved can speak to the press of the goings on of the trial. Leaving the pundits to speculate on bullshit either way for months while neither Guthie or Elliot can speak out to correct them.

Yeah, I get you. I read a lot of stuff about that case (been trying to improve my Google-fu; less embarassing that way ), and you either get the "evil harasser gets his!!!" type of articles, or the "poor victim of the evil bitch!!!!" kind.

Well, courts deal with the subjective all the time. Hence the legal term "reasonable person" when trying to make an objective ruling on something subjective. Such as someone feeling threatened or in fear for their life, etc. As well as dealing with the concept of intent.

Yes, but that's the point, isn't it? Guthrie's point is explicitly that, even though she cannot point to a single individually threatening tweet or mail or whatever from Elliott, she still feels threatened by him. And that this feeling, and not any objective criteria for threatening/stalking/harassment, should be the basis of his judgement.

That's kind of my problem with this.

[Gravekeeper]

Ah, okay... that "breaking a peace bond" thing went under my radar. A peace bond is Canada's equivalent to a cease and desist order?

Think of it like a temporary restraining order ( as they can only last up to a year ). They can be issued between individuals like a restraining order. But the court can also use them as a sort of "Stop being an asshole till we sort this out" tool to curb a behaviour that is already a legal matter. Like a stop doing what you're doing until the court can figure out if you're doing anything illegal. In the case of feuding parties, the court can issue a dual peace bond to order them both to stop engaging each other and making the matter worse till it can be sorted out.

One was issued against him by the court to make him stop going after the women in question during the trial until the court could settle the matter of his charges. So violating it means he was still going after them on social media while awaiting trial and/or during the trial. In other words making the situation worse and more complicated for the court to unravel while the court was trying to unravel it.

Hence booting off the internet.

Yes, but that's the point, isn't it? Guthrie's point is explicitly that, even though she cannot point to a single individually threatening tweet or mail or whatever from Elliott, she still feels threatened by him. And that this feeling, and not any objective criteria for threatening/stalking/harassment, should be the basis of his judgement.

Not exactly. Its criminal harassment, not threats. So the case hinges on whether any of the victims would reasonable fear for their safety and whether his actions past the point where he was asked to stop contacting them constitute contact. So establishing that a reasonable person would fear for their safety in the face of his behaviour is one of the main benchmarks. So no actual threats are involved, were claimed or were found during the investigation.

Its much less about someone's feelings and much more about the court trying the situation against the legal concept of reasonable person. Its the snark fest that went on between Guthrie and the defense giving a different impression. Their exchanges were testy to say the least and its just as much the defense's fault as Guthrie's for repeatedly trying to provoke her.