More precisely, yesterday we got a case where all of the evidence was thrown out before the trial. So the youtube videos, reddit comments, threats on G+, and other social media were not considered allowed because it couldn't be proved that they belonged to the accused. There was some fuss there earlier in the year because all of the accounts taken together reportedly made a clear case that at least some of them belonged to the accused, but taken as single entities there's insufficient proof. Because how would you prove a single youtube account with a single video uploaded from behind a VPN or tor or something belongs to anyone? OTOH, if you look at three dozen such youtube channels, you take stylistic similarities to prove a single source, (and throw out the ones you suspect are the same but don't quite fit), and then connect the dots between info given in all of the kept ones to connect them to other sources.

The twitter evidence was actually enough to prove criminal harassment, btw, however, criminal harassment kinda requires that you tell someone to stop doing something multiple times, (c-46, section 264 if you want to look it up, and arguments surrounding it).

The taunting on their twitters was held as an example that they weren't telling him to stop, were inviting him to continue.

Without that, they probably would have had a 'reckless' argument, especially with actually having blocked him. That is, that his continued behaviour would have been, to paraphrase the law, "recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them by repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them". I draw that from that the key argument was that they were taunting him, not that they shouldn't reasonably feel threatened, which is usually how these cases how thrown out.

Seeing as a lot of Guthrie's (often private) conversations have shown up on anonymized youtube channels and cut to shit to make her look like an idiot, (and then shared on 4chan and other places, in my judgement to incite trolling & harassment against her), and saying things incredibly different from the non-cut version, I'd say it's fairly clear that she is being harassed by someone. (And by those videos ceasing to show up anymore when he was barred from the internet, well, it really doesn't mean much because that was publicly announced).

I'm not happy with many elements of the case, although it appears to me and I'll trust the lawyers the rest of the way, (they know the case law better than I do), that the law was applied as written at every step.

My own weight in this is mostly having been effected by criminal harassment cases personally. Otherwise I wouldn't know who Guthrie is at all.

TL;DR: I have complicated opinions on that case, and I hate the reductionism I see about it.