With Gregory Elliot receiving a not guilty conviction, you can help recover his legal fees.

From the transcript ``` Freedom of expression Freedom of expression as a long-enshrined part of Canadian life and law preceded it being enshrined in s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sharpe and Roach succinctly summarize the scope of freedom of expression in their book The Charter of Rights and Freedoms,:[27] Artists and writers often push the limits of conventional values. Scholars question “sacred cows” and accepted wisdom. Freedom of expression represents society’s commitment to tolerate the annoyance of being confronted by unacceptable views. As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in an early Charter case “[T]he constitutional guarantee extends not only to that which is pleasing but also to that which to many may be aesthetically distasteful or morally offensive: it is indeed often true that “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric”. More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that freedom of expression must include the “right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions” and that as “[p]ublic controversy can be a rough trade…the law needs to accommodate its requirements.”

Hashtags Apart from general tweets using handles, there is the use of hashtags. Rather than tweeting to someone in particular, one can communicate with people self-chosen by their interests: the topics, conversations or ideas they follow. Thus, Twitter users can read and learn about anything that they want that has a hashtag, or start their own hashtag. Twitter is a powerful medium and gives an individual the potential to communicate with many people as if that individual had access to the mass media. As such, the individual has certain responsibilities, and must act within the law, as Mr. Elliott is charged with failing to do. However, the individual also enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of expression. The litigation in this case does not directly concern the proper use of Twitter or its potential to benefit or harm society. But in order to determine the narrow issue of whether Mr. Elliott committed an offence in relation to Ms. Guthrie and Ms. Reilly, I have to determine how a hashtag should be viewed. The prosecution and complainants rely on all Mr. Elliott’s tweets, including those that used hashtags that Ms. Guthrie and Ms. Reilly used. Mr. Elliott’s use of #AOTID prompted Ms. Guthrie to go to the police. In addition to the qualified evidentiary basis that I have previously explained, I have the principle of freedom of expression and its limits on which to draw. Twitter not only expands access to readers to those who do not have access to the mass media, it is an alternative to the mass media. It has the potential to develop so that more and different points of view can be promoted, including those that are not reflected in traditional media. Since tweets can include links, I can conclude, just from the evidence, that Twitter can spread well-considered articles as well as the tweeter’s opinion. Any limitation on its use that is not necessary to prevent criminality will limit this potential. It will not be consistent with the freedom of expression that is essential to a free and democratic society. Once someone creates a hashtag, anyone can use it. Everyone has to be able to use it freely; anything less will limit the operation of Twitter in a way that is not consistent with freedom of expression. ```

/r/GGFreeForAll Thread Parent