patrick.net

THe guy that's going to jail, is going because he expressed the opinion that the feminists were being too tough on this guy, who created a game, centered on pucnching a feminst blogger. Unfortunatley the game is dead now (second link). I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. .

http://bigfatfeminist.com/post/26711941752/man-disagrees-with-woman-makes-game-about

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/598591

Anita Sarkesian has milked the "I'm so oppressed" thing for a ton of money.

liberalism gone wild ....this is what you get when you give em the vote...

SoftShell says

liberalism gone wild ....this is what you get when you give em the vote...

What would be the punishment believing women should be stoned to death and be kept in Burkhas, and treated like animals? Surely the punishment should be a life sentence.

the perps get stoned to death by disrobed nuns and get 40 dried up hoes upon reaching the gate...

Strategist says

Surely the punishment should be a life sentence.

This does make liberals look bad. Almost as bad as Trump makes republicans look.

I have been thinking some comments here about liberals trying to take away free speech are really stupid, but I don't know. Maybe I have to rethink my opinion on that.

Although, this case is in Canada.

Maybe I need to start appreciating the redneck dimbulbs in this country, that aren't going to let us submit to the matriarchy as easily as Canada apparently is. I'm not kidding.

marcus says

This does make liberals look bad.

Liberalism is the notion that there should be minimal state intrusion in people's affair.
This includes both economic liberalism (free markets, free enterprise), and social liberalism (more typically called liberalism in the US) where the state shouldn't interfere with what people do in their bedrooms.

Bottom line: this has really really NOTHING to do with liberals.
This is feminist totalitarianism.

The bright side is they are having him serve his sentence in a women's prison. Yay, liberals! He may never leave.

Just turned 60??

marcus says

Maybe I need to start appreciating the redneck dimbulbs in this country, that aren't going to let us submit to the matriarchy as easily as Canada apparently is. I'm not kidding.

Heraclitusstudent says

Bottom line: this has really really NOTHING to do with liberals.

This is feminist totalitarianism.

I agree. But Canada is more liberal politically than us, Liberalism or leftist politics are conducive to feminist politics. I don't think it's cause and effect, but some will see it that way.

This one probably ought to be thrown out. But the case probably got this far b/c he might have stalked her a bit (see the link below). I don't know anything about it other than 5 minutes of reading, so don't know what the details are.
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1108049/toronto-twitter-harassment-trial-second-woman-says-gregory-alan-elliott-wouldnt-leave-her-alone/

You guys should feel free to bash liberals in general, when all of the non-fox MSM outlets start calling for him to be incarcerated. After all, the right constantly accuses those networks of being liberal.

He had the right to make a video game, and he had the right to remain silent and not incriminate him self.
He failed him self in one of those rights.

Thank God that thinking (politically correctly) people have done something about offensive views at least on one campus: http://www.theonion.com/article/parents-dedicate-new-college-safe-space-honor-daug-50851
By the way, femmanazis are not liberal (defined as 'open to new behavior or opinions '), they are totalitarians. ANd You are wrong if you think the USA is not following a path similar to Canada using Title IX

That's the main reason never ever to vote left until the liberals disassociate themselves with this behavior and become true liberals again, and until the progressive left is completely shut out of the Democratic party. If one thinks a couple of religious rightists are the bigger problem, one deserves what's coming from the left. Orwell must be laughing in his grave.

marcus says

Heraclitusstudent says

Bottom line: this has really really NOTHING to do with liberals.


This is feminist totalitarianism.

I agree. But Canada is more liberal politically than us, Liberalism or leftist politics are conducive to feminist politics. I don't think it's cause and effect, but some will see it that way.

Heraclitusstudent described "classical" liberalism. The Canadian law described here does not fit into this, neither do you. In fact, Canada has hate speech laws. That is not liberal by any definition.
OTOH, Canada has lower corporate tax rates, which is more liberal in classical sense.

mell says

That's the main reason never ever to vote left until the liberals disassociate themselves with this behavior and become true liberals again, and until the progressive left is completely shut out of the Democratic party. If one thinks a couple of religious rightists are the bigger problem, one deserves what's coming from the left. Orwell must be laughing in his grave.

Exactly. Believers of nannyism think they are liberal.

Whoever disagrees with me politically will be fucking sued! You've been warned, bitchez!

No restraints on prosecutors. What could go wrong?

I lay the blame for this on conservatives, who in both Canada and the United States have consistently fought off any restraints on prosecutorial overreach.

That's the main reason never ever to vote right until the conservatives disassociate themselves with this behavior and become true small-government conservatives again.

Interestingly, the accusers doxxed the game creator, which is, IMO, worse than the admittedly tasteless and infantile game he created. That is, they posted warnings to potential employers, giving his real name.

So another guy says something which hurts their fee-fees, and now he's in trouble? Unreal.

Heraclitusstudent says

Bottom line: this has really really NOTHING to do with liberals.

This is feminist totalitarianism.

What's weird is that there are idiots in the government who would bring charges on these garbage accusations.

This is like the McMartin child-abuse hysteria, wherein L.A. District Attorney Ira Reiner, by all outward appearances sane and of above-average IQ, brought charges based on evidence from a woman who literally accused defendant Raymond Buckey of flying.

A sample of her statements:

Babs went with him on a train with another girl where he was hurt by men in suits. Ray waved good bye. The train moved fast. It had lights. Ray took him back to school. Possibly [location of organization] Big Brothers. Peggy gave Billy an enema before he was taken away (from McMartin sch.) Staples were put in Billy's ears, nipples & tongue. Babs put scissors in his eyes. She hit him a lot. She chopped up animals and said she would come in the night and take away. She pushed his stomach and threw him against the wall. He has extreme fear regarding Babs. Also something awful would come in the window. Ray made small babies cry. Billy was hurt by a lion. An elephant played with the lion, squirted H20. Then the lion didn't move. Billy was on his back. Ray let him pull the lion's tail. The lion roared but didn’t' move. Betty was there, and other people. One lady took pictures ...

Billy feels that he left LAX in an airplane and flew to Palm Springs area. Described the airplane as one like used by federal express only it had windows. Billy went to armory located behind Judy (?) residence. Ray drove there in his VW bus. Billy went with Peggy who drove a red and white VW bus, at the armory there were some people there wearing army uniforms. The goat man was there. After going to the armory, Billy was taken to Sand Dune Park, at the armory it was a ritual type atmosphere. When Billy was taken to a church, Judy believes it was the Church of Religious Science [address]. At the church Peggy drilled a child under the arms (arm pits.) Atmosphere was that of magic acts. (Ray flew through the air.)

Yep, McMartin hysteria is also a great example of Social Workers misleading children.

"Are you sure you didn't fly a blue doggie to the moon last night, Johnnie?"

"Well, Missus O'Malley"

"C'mon Johnnie, tell me about how you flew the blue doggie to the moon last night."

My favorite was the secret doors leading to the secret room. Naturally, no search of the place (and there were many) discovered any sekrit rooms or doors.

Another great prosecutorial overstretch: Aaron Schwartz.

Well there was a restraining order against David Letterman. Apparently he was sending signals to some woman in New Mexico through his TV show-or so the loon claimed. So this woman actually went to court and got a restraining order against him!!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eI0BbL-EYtc

When liberals are in charge, freedom of speech goes out the window.

FortWayne,
STFU!

ROFLMAO

marcus says

THe guy that's going to jail

Seriously? Has he been sentenced?

I figure the judge will have a couple of giggles and toss the case away.

This is internet bullying and stalking.

Two big no no's that should have been around much longer than they have.

If he wanted to make a video game that was interesting enough for people to play based on his own content. Then that would have been fine.
But to make a game about punching someone and then going on record on several times that you are using that person's likeness. Then they should be sued if there was no agreement with that person.

We need more laws like these, not defending these creeps who think they can harass anyone under free speech but then want people arrested when they disagree with Global warming.

I tell ya something else, it should be a Federal crime to do background checks using social media. Only official public records should be admissible for background checks.
If people are committing crimes and or posting inappropriate material on Social media, then that should be a Police matter. Then if they investigate and determine that laws were broken, then it's public records for background checks. Not the Social media content mind you, only the official record of the crime it's self that should return a negative instance for that person. The Supreme Courts should rule that people have a right to a private life outside of work regardless what they do, as long as it isn't a crime. Or the person isn't doing something to harm the company they work for outside of working hours. Being publicly shamed in an 15 seconds of fame video post, where otherwise no laws were broken, then identified as an employee of a company. Should never be grounds to be fired. IF anything those then trying to run a smear campaign on both the object of the Video or Social media post, and the company should be able to sue the shit out of these petty ass wipes for doing so. Especially the business, should be able to sue someone, just because they saw a video of an employee with a "I love G.W. Bush" bumper sticker, then tried to publicly shame a company by means of calling for a boycott or any other malicious measure that has become the norm to publicly shame companies to get them to do what in these people's opinion should be done.

It sucks to be this guy, but I hope eventually we'll see more cases like this not less. Eventually who knows the internet will be the place you go to (lawfully)freely express your self again. And Liberals will be seen as the freedom of speech killers that they really are.

Can somebody explain to me how anyone can be "stalked" using a medium over which the "victim" has full control? Being "stalked on twitter" sounds as ridiculous as being "stalked on radio" or "stalked via e-mail" or being "stalked on patnet": one push of a button and the "stalker" is gone.

Straw Man says

Can somebody explain to me how anyone can be "stalked" using a medium over which the "victim" has full control? Being "stalked on twitter" sounds as ridiculous as being "stalked on radio" or "stalked via e-mail" or being "stalked on patnet": one push of a button and the "stalker" is gone

Oh you can even be given a restraining order against somebody you never met in your life-by a judge no less. So now you have a restraining order in your record. Now this dude is rich and famous and has an army of lawyers-but think of some poor sap who does not even know he has a restraining order against him and drives by in that area by mistake??

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/letterman-fights-restraining-order/

lostand confused says

Oh you can even be given a restraining order against somebody you never met in your life-by a judge no less. So now you have a restraining order in your record. Now this dude is rich and famous and has an army of lawyers-but think of some poor sap who does not even know he has a restraining order against him and drives by in that area by mistake??

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/letterman-fights-restraining-order/

Reminds me of a joke:

A guy is walking down a street when he hears a female voice from above: "Hey, man, I'm afraid of you!". He stops, looks up and sees a woman standing on a balcony 3 stories above the street. He asks: "Why exactly are you afraid of me?" -- "Because you can rape me!" -- "This doesn't make any sense: I'm on the street minding my own business and you're on the 3rd floor!" -- "Well, I can come downstairs...."

CaptainShuddup says

If he wanted to make a video game that was interesting enough for people to play based on his own content.

The jackass who made the video game is not the defendant.

Straw Man says

Can somebody explain to me how anyone can be "stalked" using a medium over which the "victim" has full control? Being "stalked on twitter" sounds as ridiculous as being "stalked on radio" or "stalked via e-mail" or being "stalked on patnet": one push of a button and the "stalker" is gone.

Ha! Good point.

Yeah, if you're being stalked on social media, close the account and open a new one, or just don't open another account.

My other favorite is when these people get like a 1000 emails, of which 500 disagree with them more or less politely, and then maybe 15 of those are unhinged rants "Ima gonna come to your house and beat you up and rape your dog" type shit written by some 12 year old.

They then take the 15 emails and read them with a smile on their face, talking about how oppressed, stalked, and victimized they are, and how we need rulez to protect the womenz by silencing nasty male emails.

Straw Man says

Can somebody explain to me how anyone can be "stalked" using a medium over which the "victim" has full control?

In two cases, these women attended social functions at which they themselves or others tweeted "Having a good time here at Schlocko's!"

The guy knew to follow the #ShlockosBallBreakersMeetUp hashtag, and tweeted "A whole lot of ugly at Schlocko's tonight!"

Unless the judge is smoking some serious chronic, there won't be a sentence of any sort.

HydroCabron says

The jackass who made the video game is not the defendant.

I'm having a hard time following who's been wronged here.

I do know who ever made the Video game needs to be punched in the face.

If someone made 1000 posts about me on Pat.net, and those posts included references to where I was eating dinner in real life, I'd consider it stalking.

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone's ideas and slinging names and actually stalking someone. From what I read, he made 1000s of posts and did make references to where one of the women was at one time. If he was stalking them in real life, I'd say they have a case. Otherwise, it ought to be thrown out. Calling someone a fat-ass, feminazi, hateful bitch, etc. is bullying, but not against the law. Doing all of that while following them and posting their locations on twitter is one step away from full fledged stalking. Considering his past history of being friendly with them, I'd guess he's taking the falling out a little personally.

These ladies had a public profile, and as public personalities it should be perfectly legal, although bratty and immature, to call them all of those things.

Also, parents? Your kid getting bullied? Call the other kids parents, then disable all your kids' accounts.

Here's another tip: Don't put the computer in their room.

CaptainShuddup says

I'm having a hard time following who's been wronged here.

I do know who ever made the Video game needs to be punched in the face.

I'm not sure I have it right, but here's my best guess:

- Dickwad A makes punch-in-the-face video game with face of professional feminist A.
- Professional feminists B and C (and maybe others) ridicule & doxx dickwad A for what he did
- Dickwad B enters the game, ruthlessly mocks B, C et. al,, who block him on Twitter. He continues to mock them through hashtags they use, and also, on one or more occasions mentions where they are currently located, said locations being public information he gleaned from hashtags they were using for their social gatherings.
- Dickwad B is now on trial for hateful stalking, even though there is no evidence he ever went to those locations or otherwise physically approached these women. He has also not been convicted or sentenced, so this could end up being an outrage, or more likely (and better for my opinion of the human race) a nothingburger.

As far as I can discern, the women made their own location public through their tweets. I see no reason for a conviction here, but I am not a Canadian lawyer.