[drdeca]

I believe that the way you phrased that second thing is potentially misleading.

Not being allowed to use twitter or "have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access" (direct quote from wikipedia because I'm not sure whether the internet access part applies to the smartphone part.) was part of the bail. The 4 years were between the time which he was charged (Nov 2012) , and the time that all charges were dismissed (Jan 2016. So, really, closer to 3 years, but that difference doesn't matter all that much).

I believe that someone who did not read what you linked might assume that you meant that it was part of a sentencing for something he was charged with, as opposed to part of the bail.

Indeed, I initially misunderstood your comment in that way.

So, I would like to clarify this potential confusion for anyone else reading your comment, and also let you know that people may be lead to make inaccurate assumptions if you phrase things like that.

In addition, I think your phrase "for disagreeing with feminist" is probably suboptimal / unclear. It is true of course that the things that happened to him were a result of things he said to and about the person(s) in question, but that isn't how a typical person would understand "went to jail for disagreeing with an <X>".

I believe that a typical native English speaker would typically interpret "They were sent to jail for disagreeing with a <X>." to mean that the person was jailed for the opinion that they held or expressed, not for the way they allegedly expressed their disagreement with the <X> in question.

Am I saying that what happened to the person was right? No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm only saying that I think that the way you said the things, while perhaps technically true in a sense, has a high risk of people misinterpreting it as saying something that is not true.

[wueiued]

What is inaccurate? He was in jail and he could not use computer for couple of years. Whatever he was found guilty is just technicality. The damage was done:

> Elliott was released on bail on the condition that he did not tweet or access Twitter, have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access.

> when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account impersonating Elliott.

... and it took 3.3 years to discover that.

Anyway I find your tone threatens my opinion. Please send me your name and address...

[drdeca]

I did not say that you said anything inaccurate. (Well, the unimportant 4 vs 3, but that is unimportant.)

I said that the way you said some of it was prone to being misinterpreted as meaning some other things which are not accurate.

Now, perhaps my initial misunderstanding was just due to me being exceptionally stupid, but I think that there is a fairly high chance of misinterpreting the things in question.

As such, I thought it would useful for it to be expressed in way which would be less prone to misinterpretation, because you don't want people thinking you mean something other than what you do mean, especially when what you mean is true, and the misunderstanding of what you mean is false.

I'm under the impression that he was forbidden from using a computer connected to the internet, not from using a computer in general, but I only read the Wikipedia article, so I could be wrong about that. ( Also, that distinction might not be very important.)

Indeed, that he was found not guilty does not reduce the harms he suffered.

But, as far as what is indicated about the legal system, I think it IS relevant. I don't know much anything about Canadian law, but I would figure that the purpose of the forbidding is rather different than what it would be it it were part of sentencing. Was it not meant by the authorities as a (rather too extreme) means to prevent more of what they suspected might be harm, until they could determine whether what was being done constituted harm? Or something like that?

Again, this of course does not make things better for the person. But as for the implications about what the law is, I think it is extremely relevant.

Regarding the impersonator, uh, I thought the things said by the impersonator only came up near the end of the case. Did I misunderstand this?

I thought it was kind of an addendum?

> Anyway I find your tone threatens my opinion. Please send me your name and address...

Haha, very funny.

___

Has any of what I said been false or unclear?

[wueiued]

> Has any of what I said been false or unclear?

Not really.

> especially when what you mean is true, and the misunderstanding of what you mean is false

He was punished for disagreeing. Jail, lost job, a few years without a computer and money spend on defense. Guilt is irrelevant if trial takes years and does not postpone punishment.

Computer without internet is useless today. Would you employ graphic designer who can not use computer connected to internet?

Also guilt is irrelevant, if false accuse is left unpunished. His accusers should be forbidden to use internet, and should go to prison for harassing him