Local Loser on twitter

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That would be 162(4).



But he's already charged with breaking subsection (1).


So, if he is guilty of subsection (1), and since he distributed it on twitter he would also be guilty of (4).

Right, so the answer to Locke's question is no, nothing changes. You still have to be guilty of 162(1) to start with.

[Bootsy]

So seeing his picture this creep consulted to our company for about a year, 3 or 4 years ago. The women at our office were understandably a little freaked out .

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by Locke

Does it change when hes distributing them on twitter though?

If the guy just kept the photos for his own personal, 'private use' we likely would never know about it, but once he starts openly distributing photos of people without their permission and of a sexual nature that has to break some laws doesnt it?

I have to think part of the thrill was sharing these photos and videos publicly. The internet is rife with all kinds and varieties of pornography he could use to get himself off, including stealth upskirt videos of women in public settings. And sitting in front of his personal computer would be a safer and more convenient way of indulging himself. So I'm thinking that maybe he gets a thrill knowing that he is the one publicly humiliating these women.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So, I'm not sure if anyone has noted this yet, but I'm pretty sure this isn't against the law. At least, it's not contra the Criminal Code provision on voyeurism he was charged with, on its face. I didn't know that provision existed, so I haven't read the cases, but it's wholly prefaced on the person being voyeur...ed? being in a context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Say, your apartment or a bathroom stall. Not the sidewalk. It's aimed at spying on people when they're in private, basically.

The whole thing might get granier when you start talking about looking up women's skirts, but I don't think it's broad enough to cover walking behind a girl on the street and filming her butt. That's just not the behaviour it was drafted to cover.

Incidentally, if it were broad enough, it'd have some interesting results, because that code provision does't distinguish between filming and mere observation. In other words, if he were convicted, it would suggest that you could be charged just for leering at girls in public. Which also seems like an unintended consequence... I suspect that some people would be in favour of such a law, even so.

Yeah, given the nature of the account (and similar like it), about 95-99% of it is not illegal. It's still super creepy, but not illegal. I've been following similar cases in the States were folks avoid charges with some interest, as this is a clashing point of freedoms. I've been wondering how Canada would deal with it if it came to a court challenge.

[WhiteTiger]

Some of his conditions:

Banned from the downtown Core
Using any Computing Device
Having a Camera
Prohibited from having a social media accounts or profiles

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/06/15...y-social-media

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Oh please lady, the guy was caught filming woman and had the audacity to get upskirt footage and he's not that horrible?

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Right, so the answer to Locke's question is no, nothing changes. You still have to be guilty of 162(1) to start with.

Thats.....so messed up...

[troutman]

Why Do Men Harass Women? New Study Sheds Light On Motivations

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsand...ntent=20170615

The report found that of the 4,830 men surveyed, as many as 31 percent in Lebanon to 64 percent in Egypt admitted to having sexually harassed women and girls in public, from ogling to stalking to rape.

Of course, street harassment is a global phenomenon. Studies have shown that vast majorities of women across cities in Brazil, India, Thailand and the U.K. have been subjected to harassment or violence in public. And the U.S. isn't immune — 65 percent of 2,000 women surveyed said they had experienced street harassment, according to a 2014 study conducted by the research firm GfK for Stop Street Harassment, an advocacy group.

About half the men surveyed [Middle East], for example, said they felt stressed, depressed or ashamed to face their families. Perhaps harassing women is a way to assert their power, suggests Barker.

These young men "have high aspirations for themselves and aren't able to meet them," he says. "So they [harass women] to put them in their place. They feel like the world owes them."

They can't find work. They can't afford to marry. They're stuck living with their parents. There is nothing to do. "They're in a suspended state of adolescence," she says.

The harassment is also a way for young men to "get their kicks," says El Feki. When the men in the survey were asked why they sexually harassed women in public, the vast majority, up to 90 percent in some places, said they did it for fun and excitement.

That is not how women see it. "It's not fun at all," says Saleh. "It's a nightmare."

[CliffFletcher]

^^^ Might also have something to do with sex.

[ToewsFan]

n/m//////

[ToewsFan]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Some of his conditions:

Banned from the downtown Core
Using any Computing Device
Having a Camera
Prohibited from having a social media accounts or profiles

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/06/15...y-social-media

MOD EDIT: Over the line.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Some of his conditions:

Banned from the downtown Core
Using any Computing Device
Having a Camera
Prohibited from having a social media accounts or profiles

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/06/15...y-social-media

That is a severe punishment. They effectively have said he isn't allowed to work. He can't phone people It's straight out of one of Isaac Asimovs short stories. I wonder if those types of conditions will hold up to Challange.

Some impressive work by the bail judge here.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by GGG

That is a severe punishment. They effectively have said he isn't allowed to work. He can't phone people It's straight out of one of Isaac Asimovs short stories. I wonder if those types of conditions will hold up to Challange.

Some impressive work by the bail judge here.

He's still allowed to work, just not downtown. I hear McDonald's is hiring.

Doesn't seem that severe at all, he's out on bail.

[ToewsFan]

Originally Posted by GGG

That is a severe punishment. They effectively have said he isn't allowed to work. He can't phone people It's straight out of one of Isaac Asimovs short stories. I wonder if those types of conditions will hold up to Challange.

Some impressive work by the bail judge here.

MOD EDIT: Over the line

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by ToewsFan

I still say a bullet to the head would be better. The planet is losing 3 species a day and this invalid is allowed to spread his DNA?

Calm down - what he did was obviously wrong, non-justifiable and worthy of punishment but relax on the revenge porn aspect of the internet it isn't becoming of good taste or conversation.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

He's still allowed to work, just not downtown. I hear McDonald's is hiring.

Doesn't seem that severe at all, he's out on bail.

I don't think he'd be allowed to work at mcdonalds. They use computing systems for ordering.

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why Do Men Harass Women? New Study Sheds Light On Motivations

These young men "have high aspirations for themselves and aren't able to meet them," he says. "So they [harass women] to put them in their place. They feel like the world owes them."

They can't find work. They can't afford to marry. They're stuck living with their parents. There is nothing to do. "They're in a suspended state of adolescence," she says.

The harassment is also a way for young men to "get their kicks," says El Feki. When the men in the survey were asked why they sexually harassed women in public, the vast majority, up to 90 percent in some places, said they did it for fun and excitement.

That is not how women see it. "It's not fun at all," says Saleh. "It's a nightmare."

I can understand why young men do it -- some of them are stupid and do not consider the consequences of their actions. I know I did stupid/selfish things in my early 20s. But this dude is 42. And he apparently has a daughter. I wonder if he thinks about how his daughter would feel if she was humiliated in the same way.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't think he'd be allowed to work at mcdonalds. They use computing systems for ordering.

Yeah pretty sure that's not what they're talking about.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Yeah pretty sure that's not what they're talking about.

So what does it mean then if not exactly what it says?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by ToewsFan

Death by firing squad would have been more appropriate

Death by firing squad, eh? Seems reasonable. Is that avatar of yours some kind of cover for your true allegiance?

Love the new CP, where posters like this speak freely, and good posters get banned for telling them that they're idiots.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Death by firing squad, eh? Seems reasonable. Is that avatar of yours some kind of cover for your true allegiance?

Love the new CP, where posters like this speak freely, and good posters get banned for telling them that they're idiots.

I think it comes down too people speaking thier minds, and others calling them names like idiot, or stupid.