05/02/2020 2016 ONCJ 35 (CanLII) | CanLII social medium that people use to communicate succinctly with other people who have Twitter accounts. Mr. Elliott sent some tweets directly to both women, but the prosecution does not rely on the direct tweets alone. Ms. Guthrie’s harassment and fear came from her perception that Mr. Elliott sent an incessant and obsessive amount of tweets, including those not sent directly to her but of which she would have been advised. Ms. Reilly became fearful when she inferred from one of his tweets that Mr. Elliott might be in the same physical place as her. The alleged communication by tweeting also includes tweets by Mr. Elliott about subjects, topics, ideas and events that Ms. Guthrie and Ms. Reilly were interested in and therefore might or probably would read. Section 264 of the Criminal Code is a detailed definition of a complicated charge with several constituent elements. One issue is whether Mr. Elliott’s tweets about topics and events that the complainants were likely to read amount to indirect communication with Ms. Guthrie and Ms. Reilly, as the section contemplates. The prosecution must also prove that his tweets harassed them. If so, another issue is Mr. Elliott’s knowledge that they were harassed. The prosecution must also prove that the communication caused the complainants to fear for their safety, and finally that the fear was reasonable in all of the circumstances. I begin with what Twitter is. Twitter One cannot understand this case without knowing about Twitter. The evidence about Twitter – what it is, how it works and how its users understand that it works – came from four sources: the evidence of Police Constable Dayler, who is qualified as an expert in Twitter; the evidence of Ms. Guthrie, who works as a consultant and depends on Twitter for her work, and who tweets and reads others’ tweets extensively; the evidence of Ms. Reilly, who had sent over 300,000 tweets at the time she testified; and the tweets of Mr. Elliott, who did not testify but expressed his views about Twitter in some tweets that he sent. This judgment does not preface every reference to Twitter with the words “based on the evidence,” but all the references to it come from these four parts of the evidence. There are gaps in the evidence about Twitter; there is no evidence of how Twitter works in any technical sense. However, I restrict myself entirely to the evidence. A case of criminal harassment over social media cannot turn on whether the judge happens to know or use social media, though I do take judicial notice of facts that need no proof. Twitter is pervasive; many famous persons tweet, and many newspaper articles and radio and television programs suggest obtaining more information on a topic by resorting to Twitter. Twitter has its own language, and one cannot discuss the evidence without recourse to it. My definitions derive from explanations by three witnesses who were not always clear or consistent among themselves. Twitter is a freely accessible online platform where people can engage in micro-blogging, sending short messages to individual followers or the general public. A tweet is a message sent on Twitter, and is limited to 140 characters but can include links to other content on the internet. To tweet is to send a message on Twitter. It can but need not be addressed to another user or person; one can send a tweet without addressing it. In this judgment I use “to tweet” or “tweeted” to describe such a general message on Twitter; if the tweet is to another person or persons, the terminology is “tweeted to”. A Twitter account enables the account holder to tweet and receive tweets. A Twitter account can be opened by submitting a valid email address and a name that can be either real or fake. A user’s name in Twitter is called a “handle”. It takes the form of the “at sign” (@) followed by a name or initials, or just a word or words. It is also called a “username”. A follower is a person who signs up to read someone’s tweets. The permission of the person followed is not required unless the account is private. To follow any other Twitter user, one need only click the word “follow” next to a handle on a box with a blue bird on the Twitter screen. A tweet that starts with the intended recipient’s handle will also be seen by those who follow either the sender or the receiver, according to P.C. Dayler. A mention occurs when a handle is put after text of the tweet. The user whose handle is mentioned is advised (sometimes termed notified), and can access the tweet that mentioned them. It is not clear how they are advised and what they must do in order to see the tweet. A direct message, seen as “DM” or “D” on the screen of the tweet, is a Twitter feature that allows the sender to communicate with just one user rather than to a public forum or stream. file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/R v Gregory Allan Elliott.htm 3/43