Hey, there! Log in / Register
Video-game designer's ex-boyfriend won't get the satisfaction he demands in court
By adamg on Thu, 05/19/2016 - 11:20am
The Massachusetts Appeals Court refused today to consider the First Amendment issues involved in a judge ordering a man to stop writing horrible things about his ex-girlfriend online as part of a domestic protective order against him.
The court told Eron Gjoni the question was moot because his former girlfriend, Zoe Quinn, successfully requested that the order, originally granted by a judge in Dorchester Municipal Court, be dropped. Quinn asked the order be vacated because it was failing to actually protect her from a continuing torrent of abuse, including rape and death threats, from his supporters, and was only giving him another platform from which to attack her.
In his appeal, Gjoni's attorney argued the court should take up the case anyway, because of the importance of the First Amendment issue.
The court said that while it has sometimes taken up moot issues in the past, it generally has only done so when both sides in the case are willing to make arguments on the central issue. In this case, Quinn's attorney declined to join the legal jousting and asked only that the case be dismissed as moot. In conclusion, the court wrote:
[T]he order under appeal here did not merely expire but has been vacated, and copies of the abuse prevention order possessed by law enforcement officials were ordered destroyed. The defendant therefore has obtained all the relief to which he could be entitled, and he no longer has a cognizable interest in whether the order was lawfully issued. Therefore, we dismiss the entire appeal as moot.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling, Zoe Tiberius Quinn vs. Eron Gjoni | 72.95 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Thanks for covering this,
Thanks for covering this, Adam. I not envy one bit the barrage of anonymous comments you're going to have to sort through for the next three days, as a torrent of GamerGaters stop dragging their knuckles across the ground long enough to accuse you of misandry or gender treason or whatever other argument du jour they've concocted for "my right to make misogynistic death threats is enshrined in the constitution!"
It is insane how many
It is insane how many misoginists exists within that "nerdy" community. I think a lot of the hatred that is directed towards the upcoming Ghostbusters stems from that.
I am a self-processed geek, but I don't scream it too loudly out of fear of being labeled a women-hater. It's pretty sad to see, really. Fellow dorks, why do you hate women so? I can't fathom it.
I think a lot of the hatred
Wrong. Much of the hatred about the upcoming Ghostbusters stems from the simple fact that Hollywood is so devoid of actual creativity that they feel the need to corrupt yet another classic movie by doing a cheezy remake. Not to mention that, inevitably, McDonalds will offer happy meal toys for a PG-13 rated movie.
Yes it's just about ethics in
Yes it's just about ethics in movie greenlighting.
But yeah, it does really suck that my DVD of the original Ghostbusters will evaporate as soon as the reboot is released in theatres.
That must explain why we've
That must explain why we've seen the exact same level of vitriol directed at every other Hollywood remake over the last 20 years.
Seriously
I think in one of the Spider Man movies, the entire plot is "Peter goes to the movies and watches a new reboot of the Spider Man series"
Wait till the next time someone announces a 'Casablanca' remake
if you want to see vitriol. Fortunately, none of these attempts has so far come to fruition.
This is a losing battle for
This is a losing battle for me take here. But I'm going to still point out a few observations about nerd subculture and internet brigading.
Right now, the second most down-voted video on Youtube is the new trailer for Call of Duty. Another recent memory is the "brigading" to the Fine Bros video of copyrighting. But that one is a harder one to explain the connection, but I'll note it still as another recent example.
Basically, the internet and social media have an aspect of snowballing. The "nerd" subculture is a common denominator (though far from being the only subculture) that can snowball hard into "briganding" when it sees something disliked.
Thing like tends to really hit a nerve is going the exact opposite of what something they like been voicing. For Ghostbusters, that's a sequel with the original cast and a story that feels organic. CoD has been building grumbles that it should go to the back to the past again like its older games. Both ignore it and apparently reach critical mass to just dislike just because it's already mass disliked. It leads to a feedback loop to get hated more. **I should note the Battlefield 1 trailer likely play a role too, but it was already getting hundred of thousands of dislikes before that trailer was released a few days later.
Does that mean there's no motivation of misogyny? My intellectual honesty says that one cannot discount misogyny as factor in reaching the tipping point to causing a collective hate train. But one cannot discount that it's a trailer looks terrible, reactions to remakes automatically starts from hostile by default until won over (usually by being good like the Star Trek reboot), and then there's also the fact nerd subculture does not take well in being accused of negative traits too (so think of the trailer initially getting 100k dislikes then news reports start accusing those dislikes being motivated by misogyny, now 100k more people who shares the identity gets involved and now it gets 200k dislikes and repeat).
That doesn't explain the level of gender specific ranting
If it was just a remake thing, people wouldn't have rejected it as soon as it was announced, when the details weren't much more than "remake, but with women this time."
EDIT: Late breaking news: After hearing dozens of complaints about "corrupting" a classic movie, the producers of the new Ghostbusters have decided to *NOT* beam the new movie directly into the brains of all fans of the old movie, overwriting their memories of the original. They have graciously agreed to only show it in movie theaters, and will staff all theater entrances with employees who will ensure that fans cannot accidentally walk in and have their childhood ruined.
Well-played
That's some world-class sarcasm, right there. Top fucking shelf.
minor(?) quibble
I would suggest that quotes belong around the word "classic".
Oh no
You didn't!
Hint
They don't hate women so much as they lack experience loving women.
Um, no
Nice try at being sympathetic, but spend some time googling the MRA movement. They truly hate women.
What are you guys talking about?
The story here is about internet stalking and death threats (just because you can) and you want to talk about the new Ghostbusters movie? Is this Entertainment Tonight?
Hard cases make bad law
The Court order said that the boyfriend could "not to post any further information about [Quinn] or her personal life online or to encourage 'hate mobs.'"
The 'hate mobs' part is odd but, ok, that makes sense.
The rest seems overbroad. Restrictions on speech need to be narrowly tailored. Saying that the boyfriend could post absolutely nothing about Quinn goes too far.
I'm not supporting or condoning harassment. And I get why the Appeals Court punted here. But the right to free speech is our most important right, and should be defended vigorously.
Why?
I'll bite. Why is it "our most important right"? Why does it apparently trump the right to live your life without character assassination and threats of violence?
Most important right
If I can't speak up freely, then there's no way for anyone else to know that a wrong is being committed or a right is being trammeled or that something should be set aright. Every other right can be violated, but if no one knows about it because speech has been muzzled, then nothing will be done.
That's not the case here, to be sure, but it's a slippery slope concern. If "Public Official" is a complete crook, and "Adam" is a concerned citizen publishing all of "Public Official's" dirty laundry online, we don't want "Public Official" to be able to get a restraining order barring "Adam" from saying anything about him. Even if "Adam" is whipping the commentariat up into a frenzy.
In this case, a tailored restraining order would probably have been appropriate. Stopping the harassment, preventing violence, that is worthwhile. But we don't want a precedent set where courts can issue blanket gag orders preventing people from talking at all about a subject or a person. That's ripe for abuse.
One parting thought - restraining orders like this one can be issued ex parte, that is, with only one person in the courtroom. The recipient doesn't get a chance to defend himself, at least at first. So there's an even greater threat of abuse.
Apples and oranges here
As long as "Adam" isn't actually making threats against "Public Official", there's no legitimate basis for a judge to issue a restraining order against him. As I said in a previous post, free speech is not absolute.
And if "Public Official" believes that "Adam" has been deliberately malicious and making unfounded statements towards him/her, there's this little matter called libel. And this thing called civil court.
Prior restraint
The doctrine is called 'prior restraint.' Basically, the law believes that it's almost always better to punish harmful speech after the fact rather than preventing it before the fact. Said differently, "prior restraint shall not be enacted on the basis that it's better to punish unprotected speech rather than hinder any possible protected speech."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint#Judicial_view
The right to free speech is not absolute
And IMO the boyfriend lost that right, at least in his dealings with Quinn, by grossly abusing it.
Saying that the boyfriend
It really, really doesn't. I think this case is a great example of why.