See
that's then bit where I think he kind of has a point: if you want to control who can respond to you, don't use a public mass comms platform where anyone can respond to you.
I think the case for harassment is more about the content than the medium, if that makes sense.
(, Thu 16 Jul 2015, 12:31, Reply)
Sometimes
Changing the platform you communicate with could cut you off from a lot, or even most, of your intended audience. Victims of harassment shouldn't be expected to either retire from having a public presence or "learn to deal with it", as if it's some sort of innate price you have to pay.
Reading the article, the guy certainly doesn't seem like the worst troll that I've ever seen, though. Time in jail seems a bit much.
(, Thu 16 Jul 2015, 13:42, Reply)
You have a right to free speech.
You don't have a right to an audience.
(, Fri 17 Jul 2015, 10:49, Reply)
surely
it's up to the provider of your platform to cut you off from your audience, if anyone's going to do that. Following your logic, it's ok to harass journalists until they stop writing stories about you in the papers, for instance.
(, Thu 30 Jul 2015, 20:45, Reply)