Jennifer Pawluck found guilty of criminal harassment after posting anti-police graffiti on Instagram

[Webster6]

Could it be Banksy? Jk

The content may be disturbing but whoever made it is more guilty of something than she is. This woman is getting punished and given a criminal record for sharing something on social media. The content seems to me like an anti police state message in the form of a gruesome depiction. However this woman is being censored and convicted for sharing it? Bleh.. this is a scary precedent being set.

Here's an article from April

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/montreal/jennifer-pawluck-found-guilty-of-criminal-harassment-after-posting-anti-police-graffiti-on-instagram-1.3046134

and a follow up one from May 14th below.

http://insurrectionnewsworldwide.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/canada-jennifer-pawluck-convicted-for.html?m=1

Quote: "A woman who posted a photo of graffiti depicting a senior Montreal police officer with a bullet in his head has received a suspended sentence. Jennifer Pawluck was found guilty in April of criminal harassment for snapping a photo of the street art and uploading it to Instagram in 2013.

The judge agreed with a joint suggestion that the 22-year-old Pawluck be given a suspended sentence, 18 months probation and 100 hours community service. She is forbidden from using Instagram, Facebook or Twitter for one year except to send private messages. Pawluck is also prohibited from posting anything about police or anyone associated with the judicial system.

Montreal police Cmdr. Ian Lafreniere, a high-profile spokesman, told the court that knowledge the graffiti was being shared shook him, scared his children and forced his wife to take a leave from work."

*Sorry for the unpolished thread, put it together on my phone.

[Sean Monahan]

Tough call here. It's one thing to post anti-police propaganda, but when the graffiti depicts a specific officer that's another thing. That crosses the line IMO. I know she didn't make the graffiti herself (that we know of) but to seemingly promote it by posting it on social media isn't right either.

And as for the person who wrote that follow-up piece, they're an idiot. I'm sick of hearing all the anti-police crap. I'd like to see them live in a world without law enforcement. 95% of us would be clamoring to have them back.

[EastVanCanuck]

Lol, how about I paint a picture of you with a bullet to your head. How would you interpret my intentions?

Hippies

[Dral]

Pretty tame picture... it's like people have never seen the internet before

[Lockout Casualty]

Oh come on, this woman isn't being censored, that's just laughable. You found the least informative CBC article, and what the hell is "insurrectionworldwide"? And all that for a story that's nearly a month old and has plenty written about it...

‘One cop, one bullet': Quebec woman convicted not for the graffiti she instagrammed, but the hashtag attached

“On the photo there were links, or hashtags, with Ian Lafrenière’s name written in different ways and allusions like (‘All cops are bastards’) and (‘One cop, one bullet’) to the point where, given the context, there was criminal harassment,” prosecutor Josie Laplante said after the conviction.

...

The woman was convicted under a section of the Criminal Code normally reserved for stalkers, but applied in this case because the judge ruled Lafrenière had reasonable grounds to feel threatened.

...

Attempting to convict Pawluck solely on the photo would have been “problematic,” he said, but the message changes entirely, given the context.

...

Pawluck had testified the posting was intended as a general criticism of the Montreal police and she did not intend to threaten Lafrenière. She said she posted the image after a discussion about police brutality at a party, and she did not know who Lafrenière was when she posted the image.

The judge later cast doubt on the veracity of Pawluck’s testimony by saying “it is very surprising” to hear someone involved in the 2012 student protests claim they didn’t know who the Montreal police spokesman was.

Let's try less spin and outrage and more sticking to the facts, eh?

[Webster6]

Lol, how about I paint a picture of you with a bullet to your head. How would you interpret my intentions?

Hippies

I've had my picture photoshopped onto gay porn after pissing someone off on a fringe forum.

Everyone on the forum myself included had a good laugh about it. Obviously that's not quite the same but I've seen much more gruesome depictions of muhammad or people seen in the eyes of western governments as criminals. However only the ultra PC left ever has any objections to those. If anything this picture was a smear campaign in protest of a police state we're falling into. Like the guy said above, this is actually pretty tame. Sure crucify the guy who made it if you find it disgusting (i don't find it to be criminal) however if you think someone taking a picture and sharing the message of something controversial and aggressive (as gruesome as it appears at first glance) than you're part of the problem as to why this country is allowing its liberties to slip away. Whoever doesn't think this is censorship.. just wait until you're being charge criminally for sharing anti-government corruption information online. Because we just started along a slippery slope.

[Webster6]

Also lockout. I shared the basic background story through CBC, and a fringe website that beat any mainstream media to the punch on the finalization of the case. I see why you'd find the credibility suspect however it's a prevelant article because major networks dare not touch this kind of case unless they have to. They'd just rather ignore anything that publicizes any word of potential corruption from the state.

[Lockout Casualty]

I've had my picture photoshopped onto gay porn after pissing someone off on a fringe forum.

Everyone on the forum myself included had a good laugh about it. Obviously that's not quite the same but I've seen much more gruesome depictions of muhammad or people seen in the eyes of western governments as criminals. However only the ultra PC left ever has any objections to those. If anything this picture was a smear campaign in protest of a police state we're falling into. Like the guy said above, this is actually pretty tame. Sure crucify the guy who made it if you find it disgusting (i don't find it to be criminal) however if you think someone taking a picture and sharing the message (as gruesome as it appears at first glance) than you're part of the problem as to why this country is allowing its liberties to slip away. Whoever doesn't think this is censorship.. just wait until you're being charge criminally for sharing anti-government corruption information online. Because we just started along a slippery slope.

Just stop, man. Just stop.

1. Muhammad isn't a living person who can be harassed. The officer is.

2. She was not convicted for posting the picture. The picture gave context to her post, however, and her post was deemed to be harassment in that context.

3. She was given a suspended sentence.

4. We've been down the slippery slope of freedoms for a long time. This, however, isn't part of the slide.

Also lockout. I shared the basic background story through CBC, and a fringe website that beat any mainstream media to the punch on the finalization of the case. I see why you'd find the credibility suspect however it's a prevelant article because major networks dare not touch this kind of case unless they have to. They'd just rather ignore anything that publicizes any word of potential corruption from the state.

WTF?

Montreal Gazette

Globe and Mail

Huffington Post

La Presse

CTV

Maclean's

Who did I miss? You're pretending this is some grand conspiracy, however it's been reported by every major news outlet in the country. I know the desire to feel like you're smarter than everyone, but just stop.

This is a terribly misguided thread.

[Webster6]

I'm not pretending anything is a conspiracy you'd just like to throw that out there to label my intentions. At no point did I say mainstream media didn't cover it, they just do a shotting job providing half truths and twisting the story to meet a political agenda. You act like that's what i'm doing myself right now when i'm not even looking to just debate the story itself, but would rather look to have a conversation on what is and is not censorship. As well as what is and is not criminal behavior. &^@# this single story, it reeks of stupid human ideology meddling with people's perceptions. Beyond this case I was trying to initiate a grander conversation.

Muhammad wasn't a living person to you, or me for that matter. However he was to many people that walk this earth. Also good job dancing around my next comments about real tangible people that have been portrayed grotesquely because a western state labeled them a war criminal. When our own western governments are just as guilty of crimes against humanity through their history, as the ones we today persecute. So if it's okay to depict Gaddafi, or Bin laden with bullets holes in his head, then it should be okay to depict someone people see as a western criminal with the same "artistry".

Edit: Also I like how you point out facts given in my article as if they were debunking what I was saying.. that's hilarious really.

[Lockout Casualty]

I'm not pretending anything is a conspiracy you'd just like to throw that out there to label my intentions. At no point did I say mainstream media didn't cover it, they just do a shotting job providing half truths and twisting the story to meet a political agenda. You act like that's what i'm doing myself right now when i'm not even looking to just debate the story itself, but would rather look to have a conversation on what is and is not censorship. As well as what is and is not criminal behavior. frack this single story, it reeks of stupid human ideology meddling with people's perceptions. Beyond this case I was trying to initiate a grander conversation.

Muhammad wasn't a living person to you, or me for that matter. However he was to many people that walk this earth. Also good job dancing around my next comments about real tangible people that have been portray grotesquely because a western state labeled them a war criminal. When our own western governments are just as guilty of crimes against humanity through their history, as the ones we today persecute. So if it's okay to depict Gaddafi, or Bin laden with bullets holes in his head, then it should be okay to depict someone people see as a western criminal with the same "artistry".

Edit: Also I like how you point out facts given in my article as if they were debunking what I was saying.. that's hilarious really.

From your "alternative media" link, "&^@# Ian Lafreniere and the Montreal police, solidarity and complicity with Jennifer!" Very unbiased. Would read again and take seriously. Not.

Do tell, what did that article bring to the table, aside from the above comment, that the rest of the articles on the topic didn't? What lies did mainstream media present and what's the contrasting truth found in the article by InsurrectionNewsWorldWide...?

If you want to talk about censorship, may I suggest posting a story that deals with censorship, and not one that half-wits misinterpret to be about censorship instead?

Muhammad isn't a living person, period. You can't harass a dead person. God-status is irrelevant. And I'd like to see examples of the Canadian government using such pictures, since we're talking about Canada here. More than that, I'd like to see anyone file a complaint for the police to follow up (surely you're not expecting the police to scour the net for everyone who may be harassing someone). I didn't "dance around" anything, I just didn't think it was worth addressing.

I'm not debunking what you're saying. I'm filling in the other 80% of the story that you don't want to present in pursuit of your narrative.

Hilarious indeed.

[Webster6]

You really learn how to simmer down. You just the gun on hostility in almost every controversial issue.

I said I posted the fringr article because they beat MSM to the punch. Also because it offers an alternative narrative than what other corporate networks are willing to weigh their own real opinions on. I'm not endorsing every word used in the article as my own beliefs. Besides like I said I only brought up this case as a segway into a bigger picture conversation. Obviously we disagree on this being a case of censorship. I see it as silencing and intimidating dissent. No idea how you can see otherwise given your stances I've seen on other topics.

Anyway.. can you stop bringing muhammad back up, you're spewing rhetoric on someething we agree on when I had only written his name as a point of reference that many are accustomed to. My greater point was in that these depictions are tolerated by western enemies but not tolerated if it's a domestic enemy to liberty. Regardless of either of our stances on who those may be. Sharing controversial narratives is not criminal behavior. That's the whole point I was trying to make. I just happener to use this case as an example because it is a recent occurance.

[etsen3]

The original artists should be charged, not her. The way I see it, she saw something interesting and decided to post a picture of it. Did the cop ever contact her and ask her to take it down? That would be a more reasonable way to handle this. Not everything you see (especially in art) is meant to be taken literally.

[Webster6]

You mask me as someone attempt to be a fear monger however I really only try to raise awareness to issues that people have maluable control of in their own lives. It's why I'm not shouting from the roof tops about the global economic structures or central banks. I just like to debate issues that people can make a difference themselves with. Censorship is one of those issues.

[Lockout Casualty]

You really learn how to simmer down. You just the gun on hostility in almost every controversial issue.

I said I posted the fringr article because they beat MSM to the punch. Also because it offers an alternative narrative than what other corporate networks are willing to weigh their own real opinions on. I'm not endorsing every word used in the article as my own beliefs. Besides like I said I only brought up this case as a segway into a bigger picture conversation. Obviously we disagree on this being a case of censorship. I see it as silencing and intimidating dissent. No idea how you can see otherwise given your stances I've seen on other topics.

Anyway.. can you stop bringing muhammad back up, you're spewing rhetoric on someething we agree on when I had only written his name as a point of reference that many are accustomed to. My greater point was in that these depictions are tolerated by western enemies but not tolerated if it's a domestic enemy to liberty. Regardless of either of our stances on who those may be. Sharing controversial narratives is not criminal behavior. That's the whole point I was trying to make. I just happener to use this case as an example because it is a recent occurance.

I'm just allergic to bull. Sorry.

You can share the image, that's the whole point. The picture gives context to her post, and within that context her actions are deemed to be harassment. I'm puzzled what part of this you don't understand. You can go post that picture on Twitter right now and nobody will be knocking on your door. Just avoid using threatening hashtags.

By the way, you're the one spewing rhetoric (or you can feel free to highlight any rhetoric I've spewed). Otherwise you'd be showing me the lies in the MSM right now. I don't know what the significance of posting that story before anyone else is. Certainly doesn't grand it extra credibility.

Would you really be okay with someone using your identity, name and likeness, and caption it with words implying murdering people who do the same thing as you, in an environment where what you do is seen as extremely negative? I think this is a clear case of harassment, and definitely in no way is this a case of "government" (whatever is meant by that) pressuring courts (separate domains, remember?) to find someone guilty of a made up crime. Not just that, but if the government was trying to censor something in this case, do you think it would want stories about it in every major and fringe news outlet (and the stories are in every major outlet, and I'm yet to see a single example to support your claims of half-truths)? The entire premise of your position doesn't make sense. There's a reason I am ideologically aligned with you, but disagree, eh?

To drive the point home, the picture is up on Huffington Post right now. Right here. Nothing is being censored.

[elvis15]

You mask me as someone attempt to be a fear monger however I really only try to raise awareness to issues that people have maluable control of in their own lives. It's why I'm not shouting from the roof tops about the global economic structures or central banks. I just like to debate issues that people can make a difference themselves with. Censorship is one of those issues.

He's right though, that your post mentioned nothing of the proper reason she was convicted. It was the same with whoever posted the article when she was first charged in that it intimated that all she did was re-post the image, when in fact there is much more to the story about her history and the commentary on picture she posted.

By leaving out this information and posting the links you did, you coloured people's opinions of what the facts for this case actually were.

[Offensive Threat]

She took a picture in a public space. I believe she did nothing illegal. If the officer felt harassed hes in the wrong line of work.

Freedom of speech keeps getting clawed back a bit every year it seems.

[Chalky]

http://insurrectionnewsworldwide.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/canada-jennifer-pawluck-convicted-for.html?m=1

News, counter-information and incitement from the global front-lines of anti-capitalist insurrection.

Capitalism has not existed for many decades, Corporatism squashed Capitalism long ago. People who refer to the current global market system as Captalism should take some Economics courses. Insurrection News are just lazy dissenters who have no interest in the real causes and solutions to global problems. They are just desperate to be different and better than the "sheeple".

I don't feel like sharing the image should have been a crime though. Who was the artist? It seems to me that if the police were that worried, they should speak with the person who actually painted the cop with the bullet in his head. That's my opinion.

Are there implications for Instagram? After all, they hosted the picture.

[Sean Monahan]

He's right though, that your post mentioned nothing of the proper reason she was convicted. It was the same with whoever posted the article when she was first charged in that it intimated that all she did was re-post the image, when in fact there is much more to the story about her history and the commentary on picture she posted.

By leaving out this information and posting the links you did, you coloured people's opinions of what the facts for this case actually were.

What history does she have? And were there any questionable hashtags or anything on the post? Just curious.

[Gross-Misconduct]

I've had my picture photoshopped onto gay porn after pissing someone off on a fringe forum.

Lol, so what? You homophobic?

[nucklehead]

She needs to appeal this.