KEY ELEMENTS OF THE CASE
Repeated communication That there was repeated communication was easily established in Guthrie’s case because of her contact with Elliott in real life — dinner to discuss working together — and their direct and indirect exchanges on Twitter. Knazan found it was also easily proven in Reilly’s case, because of their interactions on Twitter, including an argument about whether Elliott should stop following her feed.
Felt harassed
Given Elliott’s acquittal on criminal harassment, it may seem perplexing that Knazan found both Reilly and Guthrie indeed “were harassed” by his tweets — at least in their own minds. But merely a sense of being harassed isn’t, on its own, enough for a conviction, Knazan explained.
Knowledge of harassment
Knazan said that, to be found guilty, Elliott would have to be aware his actions constituted harassment. Knazan found that it could not be proven Elliott knew he was making Guthrie feel harassed (though he did find Elliott was acting recklessly and that he knew he was at risk of harassing her). The evidence didn’t reveal threats or tweets that amounted to sexual harassment, and Guthrie never directly told Elliott she felt harassed. In Reilly’s case, Knazan found that Elliott should have known he was harassing her. Reilly told him repeatedly to stop contacting her, retweeting posts asking him to leave her alone. Also, Elliott “peppered his tweets (to Reilly) with mean, crass and insulting comments.”
Subjective fear
Knazan found that Guthrie was scared of Elliott and his tweets made her fear for her safety. Knazan ruled that this subjective fear was credible and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Reilly’s fear stemmed largely from anxiety that she and Elliott might be in the Cadillac Lounge bar at the same time, the judge said, after Elliott tweeted the bar had “a lot of ugly.” Though she concluded he wasn’t there, Reilly testified she was “concerned” because “I had no idea what his potential future intent could be.” Knazan concluded that “there are so many hypotheticals and conditionals in this honest answer that it leaves me with doubt about whether she was afraid for her safety.” ‘Objectively reasonable’ fear Having established Guthrie’s honest fear of Elliott, Knazan discussed whether this fear could be deemed “objectively reasonable.” Knazan said he had reason to doubt that it was — because Elliott stopped contacting her when she asked him to — or that she felt harassed by his use of hashtags she frequented. Guthrie would not allow the possibility that Elliott had any reason to tweet about her apart from his apparent obsession, Knazan said.