Slashdot Mirror

In every case I have heard so far, all computers and removable media and USB drives in the residence were confiscated and searched at a government facility.

Personally I have no issue with that when it comes to child porn.

Given what falls under the definition of CP, you bloody well should have.

Consider the following fragment of (bad) prose: "... then I took of her blouse and started playing with her nipples. She had amazing tits for someone 41 years old".

Nothing special, right? Crap like this can be found in paperbacks available in book-stores and public libraries, PG-13 movies, what have you. BUT, reverse the digit order and suddenly just writing a couple of sentences becomes a crime of the highest degree, punishable by ruining the person's life forever.

Think that can never happen? Well, it does in Australia, Ontario, Ohio, etc.

Hell, even federal judges have an issue with the fact that mandatory sentences for possessing CP are harsher than those given to actual child abusers.

So, if I happen to meet you and hear that, in the course of your jury duty, you helped put away a child molester, I will happily treat you to a beverage of your choice. However, if you were instrumental in ruining the life of somebody whose only crime was committing his fantasies to paper, the tone of the conversation will be very different.

TFA explains that it was a panel of three judges, so it was the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision, not the decision of a single judge.

Yes, but as often happens in cases where there is a panel, only one of them gave a judgment, the others just agreed.

If anyone is interested in what the ruling actually says, the judgment is here with the relevant part starting at [41]. The judge seems to have noted that in both the US and UK, domain names are already being treated as a form of intangible property in law (like patents, copyrights etc.), which could, as discussed elsewhere in the comments, lead to greater "rights" for those who have "bought" a domain name; making it more like renting than licensing.

The reason the court needed to consider this was due to jurisdictional issues; the claimants needed to show a "real and substantial connection with Ontario", i.e. that the case concerned property there. The case seems to be mainly about procedure rather than substantive law. [For the record IAALS]

It's hard to know exactly what the judge had in mind (yes, I read the article).

I was reading the actual judgement, but it was too long.

This brings up some interesting points: if you have a property interest in a domain, then what do you pay the yearly fee for?

It must only be for server usage. By that standard, a registrar shouldn't be able to seize your domain if you don't pay the fee.

Or, perhaps, in order to recover their fee, they could auction the domain, and take their cut ($9). The rest is your money. So if a domain sells for $100k, you get $99,991.

The Ontario government is working to change the law.

Don't hold your breath. The law should be reasonable first!

Do we have to make a law called common sense? Maybe the judge should get a spine and rule he keeps his house and tells the bank to buzz off. Maybe the Ontario Superior Court of Justice should put some swift Justice in place here. http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/english.htm

The bank and the lawyer should hold the bag. Either could have checked credit, drivers licenses and the existance of a mythical grandson. Hopefully one of these "Justice" mushrooms will move on it.

Thus, "pot" isn't legal here in Canada

Actually you are wrong.

The legislation you are referring to has yet to be introduced in the
house and looking at the current time table for the fall session, it is
highly unlikely to be introduced until spring (if at all).

The interesting bit is that last year the Ontario Court of
Appeal deemed that the portion of the criminal code dealing with
pot is unconstitutional and gave the Feds 1 year to change the law or
the current pot laws would be declared void. This was the reason the
new law was drafted: the Feds had little choice in the matter. Well, 1
year has been up for quite a while now which means that all laws
concerning pot in Ontario (and only Ontario) are now void. The courts
have instructed that the police not to arrest people in possession or
even selling of pot (since all the laws are now void) because the they
will not be heard in court. The courts have also instructed the police
not to even seize pot from people because they are not allow to seize
private property and could be sued for doing so.

--PCB

Does anyone know where to get the briefs for this case?

CANLII is a good first place to look. All you need is the court in which he was convicted, and you can browse all court decisions. It also has a list of all courts in Canada. Guide to Ontario Courts would be another good place to look. The Law Society of Upper Canada might be of some help too.

Since Ontario is a backwards province whos justice system doesn't give over court briefs to Canlii, there must be a place in Ontario where one can get them. Maybe the Queen's Printer in Ontario?