Slashdot Mirror
CDN Supreme Court Upholds 'Net Free Speech
Gryphon writes: "The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a citizen has the right to express dissatifaction with the products or services of a company; in this case, an insurance company. This raises some interesting questions: does this extend to posting benchmarks of computer applications? Dissatisfaction with application security holes? Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)"
The DMCA goes about preventing piracy in a very intrusive way, and I donate frequently to the Free Software Foundation, but it has no provisions that I know of preventing criticism of a product or service.
...or at least the equivalent of it. See the copyright reform process at Heretige Canada website for more details, although the deadline for comments has already expired. (700 were posted!)
They are protected in our constitution too, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case is pretty much shooting down an unconstitutional bylaw of a city in Quebec.
This is not precident to establish free speech in Canada, it's just reaffirming it.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
City Of Ladue et al. v. Gilleo
But I doubt it'll help with the DMCASig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
In the month of March and April, there are going to be public forums held in some Canadian cities, to discuss the papers submitted to the copyright board on this topic.
To quote the email I received:
As I'm a good 20 hour drive from the closest of these, I probably won't be able to attend - but I urge any
In the US, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech but most jurisdictions have restrictions based on "time, manner and place" without conflict. As long as meaningful speech is still permitted, these restrictions are usually upheld.
Two examples: Boulder, Colorado bans large outdoor billboards. (It also bans new construction taller than a "mature cottonwood tree" - 55 ft - and has other non-speech related restrictions.) The purpose is to protect the mountain view. It's been challenged, e.g., by the "National Debt Clock," but since smaller signs are still legal and legible at normal city highway speeds, the ban was upheld.
Second example: after people picked an abortion doctor's home residence in unincorporated Littleton, Colorado (IIRC) for years, the county agreed to restrictions at the request of neighbors. Pickets are still permitted, but the total area of the signs must be modest (under 3 square feet?) and they must walk at least 100 years before turning around. This was challenged, but since picketing was still permitted and the restrictions served a legitimate need (the pickets had become traffic hazards by clustering with large signs) the restrictions were upheld.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
It doesn't really matter. This decision clearly states that by enforcing laws the government cannot prevent people from demonstrating their dissatisfaction towards a company's services (or lack thereof).
Here is the link to the full decision. There is a convenient short version in the first few pages. Have a read.
In a few months or so, it'll be moved into their by-volume section..
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
2 things here: one, hollywood has a TON of Canadians in the business - tell me you've ever heard Micheal J. Fox say 'aboot' and I'll eat my hat.
Secondly, most of what americans think is the 'Canadian' accent is actually only spoken in the Atlantic provinces. Newfoundlanders have a very distinct dialect and pronunciation from anyone else in Canada, for example. There's also a milder form of this which is prevalent in Toronto, and of course that's where the majority of Canadian/american contact happens.
I'll tell you one thing though - I've lived in Canada my entire life, and we sound a lot closer to american TV and movie personalities than almost anyone from the US (ever been to North Dakota?).
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Well Quebec (as well as Louisiana) is the only juridiction in North America that uses the Civil Code system of justice, instead of Common Law, which is what everybody else on this continent uses.
In Quebec, as well as other Civil Code jurisdictions throughout Europe, laws are codified, and there's very little room for interpretation.
Common Law justice systems allow people to interpret judgements according to legal precedent, such as, for example, the Roe vs. Wade abortion case.
I'm not advocating either system over the other, just sharing my thoughts.
This space left intentionally blank.