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? ;)"
But... its Canada. The American legal system won't have a clue what you are talking aboot.
Well I am outraged and I won't stop donating to the Republican Party til this heinous and egregious attack of free trade is made a felony in the United States punishable by death!
The bylaw in question was a restriction on billboard advertising, incidentally. This case doesn't have terribly much to do with online freedom of criticism, which has usually been a matter of copyright or libel law -- not municipal "visual pollution" regulations.
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!)
Huh? That makes no sense.
The court said that consumers not only have a right to express their dissatisfaction with products or services -- including on Internet sites -- but also to read what others have to say.
They're letting those Canadian people write and read now? What is the world coming to?-)
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
Try a new browser, smokey. Looks fine here. Here is the correct quote:
> 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.
"Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)"
Interesting... maybe Bnetd should host their site and project on Canadian servers. Would that exclude them from the DMCA perhaps? It sure would make Blizzard work harder to get them shutdown =)
Recently large numbers of sterile American males have been released in Canada in hopes of decimating the Canadian population thus opening up endless stretches of moose pasture to American colonization.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
I expressed my displeasure with Bellsouth on a message board (from home) that they were selling email addresses (first day I had like 4 or 5 spam messags on an almost-random username) and since I worked for them, they fired me. No trade-secrets or anything given away. I just explained my situation, and bam.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)
I know this was meant as humor, but I feel obligated to point out that all members of the WTO will be held under the DMCA, since signing countries agree to up hold the laws of other countries.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This supreme court ruling was (as far as I can see) a resolution of a conflict between a municipal bylaw and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Not much of a contest, if you ask me...)
Since on-line postings probably don't fall under municipal law (anybody know for sure?), I rather doubt this would apply in those cases.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
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!
It's colder in most of the states, than here in Vancouver, BC.
We had snow on the ground for about a half a week this year. Of course, there's also one of the best ski hills in North America a short drive away - best of both worlds.
After all, it would be quite easy to do so in the U.S., or any other first world country.
The DCMA does not directly prevent criticism, but it makes the shrink-wrapped licenses that gag you enforceable. So it's a difference of no significance.
As for your First Amendment argument - your Constitutional protections apply <b>only</b> when dealing with the government. Pre-civil war, only when dealing with the Federal government, although it's now interpreted as applying to state and local governments and even organizations that either operate as a government (e.g., your HOA) or a business acting on behalf of a government (e.g., a private jail holding state prisonsers).
It's completely legal for a company to require you to submit anything that refers to their product's functionality prior to publication. It even has a legitimate purpose - to make sure you don't slam the product because of an easily fixed misconfiguration, etc., - although most of us still hate these clauses because of the potential for abuse.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
City Of Ladue et al. v. Gilleo
But I doubt it'll help with the DMCASig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The point here isn't whether you have the right to criticize something, but how that right trumps the government's rights to censor it - even if they use "neutral" means.
In this case the government was trying to keep drivers safe (or property values up...) by forbidding signs. But the Canadian courts said the guy's right to criticize, and the right of others to have access to it, trumped those laws. This might not extend too much into computer issues, but for a lot of folks out there who don't get all their news on-line it makes a big difference.
In the US, political speech is the most protected kind of speech (obscenity/porn being least protected). BUTT, there are still many places that forbid you from posting flyers up on telephone poles, postering, etc.
Those laws make it hard for shallow-pocketed grassroots groups to get the word out. If the only legal way to put out your perspective is on a billboard, how many perspectives will we get?
We can make fun of Canada all we want, and I'll be the first to, but this ruling, in its own little way, is a victory for the little guy.
Teaching, coding, coffee, revolution.
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
What about .CA? :)
If someone in canada registers www.slashdotsucks.ca that would be under Canadian law correct?
The city attempted to use a bylaw regulating commercial signs to stifle this expression of speech, and it was struck down, because, among other things, it wasn't commercial. Now, in Quebec, there are provincial laws that require commercial speech (advertising, bills, etc.) to be in French, with narrow exceptions (English signage must be half as large and half as prominent, and yes, tax dollars do go to pay people to go around with rulers measuring the height of English words). Perhaps this ruling means that people can now express their opinions in English too.
You could've hired me.
Two years ago, I would never have even imagined that businesses would be able to silence critics like they are today......remember the stories on television depicting the guy with the "lemon" car and the sign on it out in front of the dealership where he bought it? How about a good old fashoned picket line? And don't forget the ever popular "face-to-face" method of spreading complaints against a company! The way things are going now, Procter and Gamble will be able to read everyone's e-mail and sue those who disstribute the myth about the moon and stars in their logo.....Ford will be allowed to moderate/censor discussion groups online that discuss "weak points" in any Ford's design. Cisco will simply make routers that also scan for their name and destroy those packets. All in the protection of the glorious "Intellectual Property."
All businesses now seem to think that the DMCA, copyright and other "PRO-BUSINESS" laws give them the legal sanction to silence all dissent, squash any consumer that even uses the name "Ford" in their complaint. Are they implying that I may only use the word "Ford" in public, out loud, if I'm saying something positive about the company. Are they also implying that I would somehow be breaking copyright law by using the word "Ford" and attaching a complaint to the end of the sentence? I'm totally fed up with their "Intellectual Property" and the whatnot.....and it's only getting worse. I just read where Disney is back in Washington with their old buddy Sen. Hollings, moving forward on built-in copyright protection again. I'm absolutely discusted!
I will respect their "IP" when they respect mine! That means no trading of my "consumer profile" without my expressed written consent (click through agreements don't count!). That means NO SPAM OR TELEMARKETERS....and no trading of my telephone number (since that's a semi-encrypted means of identifying and potentially locating me). That also means no tracking my habits without clearly publishing that fact BEFORE installation of the offending program....Microsoft, are you listening? WMA tracking?....tell people FIRST! Get it?
It seems like business has made a major assault in the last month too, I've just seen so many instances of the DMCA being used recently. For instance Nintendo yesterday, Microsoft with the X-box and Sony with the Aibo. Not a day goes by that somebody isn't getting sued by the entertainment industry, perhaps that's why the Supreme Court as expressed interest in the Sonny Bono copyright extension act.
I'm starting a 3 month entertainment "fast"....nothing but Slashdot, free TV and NPR......no purchases of music or movies or video games of any kind.....I encourage all readers to also boycott the entertainment industry as well, burn as much as you want, but don't by a single thing.....perhaps a 3 month dip in sales will get their attention.
Don't just stand there and take it....fight back!
Perhaps you're thinking of the UCITA? I don't think the DMCA has anything to do with the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses.
Victoria BC is quite nice, with winter temperatures rarely dropping below freezing. It's a common US misconception that all of Canada is a frigid wasteland.
Oh,yeah. To avoid the DCMA I'm going to move to a country with rules like those about "Canadian Content," which govern what I can see and hear.
They have to make sure to provide a french translation of their dissatisfaction.
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.
I'm surprised, considering this took place in Quebec, that the article made no mention of his much more heinous crime of posting a sign in English.
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
The health system is bankrupt
You've been listening to the money-backed propaganda of HMOs who have a ton to lose if their way of doing business changes. I've lived in the US for 3 years, and I lived in Canada before that. The quality of my health care has not changed, other than it's a much bigger PAIN IN THE ASS to get the care down here, and I'm paying more out-of-pocket health expenses. And don't get me started on the assholes at my wife's HMO...
100-110 degree days? No thanks. At least you can dress for the winter. And I also don't enjoy perspiring just from being outside all summer long.
I'll take a few cold months for the nice, tolerable summers, thanks.
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.
I think it's just you BioWare folk. When I see a troop of you congregating at the local Taco Time, and I'm trying to listen in (hopefully to catch some insider info on new games coming out!), I can't understand a damn thing you say! I can definately say it's easy to pick you guys out of a crowd. It might just be all the long-haired geekspeak, but I don't think so...
E
Old Strathcona... Canada's new Silicon Valley
I was in Canada at the time the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was (finally) passed. The Notwithstanding Clause was a terrible disappointment to every non-politician I knew.
It was a compromise in the truest definition of the word. In other words, it compromised the rest of the document, rendering it mutable at the whim of any governmental body that wanted to pass a law that violated the provisions therein.
For those that don't know, the Canadian Federal Government, the Provincial, Territorial and the Municipal Governments can all make laws in contravention to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All they need to do is start the law with the wording, "Notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..." and they can trample any provision within. The only requirement is that the law in question be reviewed and approved once every five years by the legislature that passed it.
Right after it was passed, the provision was used by the Quebec Provincial Government. I believe it was bill 106 that prohibited businesses in Quebec from using English on their signs on the outside of their buildings, or that faced outward such as a sign in the window.
That's right... Quebec outlawed one of the two official languages of Canada, notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of course. And there wasn't a damned thing anyone could do in the judicial challenge and review process, because the Notwithstanding Clause was built right into the Charter itself and had constitutional authority.
I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that whole debacle, even years later.
"Like living in the armpit of Canada"
Sorry my friend, you are mistaken. Armpits are generally warm places... It can't be Edmonton.
Bork?
Sorry, that's what some of the neighbors wanted. Obviously I meant to write "yards."
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
As a Canadian lawyer, I thought I would disabuse a few posters here who do not understand what this decision was about.
This was a decision in respect of the constitutionality of a bylaw under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - as such - it was wholly concerned with the attempt of a governmental entity (a muncipality) attempting to regulate non-commercial speech.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the right of a citizen to criticize a company, their software, or otherwise, vis-a-vis that citizen and the company.
This was NOT a dispute between the insurance company and the citizen. That is an important distinction.
To clarify - the Candian Charter applies only to the relationship of an individual with the state or its agencies. It has no application - ZERO - as between an individual and another individual. No exceptions. Nada.
The SCC has time and time again struck down legislation that has attempted to regulate private speech that is not otherwise criminal in nature (advocates hate, criminal libel)or commercial in purpose. It has done so enthusiastically in the past, for example, by preventing municipalities from passing bylaws (without any rational restraint) against the posting of handbills on public property.
It has done so in this case by holding that a billboard erected by a customer with an axe to grind is not an "advertisment". Advertisements, as commercial speech, are not entitled to the same degree of deference and protection under the Charter as "political" or socially motivated speech. There is a significant difference between the two under Canadian law.
End result: You can't pass an oppressive bylaw which restricts a citizen from engaging in socially useful speech with other ctizens.
That's it - that's all. To attempt to extract a comment made by the court with respect to the potential social utility of a complaint about a company is to elevate obiter dicta and turn it into a "ruling". That isn't what they said and to suggest otherwise is to wholly miconstrue the meaning and effect of the judgment.
All you can determine from the judgment is a reaffirmation that an individual's complaint about a company is not "commercial speech" within Canada, and its nature does not change whether it is posted on the Net, on a handbill or on a billboard.
Regards,
.Robert
He recognizes that it is there, and he originally pointed out to me that it sounds like "aboat".
So that reinforces the "further east you go" thing.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Not true at all. Canadians *have* to keep their basic math skills up, it's in our best interests to.
In order to claim any prize from a lottery, or free giveaway (such as the scratch and win stuff at McDonalds), by law a Canadian must answer a "skill testing question", usually mathematical in nature.
The reasoning behind this is quite old and goes along the lines of "all lotteries and gambling are bad - but if the player answers a skill testing question, they 'earned' the prize".
I kid you not. You will see this on the back of pretty much every lottery ticket, McDonalds give-away, and Tim Horton's coffee cups during the Roll-up-the-rim-to-win contests.
Usually the questions are along the lines of "What is the square root of (10^2 / 2) + 206" - pretty simple, but no calculators are allowed...
So yes, most of us do tend to keep up on the basics... after all, a free cup of Tim Hortons coffee may lie in the balance.
Nah, there's no real beer in Texas.
This isn't exactly about Canada and the DMCA, but is slightly related, having to do with corporate repression and Canada. When exactly is the government of Québec going to sue most of Hollywood for making it illegal for them to play French movies (region 2) in Québec (region 1)? This has got to really piss off the Canadians who speak French; I know it would me (Hmm, it might still, I might take up French again and start buying DVD movies..)
If the WTO allows corporations to sue governements (I think I remember some reference to an environmental suit brought against the Mexican gov't), then shouldn't the reverse be true? (Of course, that's assuming the world is just and fair, which it most decidedly is not)
Come to think of it, could the EU (which is already investigating US media companies for price-fixing, anti-trust, and maybe other things), and the Australians (who seem to be concerned with DVD pricing and other things) AND Québec all band together to lauch a multinational assault on the media companies? (That would be fun to watch: real nation-states duking it out against corporate nation-states.)
So did this all come about after he got fined for not putting the French text of the sign higher than the English, complete with a bigger font?
(And while I'm intending this post as a joke, there really is a law up there stating that you have to do this)
"Aboot" is also heard in some parts of B.C. It probably descends from 18th century pronunciations which at the time were perfectly ordinary.
:)
Much as the stereotypical U.S. "Southern accent" is descended from Shakespearean English.
And I have Canadian friends (in the Toronto area) who say "Eh?" about every 3rd word, and taught me to preserve the lives of the baby U's which American English murders most dishonourably.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Which then results in people going around with rulers measuring the height of English words. These people are paid out of tax dollars.
I never said that l'Office (as they are less than affectionately called) employs people to go looking for such illegal signs. But, having seen some of their employees' tactics first hand, it wouldn't surprise me if they did.
By "company", do you mean corporation? Or do you include sole proprieterships and partnerships? Sole proprieterships (businesses run by an individual) are caught in these laws as well, though some aspects of the law are more lax when it comes to businesses with less than a certain number of employees. The commercial sign laws aren't, IIRC. Of course, even without a registered business, one can be found to be "in business", by virtue of engaging in an "adventure in trade". Signage can be considered as advertising for such an adventure.
Finally, one point right out of three. Yes, commercial signs... which is why it is important that signs that merely express an opinion have been found to not be commercial.
Obviously I didn't like it there, so I left. One less anglo to "deny" les Quebecois their version of manifest destiny by voting "non" in the next Neverendum. Of course, this also means one less taxpayer filling the public trough to the tune of some CA$25000 a year (and that's just in Quebec).
Guess they'll have to ration those rulers, n'est pas?
You could've hired me.
And to those who shout "ethnic cleansing", I'll answer "Manitoba".
(For those who are history impaired, Manitoba was the second french province of Canada, which was then militarly ran over by orangists who got rid of it's rulers and they unilateraly changed it into an english province). Canada had it's civil wars, too, earler and more often than the US.
This has NOTHING to do with the net. It has to do with putting up a physical sign, and whether a municipality (a city) can order you to take the sign down.
What this has to do with the net, or why it's on
according to one article I read one of the political paties (wanna guess?) was paying a group to report such instances of english signs. So, no, it wasn't 'tax dollars'. close enough.
Most movies I've picked up in the last year or two has had French as a language option.
I've received my formal invitation; if you want to attend, you should register first.
Specifics (locations, times, registration info) is available at the following web site:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp00838e.html
On the plus side, looks like enough people from the praries complained, because they've posted a bulletin to the effect that there will be additional meetings in either Alberta, Sask., or Manitoba..