Liberal Party of Canada Sues Satire Website

Geekboy writes "Arguing proprietary interests, the Liberal Party of Canada has set out to force the closing (article mirrored in case the site closes) of a satire web site that takes aim at the new unelected Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin. The site in question is paulmartintime.ca, which is a satire of paulmartintimes.ca, but this opens a whole can of worms in regards to copyright and fair use of web content, and it involves the controlling party of Canada. Clearly there are mixed messages when one site mimics another, but where does one draw the line when it involves political satire and accountability?"

Comments

Re:unelected?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can check the regional news sources. I would start at news.google.ca and the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) news websites. You can also watch some CBC news broadcasts on News World International. This is available on some digital cable and satellite systems (DirecTV 366).

I always go to the regional news sources when i'm interested in what is going on. While AP/Reuters wire copy that appears at various sites are interesting, and RSS is making syndication of articles much more common, It's always important to "go to the source" as much as possible.

I suspect this whole "unelected" thing is likely political spin created by the parody website. It sounds like he was elected at something similar to a caucus in November (gleaned from skimming this). While this may not represent the "Direct" democracy that exists in the US, that's not the system that is in use in Canada. Not everywhere is using a Presidental system similar to the US, it sounds like Afghanistan is going to end up with a Parliamentary System. Nothing wrong with the other systems as much as they are not liked by the Americans.

Is it Just a Coincidence ?

[leoaugust]

force the closing of a satire web site that takes aim at the new unelected Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin.

Reminds me of another recent happening. Coincidence ? Consider the following ...

New Prime Minister - Paul Martin - Is Steering Canada Cautiously to the Right

The trend in Ottawa is already more businesslike and conservative - friendlier to the United States and to the Canadian military. Now as Paul Martin assembles his government and prepares for national elections early next year, Mr. Martin is carefully leaning to the right.

• He appointed David Pratt, a member of Parliament who urged the previous government to join the invasion of Iraq, as defense minister. (Canada did not join the invasion) Mr. Pratt is expected to be an articulate advocate for increasing the military budget.
• He has created a public safety super-ministry to coordinate security policy and planning among several ministries and to consult more closely with the United States Department of Homeland Security.
• "Our No. 1 priority is health care," Mr. Martin said this week. (Medicare anyone?)

Angry Copps accuses Martin of shift to right

Copps agreed with a recent New York Times editorial that said Canada's new leader had adopted a more conservative position

"The great thing about being a Liberal used to be that you'd have wonderful arguments and then you'd come together as a team and everybody would pull together," said Copps. "If you had a different point of view, you were not persona non grata." But that tone has changed quickly under Martin's stewardship, she said. "At this point it doesn't seem that there is a lot of room on his team for voices of dissent."

Re:Is it Just a Coincidence ?

[TC (WC)]

It's neat how you started calling him indirectly elected to add a sense of legitimacy that you could then deny to Paul Martin. The best part was:

So he is really "unelected."

Of course, since, no matter how you word it, nobody is ever elected by the general population as Prime Minister, he is exactly as elected as every other Prime Minister in the past.

I don't particularly like the Liberal Party, especially as a western Canadian, but playing with words to try to take legitimacy out of Paul Martin's appointment to Prime Minister is idiotic. He was appointed in exactly the same way as all the other Prime Ministers, and has the same mandate as was given to the party in the last election.

I also find it idiotic that this example could be taken as muffling of this website owner's voice. Have you even read the article? The actual letter that was sent to him complains about the fact that the domain is obviously meant to draw visitors from mistyping, and the fact that the graphics and layout were stolen from their website. These things aren't being used in any way that seems protected to me, and can quite easily be viewed as attempting to mislead the reader. Either the website owner was too lazy to make his own goddamned layout, or he stole it to mislead people. Either way, he's in the wrong. He sure as hell isn't making any sort of political point using the site layout and graphics. He's placed opposing views inside the layout, but that isn't the same thing at all. He's free to say whatever the hell he wants. He isn't free to mislead his readers, or steal graphics and page layouts unless he's using it in some sort of satirical way.

Going to the articles you cited, one of them claimed that the government would be more right wing because Martin is more authoritative, and then didn't actually provide any policy as examples of the shift to the right. The other article claimed there is a shift to the right, and then gave cited the fact that Martin is paying attention to the military, which is also mentioned to be in accordance with public opinion, and the fact that he's frozen spending on some projects and put the savings into health care. Yep, increased health care spending sure is a sign that the government's heading to the right. It then goes on to talk about how he's supporting the legalization of marijuana.

Re:unelected?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect this whole "unelected" thing is likely political spin created by the parody website.

It's spin, but the parody site didn't create it. People in Canada vote for a political party. They voted for the Liberal party, and Cretien was their leader at the time. When he resigned, the public did not get another vote - the Liberal party voted for Martin as their new leader.

That's how it's supposed to work, but not all Canadians like it or even know about it, which is why some people are calling him "unelected".

Re:unelected?

[Drakin]

Nope. He's elected by the liberal party, as thier leader (which, in a way is where the whole "unelected" bit comes into play, he supposidly used unfair practices to gain control of the party and influence the vote see Here on the PaulMartinTime.ca website for thier version of it)

He's the elected leader of the party.

Rundown on Canada's government process, for those interested

(Some of my details may be wrong, been a while since I looked in depth to it)

Re:Before the Reactionism begins...

[ender's_shadow]

I am not a Canadian lawyer.

In America, the controlling case law does not require disclaimers or other indicia that tell the viewer that the parody/satire is not endorsed. Free speech concerns trump Lanham Act concerns, unless there's something like bad faith involved. See Rogers, Cardtoons.

Re:Uhhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. That artwork is usable in a parody or for satire. A copyright does not protect one from satire.

Of course, it doesn't matter now; the site will be mirrored all over the world, so morality again trumps law.

~~~

Re:unelected?

[Morrisguy]

People in Canada vote for a political party.

Not exactly. What Canadian people vote for in general elections are their riding's Member of Parliament to place in the House of Commons.

Now each MP candidate belongs to a political party (or run as an independent). Once all the MPs are elected, the party with the most seats in the house becomes the government, and it's leader becomes the Prime Minister.