Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISP Fined $5000 For Hate Content

Posted by Zonk on from the slippery-slope dept.

eRondeau writes "In a precedent-setting ruling, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has fined a hosting company for carrying 'objectionable content'. The material in question was White Supremacist postings. From the article: 'The ruling sends a very strong message that Internet servers, if they are aware there is hate content and don't take timely action to remove it, can be held liable,' said the Ottawa lawyer who filed the complaint in February 2002. The individual posters were fined thousands as well."

20 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a sec... by sedyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Canadian, I'm pissed that this has happened. Why? Because let's take this to its logical conclusion, if a patron of a restruant, a university student, or even someone on a bus, says something out of line and the owner of a "public" place does not object, then they might be penalized for it.

    What does this lead to? Censorship by citizens, censorship by the government is bad enough, but this could lead to a disaster.

    Frankly, the ISP shouldn't have to do anything unless ordered to. And, if in doubt, they should have contacted the authorities (I don't know if they did or not).

    Now I don't feel like hosting any form of forum in Canada, becuase I don't want to be held responsible for what some random fuckwad says.

    FTA:
      "The ruling shows Canadians have no tolerance for hate," Maillet said.

    I have little tolerance for censhorship as well. I pray that they challenge this ruling with the Supreme Court (assuming it hasn't already happened, which I doubt). Because I doubt this "Human Rights Tribunal" is thinking about the consequences of this ruling in a greater context.

    --
    Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
    1. Re:Wait a sec... by incom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Little surprise upon reading the article that the complainant was Richard Warman, this guy has a colorful history. He is well connected and has an axe to grind.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    2. Re:Wait a sec... by Thangodin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It might be argued that the offence wasn't simple hate speech, but a call for violent attacks. I'm not sure that this wouldn't violate American laws as well, particularly the new anti-terrorist laws.

      Personally, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of prosecuting anyone for voicing an opinion. Most of the time, as with David Irving, it just gives them a bigger soapbox to stand on. But consider how most terrorist organizations work. They convince young disenfranchised men that they are victimized by the target group, suggest a violent course of action, fill in some of the technical details, and then just leave them to carry it out. The ring leaders walk away, hiding behind the claim of freedom of speech, leaving their recruits to do the dirty work. Most of the recruits will screw it up or just sit stewing, but a few will actually go ahead and pull it off. This is the deliberate intent. This is precisely how Charlie Manson got the Family to do the LaBianca murders (he went along later for the Tate murders.) But the intent is still mass murder. The difference is that the ring leader commits murder by proxy. Unlike Manson, most never touch the knives or guns or bombs, and can deny direct involvement with the crime. His bullets are the young men he turns to his cause and releases into society. And yet, he does this with the specific intent of committing murder.

      This method is the basis for the movie American History X, where a neo-nazi ring leader whips young skinheads into a frenzy and then hangs back while they wreak havoc. An instigator who calls for violence through remote media is hoping to find just one Timothy McVeigh. The agitators of Political Islam have got this down to a science. Once they get the potential terrorist primed, they pass him off to people with more direct involvement, usually by by suggesting that he go to the Middle East for training. Suicide bombs are easy to make--the hard part is convincing someone to strap one on and use it. Almost anyone or anything can be destroyed if the attacker is willing to sacrifice his own life to do it. The most important component of the bomb is the bomber himself--and that component is built with ideas.

      The kind of people who run these sites are trying to build this type of bomb. Their propoganda is the murder weapon. It's not a very accurate one, but it does have the advantage that you can avoid prison. There is a difference between voicing your opinion, and instigating violence. If a mob boss tells his underlings that someone should be killed, is he just voicing his opinion?

    3. Re:Wait a sec... by penpen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do find it interesting that everytime I've seen Irvings speak he hasn't denied that the holocaust existed. The basic gist I got from his speeches was, that after the fact it's been publised as a Jewish persecusion. In fact they made up around 50% of the victims. Gypses and Homosexuals were also killed, in concentration camps, making up a massive portion of those killed. Interestingly though, the reporters had the same questions as you, asking him why he said the holocaust didn't exist, he said he didn't deny it existed. Funny, the reporters just continued on with the same questions ignoring the fact that he accepted that the holocaust existed.

      I think the Irving is right in the respect that it wasn't just a case of anti-semitism, those that were targeted came from a larger spectrum than that, and that makes it all that much more horrible.

      I find it interesting that a person can be placed in jail for questioning history. I think history like other scientific endevours should be questioned and evidence should be asked of it. Somebody should be allowed to have an opinion and attempt to back it up with evidence. If people believe it, well... who knows. Hell some people believe in Intelligent Design. ;-)

  2. Which raises an interesting question by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How robust is the freedom of expression in Canada? I know that such a right in Europe is more of a matter of legislative tradition than constitutional law.*

    *For example, constitutional law in the UK is based on the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the Parliamentary acts, none of which guarantee freedom of speech to the citizens

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  3. Flamebait by kermitthefrog917 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So does this mean that some of the flamebait that appears on slashdot can have legal consequences?

    Slashdot has a policy of not filtering its comments, they leave it up to the moderators to sort it out. But even though most off-color/hate comments are modded down, they still appear if you browse at -1. Any thoughts?

    --
    I may be wrong but you're downright ugly!
    1. Re:Flamebait by darqchild · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is not draconian. There are plenty of reasonable limits that are, and should be placed on "free" speech. "Uttering a death threat" is illegal in Canada. I'm sure there are similar laws in effect in the USA. Hate speech laws are in the same vein, and serve the same purpose.

      If someone were to post a specific death threat toward an individual on their website, or post material intended to incite violence toward that individual, that would be a crime and I doubt that many people would make such a fuss.

      How is it then that we are so opposed to laws that bar similar material which is aimed at an entire ethnic group, religion, sexual orientation, etc?

      --
      What? Me? Worry?
  4. whos the boss? by zxnos · · Score: 4, Interesting
    honesty, who gets to define 'hate speech'? and do we really want to define such a thing? what happens when the definition broadens? and it will...

    a few years back colorado made not wearing your seatbelt a secondary offense, you couldnt get pulled over for it. they recently passed a law to allow officers to pull a person over for not wearing a seatbelt. i know slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but it happens...

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  5. Common carrier by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ISPs in the US should still be protected by common carrier status. What this does is simply drive business from Canadian ISPs to US ( and elsewhere ) ISPs.

    1. Re:Common carrier by yuna49 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      US ISP's are not treated as common carriers nor do they want to be. It's true that some legislation exempts US ISPs from responsibility for the content on their servers, but those are specific exemptions granted in particular cases.

      If ISPs were common carriers, the current controversy over a "tiered" Internet structure would be moot. Common carriers, by definition, cannot discriminate based on the content of the information being transmitted. Giving priority to particular types of data, or data sent by particular providers (e.g., Google), would be clearly illegal in a common carrier regime.

      Congress and the FCC distinguish between "telecommunications" services, which are usually covered by common carrier regulation, and "information" services which are not. These issues were generally resolved in the late 1990's in the context of payments by common carriers to the universal service fund which helps cover the cost of delivering telecom services to rural and other underserved areas. ISPs didn't want to make these payments (even if they were providing VOIP) and were successful in getting Congress to treat them as "information services." http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Rel eases/1998/nrcc8031.html

      Perhaps you were thinking about the section of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act that exempted ISPs if the material they hosted infringed copyrights
      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html.
      There's nothing in this provision that applies common carrier regulation to ISPs.

      My understanding of the current state of ISP regulation is that, as private entities, they can refuse to host anything they dislike. However, unlike Canada, if the Federal government were to require the removal of content it found distasteful, the government would lose on First Amendment grounds. (I don't know whether this applies to state governments, though I'd guess that it does.)

  6. timely? by m4c+north · · Score: 2, Interesting
    'The ruling sends a very strong message that Internet servers, if they are aware there is hate content and don't take timely action to remove it, can be held liable,' said the Ottawa lawyer who filed the complaint in February 2002. [emphasis mine]

    Four years is timely? Maybe for a rock with a lichen problem....

    --
    Who's your user, program?
  7. My love for Canada just dropped massively by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow, I never knew Canada was so totalitarian when it came to freedom of speech. Guess if you don't tow the liberal line your wallet suffers the consequences, even though there is no reasonable expectation that your actions will cause physical harm to anyone (and if there was such a reasonable expectation, then the laws need to be a lot stronger then a mere fine).

  8. Official Website by Sean0michael · · Score: 3, Interesting
    here is the home page of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (in English. Also available in French). It looks like they deal exclusively with discrimination cases as defined under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

    I can understand discrimination, but is free speech discrimination? Does having a website calling for hate and attacks against Jews, Blacks, and Muslims, count as discrimination? I'm not sure it does. I'm all for Human Rights. But I'm not for censorship--especially when the government might find ME to be the one discriminating.

    --
    Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
  9. FreeSpeech rules? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are canadians guaranteed that right like we are ( sort of ) down here in the USA? if not, while it sux bad, it would be well within the legal right to penalize the ISP.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. And he striketh down the free thinkers.... by uncanny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, does "hate speech" include when some evangelical preacher decides to start bashing homosexuals and Muslims and calls for their destruction?

    With so called Christians making claims like "Gays 'Responsible' For New Orleans Devastation Group Claims", and calling out for assassinations of leaders, why not label this as hate propaganda.

    Supremecy is supremecy whether it is based off of race or religion. Better get to work Canada, you've got a lot of supression to do. Begrüßen Sie Kanada

  11. Re:From the Charter by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The United States, on the whole, is doing pretty good when it comes to basic freedoms, but we're not the best. For example, in various rankings of freedom of the press the United States doesn't manage to rank in the top 10 (1)(2).

    (1) http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554
    (2) http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=204& year=2005

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  12. Canada now a part of Europe by drwho · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Typical European-style censorship. Every time I read about something like this, or of David Irving being jailed in Austria, I find myself happy I live in the US where I can say rude things about people if I want to.

    But the US doesn't have freedom of expression, either. It's illegal for people to wear KKK garb in Virginia, and I think that's wrong. There's also the problem of the prudish attitude towards sexuality in the US.

  13. Re:Only applies to hate by non-islamists by LionKimbro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wha-?

    I always thought it was the conservatives who hate Free Speech.

    It's the conservatives who want women to cover up, who can't stand for a stray boob on TV, who want to force people to pledge allegience to the flag.

    It's conservatives who get in a tissy, whenever somebody burns a flag.

    Or did you turn a blind eye to your own side's weakness?

    There's people for and against Free Speech, on both sides!

    Go convert your own people to the ideals of a Liberal Democracy.

  14. Re:"liberal line"? by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    since when is government suppression of free speech a liberal goal?

    Pretty much since the inception of the progressive party, the american beginning of what we commonly refer to as 'liberal' policy. A central idea of your average 'liberal' party is that the government is responsible for eliminating any kind of social conflict, a doctrine which pretty much directly supports getting the government to shut people up that try to 'make trouble'. The fact that the liberal factions in various governments over the last century and a half haven't been stupid enough to word it the way you have doesn't mean it isn't true.

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  15. Wow, somebody (named danhirsch) hasn't been paying by Naruki · · Score: 1, Interesting

    attention lately. No, you cannot post anything you like in America.

    Go ahead and post pictures of naked adult people having sex and don't keep personal records on the people in the pictures. See how well that goes over.

    People throwing hate speech newspapers into your yard without your permission violates laws on different levels. Harrassment, littering, etc. Just because you and/or the police haven't done anything about it doesn't mean it's legal.

    Sure, they can print it. But they don't have the right to force it onto private property. Nor to litter.

    Dan, please think about this kind of crap a little bit more. Tolerance of difference is a great thing, but tolerance of violence is a bad thing. You are doing a bad thing.