Slashdot Mirror


ISP Fined $5000 For Hate Content

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."

3 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Banning of investigation or discussion of a historical event only makes me assume there must be something to hide. Especially if it's the only historical event censored in this way. Who wouldn't doubt the official story of 9/11 if discussion of it was banned tomorrow, to "prevent hate speech against victims and families of the victims"?

  2. Re:Wait a sec... by aminorex · · Score: 1, Troll

    Right to safety? That's a new one on me. It's like saying you have a "right" to a nice car. Saying it doesn't make it so. In reality, you get a degree of safety in proportion to your good fortune and your wit in applying the effort of will to securing your safety, but it's playing with marginal factors and the results are not much: You still die.

    Right to safety, huh? I get a good chuckle out of that one.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  3. Re:Which raises an interesting question by theLOUDroom · · Score: 0, Troll

    No, it's not. "hate speech" in this country is the incitement of hatred, with a view to violence, against an identifiable group of persons. "Black people commit crimes hurrrr" is not hate speech. "Kill all the niggers" is.

    A) Somehow I doubt you are one of the judges who gets to decide what this means, so your particular interpetation doesn't matter.

    B) It's completely ridiculous to think the goverment would stick to the strictest definition. Goverments have a habit of bending the rules when it suits their purpose.

    C) The defintion you gave is incredibly vague. Saying that you support say, the war in Iraq, would easily fall under that definition. Are Canadains, as individuals not allowed to decide which wars they like and do not? We're not even talking about actually doing something here, just speech!

    --
    Life is too short to proofread.