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."
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?
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
You don't have a right NOT to be offended. People need to get over themselves and the government needs to keep its hands out of where it doesn't belong.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Around the world freedom of speech, though and expression is under attack. People must respect the opinions & expressions of others even when it's WRONG. I could care less what White Supremists think, but I'd rather know who the crazies are rather then having them bottle it up inside. Take Germany for example, still there is Nazi sympathizers even though it's illegal to deny the holocost, etc.
Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's a FACT, or it's RIGHT. More times than not, it means the opposite.
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).
Freedom of expression is intended to protect things that offend somebody, whether it be a government or other people. If it's uncontroversial, it's in no need of defense. Canadians should be asking themselves if they're OK with having their right to express themselves in offensive terms squashed whenever some pressure group or governmental entity doesn't like it.
You could say that the ISP got shafted in this one and was fined for things beyond its control, but if you actually RTFA, you will find out that one of the persons charged personally for posting hate messages is also the owner of the ISP.
I don't think this case is a precendent-setting as the original post makes out.
And this makes them immune to criticism? Canadians are always sniping at us about things like our "lax" gun laws and non-governmental health care, so we get to do the same. Or would that be more "hate speech" as far as Canadians are concerned?
I think that the ruling sends a very strong message that in Canada freedom of speech is not nearly as important as making sure that no one's feelings get hurt.
Why is protecting the rights of idiot white surpremacists important? Because they are the canary in the coal mine. When the rights of the unpopular are abridged, everyone's rights are in danger.
Univeral freedom of speech helps ensure the health of society. When unpleasant ideas and beliefs are expressed, it acts as a sort of innoculation against them. When these ideas are oppressed and only shared in secret, they tend to grow like a cancer beneath the surface of society, unknown and unchecked.
When universal freedom of speech is attacked and undermined, it sets the stage for further abuses. Just look at China. Is that what the people of Canada want for their children and grandchildren? Which is worse, living in a totalitarian regime, or living in a free society where you are sometimes subjected to ideas you do not agree with and find offensive?
The only effective means of thought control is information control, but don't take my word for it. Here's a quote from someone whose mastery of propaganda and its uses is unquestioned:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Abridging the rights of the unpopular is the first dangerous step towards the kind of world Goebbels lived in. Not only that but it serves no useful purpose even in the short run. Making neo-nazi's be quiet doesn't make them go away. All it does is ensure that their activities and efforts at recruitment are that much more difficult to detect.
You would think that people would know better, but then 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I suggest you all read this. (hint: bookmarking the CCC makes having legal discussions a bit more sensible :-) )
Hate speech in Canada is only when it incites people to commit violence against the said group being hated.
It's legal in canada to say "I hate all $GROUP" as long as you don't say "kill $GROUP".
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Racism is wrong, and it would be very bad for the government to support it in any way, but this is an inhibition of free speech. Now, stopping someone from expressing racist thoughts may not be all that bad in and of itself, but neither is unwarranted wiretaps of terrorists. If the government can prevent "hate" speech, it can prevent anything being said that is contrary to its values.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
of hateful ideas.
The Nazis themselves were censored in 1925-1927, and yet during this time, their membership doubled. Clearly this censorship does nothing except remove "dangerous ideas" from the public forum and into private conversations where the public is denied a right of rebuttal.
As I understand it, holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK, nor is chanting outside the Danish Embassy "Denmark, USA, 7/7 on it's way" (though there is a movement in the UK to criminalize the latter if Blair gets his way). Yet it is in Canada? Why? What rational purpose can this serve? And how can one create a situation out of a law like that which can afford equal protection to all as required by the Constitutional Act?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
From the Soviet Constitution of 1936:
Article 12. Supreme power in the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic is exercised by the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, and in the intervals between Congresses by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee.
Article 13. In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
Article 14. In order to ensure genuine freedom of expression for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic abolishes the dependence of the press on capital, and places at the disposal of the working class and the poor peasantry all the technical and material requisites for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books and all other printed matter, and guarantees their unhindered circulation throughout the country.
Article 15. In order to ensure genuine freedom of assembly for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, recognizing the right of citizens of the Soviet Republic freely to hold assemblies, meetings, processions, etc., places at the disposal of the working class and the poor peasantry all buildings suitable for the holding of public gatherings, complete with furnishing, lighting and heating.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
l eases/1998/nrcc8031.html
u sc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html.
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_Re
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/
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.)
Wait... are you telling me that you can vow to "fucking kill" an entity without legal repercussions?
I suppose if you later try to "fucking kill" an entity, it might be evidence of forethought and premeditation...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Whoa -- can everyone slow down for a second and take a look at the facts?
From http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971 358637177&c=Article&cid=1142031016503:
In essence, the /. summary is not telling the whole story. This isn't a case of some corporate ISP where some customer happened to be running a hate site getting fined. In this case the ISP owner was providing the content, and not just hosting it.
Additionally, it wasn;t the ISP that was fined -- it was the people who created the illegal content, one of whom happens to own the web service provider in question.
You can't just start an ISP in order to avoid hate speech laws. The /. summary is highly misleading in this case, so please get off your high-horses and take a look at the facts before starting yet another rant, okay?
Yaz.
Look, I understand where your concerns are coming from, but in this case you're going off the deep end, because the fact of the matter is, the /. summary is wrong.
See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971 358637177&c=Article&cid=1142031016503. In this case, the person who owns the web hosting service was generating the hate content. In addition, it wasn't the web hosting service which was fined -- it was the owner who was generating and posting the hate content onto his own service.
In other words, you're safe to run an online forum in Canada. If some ass-hat posts something in an attempt to incite hatred towards a group, you're not liable. If, however, you post that hate incitement, you are liable, regardless of the fact that you happen to own the web hosting service you're using.
Clearer? Good.
Yaz.
After the incident was publicized, the Ontario Ministry of Education was investigated and two teachers were suspended.
That is a very misleading statement. Very much indicative of your entire posts's dittohead spin. There was one teacher suspended and the teacher was suspended before the investigation in other words, the school's administration was doing its job - not promoting "islamic hate" as you claim.
Here's the press blurb the government issued that summarized the investigation.
It took me less time to debunk your post with google than it took you to write it in the first place. Next time, could you at least try to do a little background research before parroting the limbaugh "orthodoxy?"
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Here's the Canadian Criminal code. Search on "Hate Propaganda". Here's the relevant parts.
Seems pretty clear and reasonable so far. We can't advocate the extermination of any identifiable segment of our population, and we can't incite hatred against a group if, in the authorities judgement, it is likely to cause a "breach of peace". In other words, it recognizes that speech that incites violence does not deserve the same protections as speech that doesn't. Further, the law explictly states a number of defenses against this law. Use any of these and you can incite all the hatred you want.
This, to you, warrants a warning to us poor Canadians to avoid a future where our grandchildren are as free as they would be in Red China?
It's particularly rich coming from an American. Right now you guys are far closer to totalitarianism than Canada will ever be in a hundred thousand lifetimes. You've got the Homeland Gestapo interrogating people due to their choice of T-shirts or library books. You've got a president and attourney general who equate questions and dissent with giving "aid and comfort" to terorrists. You have a labour system where, for voicing your true opinion to your boss, you can lose your children's health coverage.
I think you've got much greater problems to take care of at home before you concern yourself much with us poor Canadians. Don't worry about us, we're living a lot more freely than you.
Just because it contains the words "I hate" doesn't mean it conforms to the legal defininition of "hate speech".
Indeed, the entire section of the Criminal Code pertaining to these limits is called "Hate Propaganda". Let's take a look at what the act defines "hate propaganda" as:
As you're not attempting to incite genocide against an identifiable group, your statement doesn't rise to the status of "hate propaganda".
That's a nice straw man you've built up there. Mind if I borrow him for my garden?
There is no logic to your position at all, because you've based your argument on a fallacy: your statement doesn't rise to the legal requirements for hate propaganda as set out in the act (not for the least of which because you didn't direct it at an identifiable group, where (quote) "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.).
I've linked to the revelant section in the Criminal Code of Canada several times in this article. The section on Hate Propaganda isn't long -- take five or ten minutes to read it over before you go off half-cocked about "freedom" and "the government".
Yaz.
This is indeed a different discussion. I was merely objecting to the inflamatory and misleading Slashdot summary. The impression which Slashdot "editors" wanted to create was that it was some "random, innocent bystander ISP" which was being held accountable for something on one of the million of its websites, i.e. "Panic now! Anthing anyone posts on your hosting servers will get you in Jail! Run! Scream!". In fact, it is the people responsible for the site (who happened to be the owners of the ISP) who are being held accountable.
So, would you feel comfortable with someone going around saying something like this
Nope.
So, would you want such a nutcase to enter your country? Would you want them living down the steet from you?
Nope, and nope.
Free speech isn't a license to promote hatred
Well, see, the thing is, you're just plain wrong here.
Free speech is the license to promote any damn thing you want to, no matter how repugnant someone else finds it.
Anyone who uses this right to promote hatred is a repulsive person who deserves to be ostracized from polite society, to be sure.
But to prevent someone from expressing a point of view -- no matter how disgusting -- is to bring thoughtcrime into the legal canon.