Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Domain Registry Pulls Plug on Free Speech
An anonymous reader writes "The staff of a Canadian political candidate bragged today that he had managed to shut down a website critical of his involvement in a fundraising scandal, by having the country's registrar of domains pull the DNS records for the site. Criticism from bloggers and free speech advocates has been negative, and is coming from across the political spectrum."
how he was able to accomplish this.
However, the article does imply that noone is willing to admit to setting up the site.
Maybe the site's operator didn't provide accurate information when registering it. If that is the grounds for deregistering it, then it's not quite the free speech issue it's made out to be.
Right to their own view? How about being true? George "nuculer" Bush and all his Bushisms seem to establish his "moronity".
BTW, lets not forget that the guy he called a moron had just recently called three entire countries "evil".
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
> Globe and Mail likes to act like things are newsworthy, when they are not
.ca domain make them pretty worthless. If your registrar has to approve of whatever you put on your website and will take it down if they do not (even if it violates no actual *law*), well, why the hell would you host anything on a .ca, even if you are in Canada? There are plenty of .coms left, once you realize that you're not restricted to words you can find in the dictionary...
Good point, he should be glad that all those sites come back up, so that even more children, and not merely those of one of his largest corporate supporters, can enable all of their kids to donate the maximum of $5,400 allowed under Canadian law...
Just think how much he can raise with all the mirror sites going up now!
In the mean time, it has come to my attention that the CRIA's requirements for having a
I'm not a lawyer, but I have taken several business-law classes... forgive me if I'm wrong, but in order to be considered "defamation", doesn't the defaming information have to be untrue? Ah, wikipedia, you are my true love: "the tort or delict of publishing (to a third party) a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibelWell, it seems like they had credible evidence, i.e. it wasn't based on false statements -- I don't see how the website was then in violation of anything. Well then, FUCK CANADA (not really, any country in the world is full of corrupt assholes... except Squirreltopia)!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Yea, but the GP's point still stands.
Whatever agency with authority would have a duty to investigate.
If they find a problem, they are obliged to make sure it gets resolved within the applicable rules/laws.
Notice that I'm not saying anything about the motives behind the original complaint. You (the aggrieved party) can go to court, provide evidence and have a Judge rule that the wankers who were after you really just wanted to suppress your free speech. BUT, that still doesn't change the fact that the DNS records were pulled for a valid reason.
It's a real bitch when people abuse the existing rules to do nasty things. If no existing law/rule can deal with the situation, the only solution is to change the 'broken' law/rule(s), or add new ones.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Google already cached it:w w.youthforvolpe.ca/+&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&clie nt=firefox-a
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:MW-vckW5UbEJ:w
No images, but you get the text and layout at least!
Bored?