Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Wayne Crookes Sues the Net
newtley writes "Wayne Crookes, the Green Party of Canada's ex-financier, is in effect trying to sue the Internet. He's going after the Wikipedia, Google, and openpolitics.ca (run up by federal Green Party activist Michael Pilling) claiming he's suffered, 'an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress' over postings. Some 15 others may also have been targeted. "Mr. Crookes seems to be 'trying to unwrite history,' Pilling says. 'He was a central figure in the growth of the Green Party. His actions were highly controversial and if we have freedom of speech in this country, people should be allowed to talk about them.'" Newtley adds in a posting submitted 121 minutes later: "Literally 15 minutes after I posted [the foregoing], there was a knock on my door. It was a writ server telling me I, too, have been named in a lawsuit launched by Wayne Crookes..."
The submitter of this post is in a position of conflict of interest and appears to be using SlashDot as a means to denigrate the individual behind the lawsuit. As it is clear from newtley's post, newtley himself is highly been involved in whatever shenanigans that are going on here. It is unfortunate and dishonest that newtley is using this forum as a platform to smear his opponent. Just from newtley's egregious behavior here, I can imagine that aspects of this case have more merit that he is portraying.
I had never heard of this guy before. Now I have heard of him and I think he's an idiot. He has found an amazingly effective way to destroy his own reputation.
Remember, this is Canada we are talking about, where, for a short while, it was illegal to name a cow with a human name all because a mid-level functionary, and hyper-sensitive twit shared the same name as a state owned cow.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Things like this help us remember why we have the right to free speech.
... the locking down of the Internet is already underway. Five years from now, or ten, and I think those of us "old timers" will look back fondly on the so-called Wild West days, where you could send a packet anywhere and not worry about whether a blood-sucking ISP, an unfriendly government, or even our own governments would block it.
... and that's exactly how some people want it.
:-)
Well, I'm not sure what the term free speech means in Canada, but down here in the U.S. it means that the government is not allowed to suppress Constitutionally-protected speech (which it does anyway, but that's a topic for another day.) It does not mean that we aren't allowed to suppress each other. The courts determine when and if we can do that, and if Mr. Crook wants to throw his weight around and try to "suppress" his detractors, that really doesn't come under the heading of free speech. It may be an abuse of laws, and of those being threatened. I don't know, I'm not Canadian, and like I said maybe the term means something different under Canada's legal system.
It's a fight that can't be won.
Sure it can. You understand that the Internet is evolving, but you're assuming that the Internet, as it stands today, is the only way such a network can be run. China has already shown us a different way (certainly not a better way, by Western standards) where what can be found online can be strictly controlled, if the government so chooses. Even here, in the land of the brave, home of the free
Certainly there will always technological measures that can be implemented to get around most such obstacles, but the problem is that those tools will never be in the hands of the majority of the voting public. If the Internet doesn't just conveniently "work", doesn't just let them go where they want to go, most people will never get there
I guess what I'm saying is, enjoy it while it lasts.
The only thing we need worry about is whether 4chan becomes the dominant player in the free expression market
What's a 4chan?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You're free to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't unduly cause harm to other people.
It's probably more correct to say, "you're free to say whatever you want so long as it's true", at least in the United States. If the truth causes harm, well, sometimes the truth hurts. If you don't want people to talk about the bad things you do, don't do the bad things in the first place. I mean, it has to cut both ways.
Dunno about Canada, but I'd think it would be similar.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I know I'll get a bashing with thet modbat for that, but there is a limit to free speech. It is when my speaking is slander. Saying "Crookes is a crook" just 'cause I don't like him would constitute that.
Note that I'm neither saying that he has a case for slander, nor that he doesn't. I cannot decide this. I have read TFA, and now I know one side of the story. Judging it from that would be similar to politicians making laws after hearing the lobbyists. And I tend to think of myself being above politicians in my ways of finding the "truth".
People today tend to believe whatever story they hear first. The side that gets the most limelight is right, no matter what truth actually looks like. Thus I'd be wary of declaring the freedom of speech a right that surpasses anything else, that can backfire horribly. I would not want to find out that someone with good net coverage and a blog read by a (for me) important user group starts a slander campaign against me and I couldn't do anything against it because it is protected by the freedom of speech.
He may have a case, he may try to suitbully, I don't know. And I kinda don't feel like I can make that decision based on reading only one side of the story.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A stupid woman named Deborah Pierini Cidade de Sá sued Google and won because it linked to a page that showed top searches in a month. On these top searches were her name and the name of a famous prostitute (Bruna Surfistinha).
Mrs. de Sá won in this first instance the equivalent of 10,800 times our minimum wage!
As far as a lawyer is concerned, if he's paying then that's all that matters. Saying you found a lawyer who's prepared to argue your case is like saying you found a prostitute prepared to have sex with you.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It's a fine example of the Streisand Effect in action.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
A lawyer can face sanctions for really wasting the court's time.
Certainly a lawyer is going to be known in legal circles for bringing cases that have no hope. This is going to mean less respect and less credibility.
So a lawyer has some interest in telling a client they have no hope of winning and their proposed lawsuit is stupid.
I do not agree that the person or corporation running a mesage board should be held liable for "publishing" everything that anyone writes on their board. The person who actual wrote and published the article should be held liable. Reasonable people should take anonymous posting with a grain of salt. The person running the board does not actually publish the articles unless they review all articles before they appear and only posts the ones that meet the publishers criteria. But many message boards do not review any of the posting and the users directly publish to the board. It makes no more sense to hold the person running the message board liable as it would to hold phone companies liable for crimes organized over the phone. ISP's and message boards should have common carrier status to protect them from the actions of the small minority of users that abuse these services.
If you are labled a "kiddie porn lover" you can take legal action to find out who posted the message and sue the person for libel. Of course, only idiots would believe such an outragous accusation from an anonymous internet posting. Your bad experience does not justify shutting down all anonymous postings. Anonymous posting are an important way for individuals to post information about the powerful. The value to society of anonymous information greatly outweighs its faults.
I do agree it would be reasoble to ask for libelous postings to be removed by the mesage board operators.
Anarchists never rule
"Again, I don't know the full merits of this case, because honestly, who the fuck follows the green party? If it's not PC, Liberal, NDP, or PQ it's pretty much off the radar for the majority of Cannucks." [sic]
In light of this, perhaps a good defense would be "the only thing worse than bad publicity is NO publicity."
This is one lawsuit that's doomed to fail from the get-go, if only because the plaintiff is a public/political figure due to his substantial campaign contributions, and the public has a definite interest in knowing about political party financing, and just loves a cat-fight, when former members will drag skeletons out of the closet. It won't be as good as "the night of the long knives", but then again, the Greenies aren't the PQ.
- don't get involved in politics if you have a fragile ego.