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..."
Things like this help us remember why we have the right to free speech. It's because of people trying to remove our right to speak out against them, just like is happening here.
:-)
It's sometimes difficult for young'uns to remember that the internet, in it's populer worldwide usage form at least, is still very young. A great many people, organisations and countries were caught off guard by the freedom it gave for comment, and are still trying to remove that freedom.
Their efforts are going to fail, but not because of any moral or ethical issue, simply because of evolutionary principles. The internet is evolving faster then it can be censored. If, and this I doubt, but if they manage to censor all the current expression methods on the internet, more will be created to fill the gaps, and more. It's a fight that can't be won.
The only thing we need worry about is whether 4chan becomes the dominant player in the free expression market
Strange, my original comment was moderated as flamebait. First time one of my comments has been moderated as such, must be having an off day. I still think the individual who submitted this story did so for self-interested PR reasons. The individual who submitted this story has published negative information on the individual who has now filed suit and has continued this pattern by misportraying/ridiculing the suit. This type of behavior is discoverable in court.
I reckon the individual who submitted the story did so to warn others, and am thankful he did so - Crookes is obviously nuts. I dunno about Canada, truth isn't always a defence against libel claims in legal systems derived from the British one, but here's hoping it is.
Indeed, the accusations of "frustration and emotional distress", as stated by the submitter are vague and meaningless. Is criticism on an open forum thought crime? http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/394
I Swear, God as my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly!!
As of a few days ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Crookes is a generic biography page. It's also protected.
The January and September versions have some meat on them. Whether they are accurate or not, who knows?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Did someone mention "Canada" and "hyper-sensitive" in a single post?
Dude, you are proving the poster's case. Lighten up.
For your info, it became a state agency's policy and carried the weight of law. The cows at the "museum" are live. It was suggested that universities and other state agencies follow the same policy. And, the first incident was because the so-called "twit" mentioned by the GP had the same name as one of the cows she saw at the museum and she took offense.
Maybe all that passive-aggressive attitude we have should be looked into. You're almost as bad as...strike that...you are as bad or worse than some of the Americans that post here. Maybe some medication will assist you?
Well, mostly I was taking a swipe at all those "If $X gets elected, I'm moving to Canada" pundits who, unfortunately for those of us in the political center, never actually do.
But yes, the stupidity of the Green party boggles my mind. This is coming from someone who was a member for a brief time. I'm very much about libertarianism and social justice, but I knew that it wasn't for me when I heard their candidate for governor (in VT) speaking about how he thought that Vermont should secede from the Union. Any party willing to run anyone for any office who didn't seem to pick up on the fact that states have no right to secede, as established a hundred and fifty years ago by our Civil War, is not a party I even want to remember. Kind of like waking up next to one of those people you would NEVER sleep with sober and just praying to God there's a condom in the trash.
In all honesty, I'm a little disappointed I got moded down. Then again, thinking I must have hit a few left wing nutcases pretty close to the mark makes me feel good about myself. I think I'll go have a cookie to celebrate.