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..."
Nominative determinism?
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
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.
Will also sue all of us users, who know the truth?
This should fall under 'its funny'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is your personal crusade against the internet an public analogy for underlying coprophilia?
AC -- from the asking for it department.
247 lawsuits filed against a Mr. Anonymous Coward for postings causing "immense amounts of frustration and emotional distress".
So tahts why slashdot was down earlier today, they were erasing all the evidence.
"oops, harddrive crash... nothing to see here judge"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
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.
If he tries to sue enough people, then they could band together and countersue as a class action suit. (assuming Canada has class-action lawsuits)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Indeed, straight from the Chief Justice Herself, Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeche s/ComparativeView_e.asp
That said, the debate isn't new in fact, http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/libel3.html decribes how lawsuit can be used to shout down criticism through intimidation. Jeffrey Shallit http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/
is vice-president of Electronic Frontier Canada http://www.efc.ca/. One of us!
I Swear, God as my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly!!
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.
This case could be about intimidation, but from that perspective it doesn't make sense to include in the suit companies like Google who have more than enough funds to defend themselves. If you simply wanted to engage in intimidation wouldn't you just sue the small guys?
They are green.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
The Kook of the Month [mind your eyes at that site] award ought to be revived...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I think this Canuck is abusing his citizenship. See if this were in the USA, a bunch of guys in black suits could "take care of him". Up here in freezerville we have to put up with his ignorance and helplessly watch as he makes our country look just as bad as every other.
Sadly I forget who said this, but in a public debate one politician told another: "If you can't handle the heat, get out of the press room!" Indeed, when one chooses a life that consists of selling your opinions to an entire nation, you'd better have one hell of a spine! This guy clearly doesn't. The good thing is he probably won't be sticking around much longer after this bullshit passes over. Everybody's got dirt, and if there's one thing the press and political parties are good at, it's humiliating people with the (carefully spun) truth.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
In fact, the very definition you gave is one description of anarchy, that is, you are free to do what you want so long as you don't take someone elses freedom.
An-archy - without rulers, not without rules.
Is there a public figure rule in Canadian law?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If it was not so damn scary... There are a lot of people out there that seem determined to stop all free speech at any cost. I rate this clown right up there with Jack Thompson.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
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!
Speaking of Emotional Distress, is it a coincidence that this is being posted right after the story about goatse.cx being up for sale?
I think not.
my question is: where did this dumbass manage to find a lawyer that is also big enough of a dumbass to think this might actually be a success?
All I can say is that Al Gore better get a good lawyer....
Maybe all 247 of those lawsuits will be demanding /. for the IP addresses of each "Mr. Anonymous Coward".
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
The USA is one place where truth is an absolute defense to a charge of libel. In the UK, it is not.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
If he doesn't want to suffer s suffered from 'an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress' over postings, then he is a bit of a slow learner. He should stayed away from politics in the first place. I wonder if the Green Party doesn't call him back soon. His actions will not be in favour of the Green Party. He will be told by his own people very soon that he acts as a Don Quichot fighting windmills. People cannot be moved away from networking and sharing ideas or information. The users of the net have brought down political parties and whole industries.
It's a fine example of the Streisand Effect in action.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
I'm suing calculus, for undue mental distress.
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.
(Posting here in case the Wikipedia gods decide to bend over and completely expunge it, somehow... This is all GFDL material.)
Lender to Green Parties
He is best known for his involvement in the Green Party of British Columbia, to which he donated substantial funds in 2001, and the Green Party of Canada, to which he lent nearly $440,000 in 2003-4. It was his activities as that party's major creditor that brought him to the public eye.
Theories began in 2001 about Crookes' motives, with some persons claiming his intent was to "split votes" and elected the BC Liberal Party. Crookes quickly suppressed such suggestions, notably at rabble.ca, a left-wing political chat site, whose publisher Judy Rebick published a boilerplate apology to Crookes, who was otherwise generally successful at avoiding media scrutiny until 2005-6.
Wayne Crookes
Control of the Green Party of Canada
In return for this, "Mr. Crookes was also appointed to a newly- created Green party election readiness committee -- an appointment that rubbed many Greens the wrong way", according to a May 2006 article in the Ottawa Citizen.
After raising concerns about "having a rich guy buy his way into a position of power", Gretchen Schwarz, the Party's Chair, a sentiment she claimed was shared by "a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Greens", "she and five other members of the executive council resigned in 2003." She later complained that financial statements prepared by Chief Agent John Anderson had not ever been made available to the party's elected Council. During the Canadian federal election, 2006, this and other criticisms of Jim Harris' financial relationships and reporting during the period in which the party was repaying Crookes prompted the party to file a number of lawsuits and accuse several critics of lying to alter the outcome of an election, a crime in Canada. After the election, the suits were apparently dropped, [http://openpolitics.ca/GPC+whistleblower+crisis,+ 2006 which were taken by some as proof of their original political motivation].
Though he had resigned as head of the GPC's Management Committee, just before that election, it was widely believed that Crookes' personal penchant for libel actions had influenced the party to take these actions.
During 2005, the party had undergone another crisis very similar to 2003, and this was also widely attributed to Crookes' influence. During the Canadian federal election, 2004, Crookes had served as national campaign manager. Afterwards, he continued to lend the party bridge funds until public funding was received.
He was very involved in operational matters, approved spending proposals personally, and was called "Uncle Wayne" in Council meetings by John Anderson, the party's chief agent, according to Elio Di Iorio.
His influence grew as staff were hired, some of which had originally reported to Crookes during the 2004 election. There were tensions with volunteers and especially with those who working on policy research, who saw the staff as sometimes usurping political work. In January 2005, elected Fundraising Chair Kathryn Holloway came into conflict with Debbie Hartley, who had Crookes' trust and had replaced him as head of the election readiness and campaign team, a conflicted body which included both staff and the Council that they in theory reported to. Holloway was "suspended" from the Council, an unprecedented action with no precedent in the party's constitution. This triggered another set of events usually called the GPC Council Crisis.
Protests about Holloway's treatment grew, and analysis of it was published in party forums. In early February 2005, a memo from Crookes, who had formally withdrawn from the election readiness committee now controlled by Debbie Hartley, was forwarded by Hartley to other insiders. It claimed that "dysfunctional" officers were "driving out the talented", an ominous claim from the party's major creditor.
The very next day, the Green Party of Canada Living Platf
NEWSFLASH: Just because that's the way things are now doesn't mean it's the way things should be.
Just because you can set up an anonymous message board and have no regard for anyones safety, doesn't mean you should.
Also, newsflash, you don't have to be a bad person to attract the evil doers. As homework, try to find what on usenet I did that would merit having kiddie porn attached to my name.
I'll admit I'm not the most agreeable person at all times, but I never went as far as to libel and slander people, nor did I get violent or whatever with people. I talked down about some snake oil vendor [CryptoSMS for the curious] in 2005 and shortly afterwards the attacks started. I don't see how my actions warranted being attacked like that other than they could so they did.
And it's not even about pleasing people, because you can't please everyone.
So really, by your logic the solution is to not play the game. If they don't know your name they can't attack you. Wonderful!
OR
We could hold people liable for the libel they publish...
hmm... I wonder which is the better solution...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Yes, you will get sued first.
Perhaps the poor fellow has been out of the news longer than he wished.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
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.
Once again, it becomes quite evident why the Green Party has yet to have any MPs elected...
Sadly, it's not even something new. I've been under a distinct impression lately that there are a lot more Slashdot articles which are blatant heavy-handed PR, than anything even remotely resembling news. This one only stands out by not even trying to disguise the blatant conflict of interest, but otherwise is no different from any other of the "news" directly telling you "X is wrong. X is doing evil stuff. Your very rights/future/whatever depend on joining in the anti-X crusade _now_."
Now I'm not necessarily saying it's an actual corporate PR department. Those tend to be more subtle than that. Maybe it's just individuals with some axe to grind, or persecution syndrome, or whatever. But nevertheless, regularly something just has to come up that's so one-sided and distorted, and stops just short of saying "join in shouting slogans against X _now_ or you're a loser", that it's not even funny any more.
Or maybe it is corporate and political PR after all. These guys are expert at masquerading and astroturfing as whatever they want to, from scientist to high school kid. I don't see why they couldn't sound like a dysfunctional geek on a crusade, if they wanted to.
At any rate, it's getting tiresome. I'm all for being informed about news or dangerous precedents, but being outright told what to think and in whose crusade to join, is just leaving a bad taste.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Naturally, this posting must cause him some distress. So he must be suing slashdot next.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
but aren't libertarians against taxes, which are expressly allowed in the constitution?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, libertarians are against ridiculous over taxation to subsidise stupidity, support people that are too lazy to work and give politicians enough money to by $4000 hammers. Libertarians recognize that taxation is a necessary evil but needs to be VERY closely monitored. Here in the US taxes have become a politician's playground. Granted, there are many many countries where they have a much higher tax rate, but that is their problem, not mine. The tax situation here in the US IS my problem.
> The idea that anonymous users exist on the net is an excuse to publish libel is nonsense.
> If you run a message board [or equiv] you should be held liable for any and ALL anonymous postings.
> After all, you're the one who is publishing it. I think it's reasonable that people moderate their
> websites such that libelous content is not widely distributed.
Do you believe that the postal office should be held liable "for any and ALL" anonymous mail?
Do you believe that the phone company should be held liable "for any and ALL" anonymous calls?
If not, please explain the difference.
He has all kinds of lawsuits! See http://uncrooked.pbwiki.com/ he has soooed little people like this http://section15.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-am-being-s ued-by-wayne-crookes.html
he got very involved in politics, and made many mistakes. People write things about him. They do not say that he eats babies, they say that he made mistakes that hurt the Green Party.
Like what he is doing now.
Instead of saving the earth, all these green people have to find money for lawyers, and spend time fighting the silly libel laws of Canada.
In Canada, with libel you are guilty until proven innocent, and there are no penalities for bozos with lots of bucks who try to make people apologize for telling the truth.
he is soooing this little worm for writing this:
http://greencompostheap.blogspot.com/2006/08/blow- it-out-your-tailpipe.html
and yet it is all true!
You do not want people to be able to soooee you in British Columbia under their really old libel laws, do you? You do not have to live there to be soooeed.