Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Court Orders Site To ID Anonymous Posters
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian court has ordered
the owners of the FreeDominion.ca to disclose all personal information on eight anonymous posters to the chat site. The
required information includes email and IP addresses. The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy, a major blow to online free speech in Canada."
I'm behind 7 proxies
It was anonymous, so they obviously don't have that info o.O
Can you imagine the political rhetoric if they found 4chan.
They should be ashamed of themselves, posting anonymously.
Canada has always been stuck between a rock and a hard place (US & UK). We are kind of like the retarded step-brother, very polite but not taken seriously on our own (we have a nasty habit of tagging along to our 'Big Brothers'.)
I often wondered how long it would take the insanity of US & UK to reach us. I wonder if there are any jobs in the Netherlands for an english-speaking computer-geek Canuck. They look like the only safe haven from insanity that is infecting this planet.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
website is blocked by my work's annoying websense. Reason: The Websense category Illegal or Questionable is filtered.
Man, sounds like they're gonna have a hell of a time finding this Anonymous Coward person if they ever look here...
I noticed the blogger doesn't mention anything about the case itself. I wonder how knowing the particulars of the case might effect the response of slashdot posters.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
They were anonymously praising Vista.
Shame on any site that accepts 'anonymous' comments and then tracks email and IP.
And shame on the government for this ruling.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/motion_decision.pdf
Worth a read, especially moments like request for "Any and all documents relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the website, freedominion.ca, by the Fournier Defendants, such as, but not limited to, hosting agreements, billing information, and website registrant name(s)."
Now, if the purpose of the motion is to acquire documents that will help to establish the identities of the posters - how the hell is the hosting agreement/billing details/etc relevant? Or is this a case of "let's collect all the paperwork we can, relevant or not, and then see what we can make of it"?
"Well, we see that you've established the site in 1991, and have been paying $ 39.99/month for hosting. CLEARLY, this proves... um... actually, I'm not sure WHAT it proves... Hang on."
I know you're all fighters of justice and whistle blowing immoral activities happening around you, but why can't you be brave for once and say what you want in the open?
Or are you using anonymity only for hate messages, kiddie porns, and copyright infringements?
No reasonable expectation of privacy? What then, if the commenter had used a proxy server to mask their i.p.? That would seem to indicate a reasonable expectation on their part, wouldn't it(?), thus mooting the Court's argument.
The poster wrote, "a blow to free speech in Canada". While that's a provocative headline, it's not accurate. Free speech is about being allowed to say whatever you want: you can stand up in the public square, or blabber over the fence to your neighbour, and say whatever you want, without any fear of being persecuted, imprisoned, etc.
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Anonymous expression has always been a cornerstone of free speech/expression. The only way you can say it's not is to ignore the centuries of western commentary on exactly this subject.
No one up here ever says "double double double", they just ask for an extra cup. Actually, most of the time you don't even have to ask.
Blerg.
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Common Sense would indicate otherwise.
The U.S. Supreme Court, has recognized the importance of ensuring that average citizens have the right to use false names and publish anonymously. In its 1960 decision in Talley v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that a law forbidding individuals from distributing handbills without identifying their identity unconstitutionally infringed on the First Amendment's guarantee to free speech. The Court declared: Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. . . . Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts . . .. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.
Just because someone writes on an electronic medium does not preclude to free speach.
I must disagree: western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech; however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
It is definitely a privacy issue but free speech does not guarantee anonymity.
What's with all the Canadian stories in the past 24 hours? Did Taco finally move to Canada?
Obviously, you didn't RTFA, or google for any relevant background information about the case. In Canada, you cannot simply say anything you want if what you want to say is deemed "hate speech" by a tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. As I understand it, if you are found "guilty" by this tribunal for offensive speech, you could be fined several thousands of dollars. That, in itself, warrants "a fear of persecution."
anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy
anonymous
Function:
adjective
Date:
1631
1 : not named or identified
2 : of unknown authorship or origin
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
Merriam-Webster
I am a bit fuzzy on the difference between free speech and the right to stay anonymous.
It would seem to me that anonymity is not a requirement for free speech, online or otherwise.
What's to stop the internet-equivalent of standing up and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater?
Anonymity, IMHO, is actually detrimental to civil discourse - it gives individuals the idea that there are no consequences to what is said in a public forum. What we say in public life always has consequences - why should the internet be different?
Visiting most online discussions is like watching the monkeys at the zoo, and the risk of being hit with a lump of flying feces is just as high.
I must disagree:
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech
Western governments have routinely subverted the teachings of western political philosophy, but that has little bearing on what I said.
however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
Actually you can probably find more rulings against "free speech" than you can "anonymous expression".
That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.
If I were to post this anonymously, would /. keep a record that I used my /. account to post it, even though outwardly it's anonymous? Do they also keep a record of the IP I used to post?
I looked briefly at the privacy T&Cs linked at the bottom of the page and it makes various noises about keeping non-identifiable aggregate information for stats, but it's not clear what is done with the data or what would happen if they received a legal requirement to reveal all data held about an anonymous poster.
Thats governments for you. 'Those suckers have authority...'
Say in public that homosexuality is a sin and see how much freedom of speech you have.
a quick stanza of "Blame Canada"??
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
No, I'm not Sparticus.
There are specific laws in Canada regarding hate speech. The ruling is questionable, but is looking to prosecute people that broke a specific law. If they had yelled it out in a crowd, would it be okay to ask a private company for their surveillance footage?
"Freedom of Speech" means you can say whatever you want, however, it doesn't mean that you are exempt from the repercussions of what you say. You still must take personal responsibility for the freedom you take.
If you are one of those who believes that "Freedom of Speech" should be absolute, think about these situations:
Would you protect someone who is distributing child pornography? They have the freedom to distribute any information they choose to. It would be an infringement on their rights to free speech if they were to be arrested.
Would you protect someone who gets up in front of a crowd and starts advocating the extermination of anyone with red hair? Or a person who hands out leaflets advocating killing women? They're simply expressing their views.
I realize that these examples are hyperoble. No one in their right mind would defend anyone doing such things, but how about a bit more realistic situation. In my home town during the last city election, one of the people running for a spot on city council made an appearance at a local high school, and in front of a gymnasium full of young teenagers he got up and said that all gays should be exterminated because they are an abomination. This man is now in jail (might I add, where he should be) for promoting hate. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with another person's point of view. It has everything to do with promoting hate, or illegal actions.
The whole point of free speech is to prevent the persecution of individuals and groups for their beliefs, but at the same time those beliefs cannot contradict the existing laws. You're not going to be set free just because you claim that you were exercising your rights to free speech if what you are saying is illegal, or harmful to another person or group.
What on earth is going on in Canada? As George Galloway said after being denied entry earlier this week don't they know Bush is no longer the US president and no one has to implement Bush type polices anymore?
http://www.therespectparty.org/breakingnews.php?id=555
/weebit slaps Canada with a rolled up newspaper...bad Dog!!!!!
You are right that the headline is not accurate, since Canada doesn't have free speech.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Demanding non-relevant documents is a legal method of harassment. It wastes both the time and money of the defendant.
From a quick look at the pleadings.pdf above, this appears to be a civil matter. IANAL, and especially IANACanadianL, but in most civil actions, you get to charge for the documents requested/subpoenaed in this sort of deal. Most organizations of any size have a written policy about how much is charged per page for documents. Ours is $1.00 per page. Often, the plaintiff finds it easier and cheaper to hire a mobile copy service to go in and do it. We put the requested documents in a bare room with a functional electrical outlet and have an employee watch them like a hawk to make sure nothing is altered or damaged.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Being able to state your opinion without fear of reprisal is a necessary condition for free speech.
It is not a sufficient condition.
Banning anonymous speech is certainly NOT a necessary condition for free speech either.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Attention all canadian's!!! I am now changing from being canadian to being Palestinian.
They At least the have the Right to kill them selfs, canadian know don't even have that right
thanks to canada trying to be like californiaand regualating everything from maple syrup to the internet.
I must disagree: western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech; however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
You are wrong.
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).
The Supreme Court found that a law that prohibited anonymous handbills was void. Anonymous speech was specifically cited as having a role in free societies.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
While there is lots of bullshit in the US today, this isn't it. Anonymous speech is particularly protected in the US. Please leave us out of it.
Canada doesn't have a right to free speech in the same way as America (I know, it could be debated that Americans have it any more but that's a different discussion). Lots of Canadians think we have that right because we think many of the things that apply to our American neighbours also applies to us but they are incorrect. For those interested in the subtle difference, I refer you to the ever-helpful Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada ). Short version - we have a right to free speech "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In other words, our "right" to free speech can be withdrawn...
I know it makes for a sensational headline but it's inaccurate.
The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy, a major blow to online free speech in Canada.
If they did not expect privacy then why did they anonymously post? Perhaps they posted anonymously because they specifically did not want, desire, or expect privacy - after all, they could have used their own credentials. Nope, that can't be it.
Silly Americans keep on badmouthing your country on free speech issues without having a clue what goes on in the rest of the world.
Very few countries respect free speech to the extent that the USA does (including the late Bush Administration).
Most of the world has libel and official secrets laws that pretty much allow the government, the rich, and the powerful to muzzle (or even fine and imprison) you for speech that is considered ordinary discourse in the USA.
The USA has a very strict standard of proof for libel. To win a libel case, it must be proven that the statement is false, that the person making it knew that it was false, and made the statement with the intent to defame.
Standards are far more lax in the Commonwealth (including Canada!). Belief that a statement is true is not a defense for libel, and in some cases the statement being true is not a defense either.
In the USA, a state secret that is inadvertently disclosed to a member of the general public (as opposed to someone who has sworn a secrecy oath) ceases to be a secret.
This is not the case in most of the world. You can be prosecuted for divulging a state secret that you didn't know was a secret and/or is common knowledge.
This is simply incorrect. SCOTUS has ruled that anonymous public speech is particularly protected, it being necessary for, among other things, free political discussion without fear of reprisal. This was not exactly a surprise ruling; it is consistent with past holdings of lower courts in the U.S.
Historically, anonymous speech HAS been protected in the U.S., and SCOTUS has actually given it special protection. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
What this says to me is that anyone running a service, anonymous or not, needs to be thoughtful about their own data retention policies.
For instance, I might want to keep finer-grained detail for a short while, to assist in troubleshooting or incident handling.
Otherwise, it's probably just fine to keep more terse logs for a longer period of time. My understanding is that you can't be forced to divulge information you simply don't keep, if regular log rotation is part of your usual business process. The point is, it should probably be part of your usual business process, as it's too late to delete once the lawyers are involved.
This argument is completely irrelevant to the issue of anonymous speech. The same speech that is NOT protected during public appearance (e.g., yelling "Fire" in a theater, fomenting riot, or libel), is also not protected anonymously. This is a red herring.
I have been saying the same thing, but you did it better.
I hope that stupid and dangerous court decisions like this will prod Canadians to spring into action and change the laws that lead to this. In any society "free" or not, it is ultimately the will of the people that shapes the society, whether through peaceful political means, or otherwise.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Canada does have free speech, according to Section 2(b) of the Constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982):
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#libertes
You are right that the headline is not accurate, since Canada doesn't have free speech.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"
Mr. Steacy is wrong. Free speech is in our Constitution — specifically section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, there is the somewhat controversial "limitation clause", but to say that free speech is "an American concept" is just flat out wrong.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
This judgement has no effect on free speech in any case, merely on the right to anonymity, a different question entirely. On the topic of free speech, Oliver Wendell Holmes (an American Supreme Court Judge) put it very well. "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater". Not even in the United States is the right to free speech absolute - nor would any sane person want it to be.
Anyone know the names of the Devs MS fired? No? 'Cause they're
Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
Come on, Give them jobs people!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Common Sense would indicate otherwise.
When did the courts die and put wikipedia in charge?
No free speech? Have a look at the Canadian charter or rights and freedoms.
Here is an excerpt:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
The anonymous posters were allegedly posting hate speech. Hate speech becomes a problem because the people targeted by the hate speech have rights to personal safety and security vs. the posters rights to free speech. Note that hate speech is speech specifically pushing for hate crimes to be performed against individuals of the hated group, as opposed to just an exchange of opinions.
I wanted to point this out because while there is value in anonymous free speech, even for people who I disagree with, there is a point where this kind of speech leads to actual harm, and I fully support the court in bringing these people to justice.
More Caffeine. NOW
Huh? When you post anonymously, you don't have a reasonable expectation of anonymity? WTF? What twisted legalism brings forth such vomit?
Currently hooked on AMP
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/donate.php
Mods, please mod up so people can see this.
Please donate! Help the owners mount an appeal of the court decision! Defend free speech!
The person attacking FD is trying to use frivolous "hate speech" laws to silence views he does not agree with.
Come on, Give them jobs people!
Or give them Balmer and watch his blood flow like a river!
I'm Spartacus.
That depends on whether or not you consider the prosecution of hate speech to be a limitation of free speech or not. Neither Canada nor any other country that prosecutes hate speech can legitimately claim to uphold freedom of speech, IMO. You either allow all speech, including that speech which you find offensive, disturbing, or otherwise objectionable, or you advocate censorship. Governments should at the very least be honest and either uphold freedom of speech entirely, or they should come straight out that they do not guarantee freedom of speech.
It seems like the news these days is filled with reports of various countries implementing legislation that limits the Freedom of Internet users. One can only guess that as we speak, demand for a sort of darknet is growing. It's like prohibition in the 'States and the war on drugs. These countries are creating a necessity. Such is evolution...that which was once a solution becomes something from which to differentiate.
Correct, we don't abuse the word "speech" to mean things other than spoken word..
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It sounds like Canada must be married to Australia with this nonsense court ruling. Must we all now go to a public library or internet cafe in order to be able to post anonymously? Somebody should act up and get rude and loud until governments get the message. Freedom of communications is not in the hands of governments to regulate. This freedom belongs only to individuals not to states.
When did the grandparent claim that they did?
Trick question, of course. He never did, and you're a moron for making assumptions that could have been dispelled in two seconds by clicking that link.
We don't have a constitution. Please turn in your passport...
Anybody who thought your were (anonymous) was just kidding your self anyway. Ha Ha.
"Free speech is about being allowed to say whatever you want...Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition"
So you wouldn't mind sharing your voting record with the world?
why secret ballots then?
"Freedom of Speech" means you can say whatever you want, however, it doesn't mean that you are exempt from the repercussions of what you say. You still must take personal responsibility for the freedom you take.
That's just stupid. It amounts to claiming that only prior restraint counts as censorship. By your 'logic', if the State were to pass a law prohibiting you from criticizing it on pain of death, it'd be just fine as long as they didn't stop you from saying it in advance. After all, you have to take personal responsibility for what you say.
If you are one of those who believes that "Freedom of Speech" should be absolute, think about these situations: ... [standard-issue excuses for fascism]
Frankly, yes, I do think all of those examples should be protected, and I'm saying that as one of those lesbian abominations your would-be politician wants exterminated. Unless you wish to claim that basilisks are real, bits never harmed anyone.
No, its a major blow to free speech in general.
Its a short step from this to IDing a person via a 'traffic camera' at a physical rally, especially as drivers licenses are starting to be scanned and entered into facial recognition databases.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
American political philosophy is not the same as Western political philosophy. While they do have a lot of common points, at times they differ wildly.
Just compare "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in U.S. to "peace, order and good government" in Canada to see what I mean.
Then stop describing them as anonymous.
A form of the petition has the names of petitioners written in a circle, so no one can be singled out as having signed first.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (S.L.A.P.P.) have become a threat to free speech by the public who is always a stakeholder when it comes to issues affecting communities or the environment. To prevent unfair targeting and financial/legal leverage by corporate entities and government bodies, anonymity becomes essential for free discourse by individuals since it allows "free speech" to be unencumbered by legal and financial harassment.
If your government does not allow free speech, then your government is barbaric.
If some dictator tries to deprive you of rights with fear and violence, then he is a dictator.
Rights are inalienable.
If a government CHOOSES not to recognize your rights, then the government is barbaric.
Nobody gives your rights.
Take them. Sieze them.
"A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him." - Ezra Pound
yes, you cant moderate your AC posts
Canada does not have a constitution. We have a series of constitutional acts, which are not a true constitution.
A Constitution, by definition, precedes a government, and defines it's structure, powers and limitations. A Constitution is the governing law of a government. A Government cannot define a constitution. Reference the 18th century constitutions and rights defined by the French and The Americans.
Additionally, The Canadian Constitutional Acts are all covered by the 'Notwithstanding Clause', which in a nutshell states that the Government can ignore or abrogate any or all sections of the Acts at their whim.
The Canadian 'Constitution' is a sham house of cards designed to keep the citizenry ignorant of the fact that they actually live in a despotic regime, founded on British Colonial principles of raping a territory and sending the profits to London.
Only the final destination of the 'vigorish' has changed.
Seems to fit with the idea of this back in Feb 2009 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1285658
"An Ontario Superior Court, Canada could allow police to use Internet protocol addresses to find names of users without a search warrant.
"One's name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state," Judge Leitch said."
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
For serious, fuck them and their flapping heads too.
"...The judge in the case read into his decision evidence that was not presented in the case. (anti-hate activist, OPS) The judge is a member of the board of a Jewish Community Center where Warman had spoken about his fight against anti-semitism. I don't know what the laws are in Canada, but in the US this apprehension of bias would be more than enough to have the judgement overturned. The judge should have recused himself."
Anyone know if it's true?
Don't worry, we certainly will respond.
A Google search on this quote turns up mainly white supremacy sites. Guess what? If you want to join the KKK, there are countries that will welcome you. Canada is not among them.
If you want to incite violence against a group of people based on the colour of their skin, there are countries that will protect your right to do so. Canada is not one of them.
Not all speech is protected in Canada. That is what Mr. Steacy was saying.
Due to the fact that rights tend to overlap, rights always have limitations. The old saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" comes to mind.
Free speech, therefore, has limitations. This is even true in the United States. For example: slander.
We do have a constitutional right to free speech within the legal limitations, just as the Americans have a constitutional right to free speech within their legal limitations. Yes, we have more limitations than the Americans do, and yes I believe that Canadian law goes too far with its limitations on speech. However, this doesn't change the fact that Mr. Steacy's assertion that free speech is "an American concept" and that "Canada doesn't have free speech" is incorrect.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
We don't have a constitution. Please turn in your passport...
Uh, yes we do. Please attend a Canadian History class. Or at least do some trivial research.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Canada does not have a constitution.
Yes it does.
We have a series of constitutional acts, which are not a true constitution. A Constitution, by definition, precedes a government, and defines it's structure, powers and limitations. A Constitution is the governing law of a government.
Our Constitution dates back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and has undergone many amendments throughout the years, as constitutions often do. I'm not sure what exactly it is that you think is necessary for it to be a "true" constitution in your mind, but most of the rest of the world thinks of Canada as a Constitutional Monarchy, and our Government is bound by it.
Additionally, The Canadian Constitutional Acts are all covered by the 'Notwithstanding Clause', which in a nutshell states that the Government can ignore or abrogate any or all sections of the Acts at their whim.
Well, not quite. The notwithstanding clause, as flawed as it is, is actually somewhat limited. It only applies to certain rights, leaving others inalienable, and automatically expires after five years, giving the citizens a chance to speak their mind on the issue. I agree that does diminish the power of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it does not render the entire Constitution a "sham".
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
No doubt. Try moderating and then posting as anonymous. Your mods will be reverted.
GPG 0x1B479C78
Mod parent up, that is hella informative.
Mod parent up.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Anonymous has no reasonable right to remain anonymous because s/he asserts a right to anonymity? Like, you can get out of the Army if you're crazy, but if you want to get out of the Army you can't get out of the Army because you're not crazy. Catch 22. This is why Madalyn Murray O'Hair would have invented Hell eventually, if she hadn't gone through it first.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
"(a) The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and, as Talley indicates, extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes. Pp. 7-9." - U.S. Supreme Court, McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS, 1995
You are referring to the MacIntyre case. Fine. But you have overlooked an important part of the ruling. The decision stipulated that the State can only intervene in order to protect State interest in "preventing fraudulent and libelous statements, and its interest in providing the electorate with relevant information". As a number of people have already pointed out in this topic, we already know that freedom of speech does not generally apply to libellous and fraudulent statements.
So SCOTUS has indeed ruled that anonymous speech is protected... barring fraud and libel. The case you mention above also involves possible libel. Since we have already acknowledged that libel is not included in free speech protection, your comments are completely irrelevant.
We also already know that freedom of speech does not cover the yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, okay? So please don't bring that one up either.
If I'm reading the case correctly, it appears that a jury decided that the anonymous poster:
1) posted deflamatory remarks, and
2) posted IP-protected material (copyright violation, whatever)
And now at the jury has decided this, they're summoning the website to hand over the logs so they can procecute.
I'm not sure what I see wrong with that. When someone breaks the law, they broke the law.
A different issue is whether the website should be keeping those logs, but that's not what this is aboot, eh?
-David
While true, it's of a more limited scope than the American definition of "freedom of speech". You also neglect Section 33, which states.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
Basically, Section 2 can be overridden at will. It's very poorly protected.
In this case, defamatory comments (illegal under Canadian law) were made on a website, which falls under Canadian jurisdiction. Do the Canadians not try to enforce their own law? Or do you think US free-speech laws should be 'exported' every time something happens on the internet.
Even in the US, the Unabomber posted his letters (not his bombs, mind you; his _letters_ to newspapers) (pseudo)-anonymously as well.
Should the FBI not have tried to track him down using his letters?
In this case I would expect the /. management to first ask their lawyer about the validity of the request and if their lawyer says it is valid and should be answered to, I would expect the /. management to do so and reveal all available information.
And they would most likely post everything on the front page as well for all to see what has happened.
/. after all is a discussion board, and a commercial enterprise. They are not in the business of fighting court cases, that's what EFF is for.
The main question here is what information does /. keep about their posters (both anonymous and not anonymous), and for how long is it kept. Are anonymous coward's IP addresses kept after closing of a discussion, for example? There is no need to keep it to e.g. prevent moderating by the poster.
Your IP address is also stored when voting on the poll, limiting you to one vote per day. This information is apparently used for one day only, but is it still kept after that or all deleted?
Maybe it's time to start reading the privacy statement.
...just to save time, in the interest of transparency, here's my IP address:
127.0.0.1
Cheers
A. Coward.
Our Constitution dates back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763
To nitpick, since we did not overthrow our monarch, the Canadian constitution can be reasonably argued to include prior English constitutional law, including the Magna Carta (1215) and the Habeas Corpus Act (1679).
Judging by your verbiage ("posting as anonymous"), I assume you mean that you're actually staying logged in but ticking the checkbox that makes it show up anonymously.
If so, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Obviously, you're logged in and pressing a checkbox essentially saying "erm, ignore that." So yes, they HAVE your login information at the time your post is going through.
What information they ultimately store with the post when they drop it into the database we don't know without looking at the code. They might ignore all of the login information and process the post exactly as if it had come from somebody who wasn't logged in to begin with. It might process it is a logged-in post and flip the "anonymous" bit, then show it anonymously when it's being displayed. Obviously these two choices would result in very different outcomes as far as what they could then provide to subpoena.
"I have the right to ask a question without my identity being questioned."
By Neruos
If they had "no reasonable expecation of privacy" then why post anonymously?
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
The freedom NOT TO SAY something, including your own name, is more fundamental than the freedom to say something.
I always assumed that if you hit the "Post Anonymously" checkbox, instead of saying "Discussion X, Comment Y is by Anonymous (actually halcyon1234 but don't show that)", it would instead just say "halcyon1234 has already posted in discussion X" or at least "halcyon1234 is ineligible from moderating in Discussion X". That would prevent me from moderation discussion X, without linking me to specific post.
Of course just knowing I posted in a particular discussion could be enough to reasonably identify me by looking at the trends of my opinions, writing style, html usage, etc, even amongst dozens or hundreds of other AC posts.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
The way things work now, the only time "the People" have any power over the corporate/political and governmental entities who seek to exploit and abuse us is when an election day rolls around. The conclusion you can easily draw from that is that we need more election days - more days when, if the actions of a corporate or government entity become unbearable, we can take action immediately.
Further, if you have not noticed the courts are increasingly biased in their opinions in that the larger and the more well-defined the entity who is before them, the more likely that entity is to win. Worse yet, but again quite noticeably, the law as practiced and adjudged now shields the members of corporations from most of the responsibility for their actions, no matter how corrupt or heinous those actions are. Not so the individual, who - even when absolutely innocent and clearly in the right - can be crushed by the sheer weight of legal torts and talent that the corporations can afford to bring to bear.
So, "the People" - or as many as can be convinced - incorporate. We all provide ten or $100 apiece as "start-up capital". At a minimum, we suddenly have a sizable war chest with which to pursue those - whether political or corporate in nature - who are most egregious about harming seemingly defenseless "individuals" and trampling the liberties the "individual" should have by virtue of merely having been born into the human race.
More importantly, however, we begin to make decisions - and apply the actions those decisions call for - like a corporation - instantly . We are suddenly transformed from "individuals" who can be isolated and abused as individuals by the corporations and the politicians that they own, into a monstrous entity that can fight back instantly if we are provoked or harmed.
For instance, we The People, Inc., , upon receiving email communications from our "board of directors" immediately drop "suppliers" of consumer goods who act in a manner that harms sufficient numbers of us, or in a manner that a sufficient number of us feel is just wrong.
You get the idea. To summarize:
Of course, we probably would have to take steps to ensure that our "board of directors" did not become corrupt by making service on same both mandatory and of a limited duration, but hey - think how having been a member of the board of directors of " The People, Inc. " will look on your resume.
And sure - this is only an end run around the failure of our governments to represent "The People". But there is truth to the adage: If you can't beat them, join them - and then you can beat them from the inside.
Severely, and with a stick, if necessary.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
I dont get what beeing anonymous have to do with free speach.... No one have lost their free speach, they have just lost the right to say anything while no one knows who they are. I*m quites sure that most places harassing someone anonymously is not covvered by free speach if dont by mail or phone, why should it be online?
www.aleo.no
"The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy"
So somebody has some expectation of privacy? Who? The ones that post with their full name and initial? Or you also have to post your picture? They might as well have said that NO ONE has reasonable expectation of privacy.
That depends on whether or not you consider the prosecution of hate speech to be a limitation of free speech or not.
Can you even objectively define "hate speech" in a manner that would enable a jury to determine whether a particular instance of speech is "hate speech" or not?
Since when did Canada get the internets?