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 THINK YOU ARE WRONG SIR
Yea, think it's better that they lose these IP addresses "on accident" like how the White House lost e-mails... chances are they will get slapped if they do that, while the government gets away with it...(oops did I say that out loud anonymously?)
I was not aware that any Canadian court demanded IP addresses from the White House. And I'd love to hear your theories about how a Canadian court would prevent the White House from getting away with claiming they were lost.
Yes being able to speak publicly without anyone knowing who is speaking is a right we have enjoyed for centuries!
How dare governments take away our god given right to be completely invisible and yell whatever we want in a crowded room.
Oh wait you don't have an invisibility cloak? I thought everyone had one.
coward
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French cuard, from cue, coe tail, from Latin cauda
Date: 13th century
Definition: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coward
"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.