Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Judge Orders Disclosure of Anonymous Posters
debrain writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that Google and a newspaper called The Coast must disclose all information they have about the identity of individuals who posted anonymous comments online about top firefighters in Halifax. The story in question is titled 'Black firefighters file human rights complaint,' and there are some heated opinions in the comments."
It's almost as if they were ACs posting "nigger" jokes.
...wrote them all!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
The firefighters in Halifax suck at their job.
The best way to post comments in any heated debate is semi-anonymously, using a disposable e-mail address and a public Internet connection (or better yet, TOR). This is fairly effective at discouraging this sort of ridiculousness.
In soviet canada, you have no free speech! There if someone hurts your feelings or speaks bad about you then you can just sue them because you don't like it.
It was all my fault; I just couldn't stop myself from doing it....
mea culpa
so sue me!
Why don't you get THOSE people and hold THEM to account, you self-righteous prig!
Because he's a Canadian judge, and those people are American? It's one thing to not read the summary, but it's the FIRST WORD of the title. Or are you one of those people who think Canada is the 51st state?
Or maybe I'm just getting in the way of your self-righteous tirade, where facts are irrelevant.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
I actually had a long discussion about accountability vs. free speech with my wife yesterday, and she was shocked that you can't sue someone for insulting you (she's from Europe). The idea that someone can call you a stupid moron, and you can't sue them, is simply incomprehensible to her. I know that you can sue someone for making false accusations of adultery (or similarly damaging), and circulating the rumors (slander), or printing them in some fashion (libel). At what point does freedom of speech cross over to something which should be dealt with in a modern form of the old fashioned honor duel?
If you had read the summary, you'd have noticed we're talking about a Canadian judge. Canadian law about hate speech is very different from the US.
Your references to Cheney and such do not apply, you self-righteous pig.
Hello Frank,
Thank you for your comments, I should point out that as a Canadian Judge I cannot hold those people accountable. I should expect you to receive your extradition notice shortly however.
- Robertson
Wow - the comments on the Globe and Mail site are even less informed than those found on Slashdot for discussions like this!
What's hard to understand? If you write or broadcast something libelous or slanderous you risk a lawsuit.
Just because you identified yourself as Poopybear4556 doesn't eliminate your liability.
If you don't want to be identified the onus is on you to hide yourself, not on whoever runs a web site.
Three Squirrels
If a website doesn't record IPs of posters, and doesn't keep logs of who posts anonymously, it'd be rather hard to be able to comply with this. Hopefully they can do a "best that we can" response.
I went through all 31 comments from the article and I didn't see any anonymous ones. Now you got me all curious...
It's a cold day in hell for free speech. Perhaps it is brain freeze from Canadian winters.
One of the great joys of a system that attempts to minimize prior restraint is that you *can* go up and slug someone for insulting you. There may be consequences afterwards, depending on the situation, but nobody is stopping you from the old fashioned honor approach to handling things.
This is good, as there shouldn't need to be courts involved until after you have personally deemed it a big enough issue to get yourself fully involved. If some coward could run hide behind a judge every time he was unhappy, it would not be a good world.
As Dean Steacy, chief investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission said: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
http://volokh.com/files/warmantranscript.pdf
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
For those that didn't get it - references specific to American human rights violators were used metaphorically, being examples I am most familiar with. As this particular judge's attitude is something that shows up frequently in those who dispense so-called justice all around the world, feel free to substitute whichever local corporate and political dirtbags you feel appropriate. Also - since the actions of the people I listed affected the global community as a whole, perhaps the question of jurisdiction should be re-examined. In principle, the Hague has global jurisdiction anyway.
Flame on, fellows.
This is why I *never* post anonymously on slashdot.
What "actions" have these posters done? Expressed an opinion? Given the racial nature of the story, I imagine those comments were quite disgusting and racist. I do not support them. But similarly, the notion that every instance of anonymous speech must be ferreted out, and the 'perpetrators' held to 'account' is just wrong.
I think the rest of your comment makes you sound like a bit of a nut, but within that frenzied rant you hit a moment of actual coherant fluid thought. Not that I don't agree with the whole statement you are making, just drifting off from the issue at hand really.
That issue is anonymity on the internet. My gripe basically boils down to this;
If you are going to disallow someones anonymity on the internet because of any punishable law, you should then have to go back and punish everyone who has ever broken any punishable law under the guise of anonymity on the internet. This is of course impracticle, so throw that idea out of the window.
IF this is against your idea of how things should be run, propose a bill that suggests you CAN aquire information from anonymous sources in the FUTURE. You can't just choose to change the laws for one scenario, especially when its the one being dealt with. This would be like an Umpire changing the amount of Bases in Baseball to 3 instead of 4, mid-game, with all bases loaded. It'd be an outrage.
So please, if you are going to attack the freedom that is anonymity - do so in the proper manner. I have no problems with Lawyers and Judges trying to reform things so long as they abide by the same rules that I do when I want things done differently. A powdered wig should not be able to make demands like that.
You cannot sue someone for insulting you, if all it does is make you feel bad or whatever. It must have some actual consequences for you, so it must actually be slander.
I'm Spartacus.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Me thinks that this judge and or the attorneys involved in this exercise in stupidity; need to be re-educated.
Basically if someone exercises their right to free speech and anonymously posts lies about you on the internet they are a TROLL. If someone exercises their right to free speach and anonymously posts an unfortunate truth about you on the internet you will just have to live with it. It's not something that anyone needs to sue over.
I dont know which this is, but I truely do not care. If I post that your mother intimately cosorts with farm animals and it isn't true then I am a TROLL. If it is true then it is unfortunate but hopefully nothing more.
This crap only makes the news because of how retarded it is.
He will ferret out those pesky free speechers hiding behind anonymous!
Or are you one of those people who think Canada is the 51st state?
No, not yet. But we're patient. ;)
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Try to disclose me why don't ya.
Then try posting with *relevant* examples. You might not get first post, but you'd also not look like an ignorant moron. Your cover of "global community" and "metaphors" doesn't hold weight.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Speak for yourself. Some of us are ready to steamroll that border on a moments notice!
(I kid... but you left the door open and I had to walk through)
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
There is a difference between saying "Mr. X is a moron" and "I think Mr. X is a moron", the latter being merely expressing an opinion.
Or is it that you do not understand the implications of anonymity on freedom?
I don't understand either, what are those implications you speak of but don't specify? I'm guessing you want this judge to protect your freedom to spew vitriol without consequence, such as a coward might do.
Do you have trouble comprehending the word "Canadian"? Hate speech and uttering threats are against the law here. If someone used the newspaper's website to commit a crime, the paper is bound to identify those individuals.
Seriously, maybe the forum keeps IP on file. A big maybe, just for an IP address. Real name and other info has about as much chance of being stored as Steve Ballmer switching to Slackware.
So go ahead, Mr. Forum guy. Send the judge everything you have. It'll identify them about as well as what they already have.
Or "Mr. X is a moron....allegedly".
Wow! Too slow on the post there. Mod me redundant.
The linked article is pretty bad and the original story had the comments in question removed. I did a little Googling and the upshot is, it looks like some people made allegedly libelous comments, so the people they defamed are suing and the identities were ordered to be revealed by a judge. So, I don't really see how this is any different than a normal libel case in the US. Freedom of speech has never been an unlimited right. It ends when it infringes upon other individual rights and libel and slander laws are pretty common examples of this.
This is the most comprehensive article I found on the topic, but even it does not list any examples of the allegedly libelous comments.
Sheesh. RTFA much? Even the writeup?
Or even the title. Or even the FIRST WORD of the title.
This summary is on fire.
Or "Is Mr. X a moron?"
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
In the US we understand that the words of an anonymous coward are just words, and only have the power that you, the pussy, give to them. And as such, there can be no damage to reputation by the rantings of an anonymous coward on a message board.
If you don't know who to sue yet, you can apply for a court order to discover the name of the person to be served.
To get it you have to convince the court you have a case, and require the information, at which time the court may chose to issue an order to a third party (eg, a newspaper) to identify the person.
It's far more common to be told to file the suit against "John Doe", after which the court will conclude you're serious and order the person's name disclosed.
See Halsbury's Laws of Canada under "Norwich Orders" or google for the recent "York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises" case
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
judges ... I mean history teaches that's why We shot-the-bastards in 1776 and ran-outa town their tar+feathers puzzy *zzwhole.
Basically if someone exercises their right to free speech and anonymously posts lies about you on the internet they are a TROLL. If someone exercises their right to free speach and anonymously posts an unfortunate truth about you on the internet you will just have to live with it. It's not something that anyone needs to sue over.
If I were to anonymously, repeatedly, and convincingly (perhaps I'm a REALLY GOOD TROLL) outright state that you are a rapist and the only reason you are not in jail is because of some technicality, what recourse do you have? If it is persistent enough that it makes it to the point where you have trouble getting job interviews and acquaintances are reluctant to invite you anywhere, haven't you been genuinely harmed (assuming that it isn't true)?
I agree with you that it's easy to overreact and suing for a handful of comments (I haven't read any of them) is overboard. But that doesn't mean legal action is never valid.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Deliberate lies in print, even on web-pages is Libel.
libel /labl/ Show Spelled [lahy-buhl] Show IPA noun, verb,-beled, -beling or (especially British) -belled, -belling.
-noun
1.Law.
a.defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b.the act or crime of publishing it.
c.a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
Just because someone is trolling, doesn't mean that they aren't committing Libel.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Posting anonymously on the internet is much like yelling something from the middle of a crowd. Most of the time no one cares who yells it. Even if they do, chances are they may not be able to track down the person who did the yelling. But if you're going to go out and shout things, you should be prepared for consequences (like the guy next to you decking you), even if there's a sign at the perimeter of the crowd saying "All shouting is anonymous."
If someone cares enough to track you down for posting something stupid online, and you've made it POSSIBLE to track you down (instead of using a disposable e-mail and an internet connection that doesn't link back to your name), then maybe you deserve to pay some price for your comments. Especially if there's no legal protection behind the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.
What "actions" have these posters done? Expressed an opinion? Given the racial nature of the story, I imagine those comments were quite disgusting and racist. I do not support them. But similarly, the notion that every instance of anonymous speech must be ferreted out, and the 'perpetrators' held to 'account' is just wrong.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
(there, summed it up for you)
I'm sure his "cover" is more than adequate for any objective viewer. Canadian identity hypersensitivity simply makes you unable to believe it.
Some principles are universal. The fact that the United States has notable examples in recent history of both implementation and denial of those principles provides convenient reference material. I'm sure anyone sufficiently motivated by "Canada or die!" can come up with comparable domestic references.
Oh, yeah, Welcome to the U.S.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Erlyer this month to kids stabe a nother kid all because he would not give up his cell phone while waiting for a bus on Alderny. One of the young teens was arrested and now his mother and brother are crying fowl
Holy jumping Jesus! I know it's Canada, but seriously folks...!
In China, people are also "held accountable" for what they say on discussion boards and in public.
In America, it is felt justifiable to punish people socially for comments about race. In China, it is felt justifitable to punish people socially for comments about the government.
I don't see any reason why comments about race are inherently more punishworthy than comments about governments.
Anonymity doesn't cause Freedom, Freedom allows Anonymity. If the information exists, it is within the rights of the Judge to order it.
If there is a problem, it is that the information exists in the first place. That is what you should focus on.
Of course that might make tracking death threats a little harder, but that goes hand in hand with Anonymity.
There are two issues here: the nature of what was said and how it was said. With regards to the first issue, hate speech is not legal in Canada. Americans seem shocked by this, but you are accountable for hateful things that you say in Canada. In my mind, limits to free speech are important when that speech crosses the line into hatefulness. I see no reason why people shouldn't be held to account for damages that they willfully cause through verbal abuse.
The second issue (the one that is less well established under law) is the manner in which the speech was said; in this case, the internet. There is no special protection for speech that is stamped as anonymous. I ask you: do you have trouble comprehending the word "anonymous"? A communication with a web server is not anonymous; it's subject to subpoena. There's no "ferreting out" here. The process is very clear.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
But as long as we are 'holding people to account', let's go all the way. Grab the CEOs of MPAA and RIAA and talk to them about the erosion of the public domain. Talk to Cheney about torture and the warcrimes tribunal. Let's get Albright, Kissinger, Bzhezinsky and talk about imperialism. And don't forget the fine folks from Arthur Anderson and Enron. The list goes on. Why don't you get THOSE people and hold THEM to account, you self-righteous prig!
C'mon dude, you had a really great post until this last paragraph. I think you made the point about free and anonymous speech quite well without this rant....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Or are you one of those people who think Canada is the 51st state?
No, you are actually the 57th state. Didn't you listen to our President when he was running for office? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Well, other than the loaded language and cheap ad-hominem, yes. Vitriol should be protected speech, within reasonable limits. The definition of "reasonable" is what's at the heart of the issue, and moves around a bit. Still, the operant principle is anonymity is protected unless you have DAMN good reason not to. "Good reason" rising to the level of criminal indictment for actual crimes, not political censorship (let alone ass-hurt of any group of people, no matter how prominent or influential).
I don't know about Canadian history, which as far as I can tell has a suspicious history of obsessive politeness, but angry anonymous pamphleteering is one of the cornerstones of the independence of the United States from Mother Britain.
Come to think of it, that might explain somewhat why Her Majesty is still the Canadian Head of State, but not ours.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
If you troll hard enough that you commit slander or hate speech you are subject to the relevant laws. IP addresses are logged and can be subpoenaed. I'd have no problem with bringing trolls to account for polluting the forums.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
...you don't have to be anonymous to say what you want since the government won't come after you no matter what. Individuals might hate you, though, but that shouldn't stop you now should it?
It's only when you don't have free speech that you need to be anonymous.
Canadian law about hate speech is very different from the US.
Out of curiosity, why should speech cease to be free just because it's hateful? Isn't it more logical to draw the line at threats?:
"I hate niggers." <-- free speech
"I hate niggers, let's go kill one." <-- not free speech
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I have a hard time believing this tale. Europeans are generally much less sue-happy than Americans.
A) Canada has a thing called "Hate Crimes" where if you spread ideas that condone or incite hate against a particular people or race you can get into trouble. Regardless if you believe in the the law or not, it is currently in effect, thus the Judge is well within his rights to court order the name of those individuals. I didn't read the comments on the website, but I can imagine what they are like.
B) The Coast is a newspaper that exists in Halifax, Canada. Very much under the jurisdiction of Canada. Google also does business in Canada, thus also subject to the laws therein.
C) The fact that the posters are not Canadian citizens is immaterial. You break the law in Canada be it fraud or in this case Hate Crimes you are still subject to the repercussions. The question is can they be tried. Considering Canada and the USA have a long standing extradition treaty, Canada would certainly be within its rights to demand that those US citizens be extradited to Canada for trial. The US of course would likely be within its rights to refuse, at which time they would likely be tried in absentia and convicted, and a outstanding warrent issued for their arrest should they ever enter Canada. Essentially banning them from ever entering the country. If they ever land in a plane in Canada, they would likely be arrested and thrown in jail. Considering what was probably said in the comments, it is questionable if the US would make this a treaty issue.
Lately due to the crazy lady from the USA (Ann Coulter) the validity of Canada's hate crimes laws have come under question. I think people should be clear, we do have free speech in Canada, it is just tempered (as it is in the USA as well people tend to forget, just not as much). So you can say and believe pretty much anything you damn please, however if what you say is deemed so reprehensible a Judge may be called in to determine if it meets the criteria set out in the hate crime laws. These criteria as I am aware of them are pretty steep, you really have to go out there to go across the line so to speak.
It is a slippery slope I will give you that, however I also believe that someone has to be accountable for their actions, and that includes what they say in public. You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
99% of the time comments like these would A) never make it to posted, or B) be removed by the website, however given that this is a news paper they may have felt obligated to share the posts as part of free speech. Which calls into question how much responsibility does the news paper have in this matter? It could be that they did not meet their obligations and that partial fault falls to them.
Wow this was a pretty long post for discussing comments I didn't even read!
Interestingly, many Americans, including those bashing America while extolling the virtues of Canada and much of Western Europe because of their enlightenment and social programs, fail to realize how many rights Americans take for granted are not available to many of the citizens of these other countries. In particular, broad freedom of speech/expression and various rights associated with criminal justice.
Personally, probably because I was born and raised in America, I wouldn't give up the freedoms I have in exchange for more collective social infrastructure. But, others may make a different legitimate decision or conclude that one can have the best of all possible worlds.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
While everyone is complaining that this post references people across an imaginary line, the DATA Google is holding is also across that line. If Judge Robertson can force Google to go across a border to bring data back, why not force these other things?
Frack. Nothing worse than slowing down to see the accident and the wreck has already been cleaned up. No blood stains, nothing. Lame.
Silly Americans ....
The first time you tried to steamroll the border we burned your little White House down.
The last time you seriously threatened to steamroll the border we sent you Celine Dion .....as you can tell the lessons on invading Canada only get harsher :D
Anonymity on the internet should not be allowed.
"The idea that someone can call you a stupid moron, and you can't sue them,..."
The very act of wanting to sue an anonymous calling you a stupid moron is what makes you a stupid moron.
That's basically how it works in Canada, though the threats have to be more than just some internet randomness.
lol everytime you've tried to invade Canada, not only did we drive you out, but we ran down to Washington and burned your Whitehouse down to the ground, twice so far.
Or "How would you feel about Mr. X if you learned he was a moron?"
Hey! No name calling! A prig is not necessarily a pig! Pigs can on occasion be warm, friendly and charming. Prigs are, well, prigs. They judge is being a prig. Anonymous is anonymous. We have elections in private voting booths because it lets people say exactly what they think without censure or reprisal. Anonymous internet sites are great because they allow the same thing. I don't know if the journalism/print media has ever allowed that kind of openness toward free expression (especially in Canada), and I'm thinking, that perhaps exposure to the internet (and that Pesky Slashdot) has allowed people to believe they have more freedoms than they traditionally have had. Props go to sites like Slashdot for allowing free and open discussion. Fuck! It would be an awful place if I were censured in the expletive I used in the last (short) sentence. I apologise to those I have offended, but I praise Slashdot (and other online sites) that don't bring the hammer down on free expression. Sadly, it looks more and more like the last place in the world where people are allowed to express themselves freely.
Time for a second ass-whooping? ;)
I don't know about you, but I think it is a bit suspicious that Mr. X has never publicly denied being a moron.
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
Canada has hate thought crimes. America has not quite gotten there, yet. Sooner, rather than later, your right to hold an opinion different from anyone, on any but the most neutral subjects, will be illegal. Never have understood how my countrymen can remain so ignorant of what is happening in the rest of the world concerning hate crime/thought. When you can not, by rule of law, call a person a name or state they are inferior just because of their race, or sex, or ethnicity, then freedom is lost, and probably will never be regained. And no I am not a racist. I can however see that just as blacks in America never get charged with hate crimes against whites, the same will be true when they remove the ability to speak your mind. Whites will be crackers with no repercussions, while calling a black "nigger" will end you up in jail.
Did anyone mention "every instance of anonymous speech"?
I think people should be able to say whatever they want anonymously. But I don't think there's any "right" to your identity not being discovered if you're spewing hatred. You can be as big an asshole as you want, but don't cry if your identity is disclosed, preferably by one of your peers or someone who knows how to resolve an IP address or email header.
There's a big difference between anonymous political speech and just spewing raw hate. For those cases, where someone finds the courage to be racist as long as they're anonymous, "more speech" isn't as good a solution as a boot up the ass.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thanks, I prefer to respond to the people I don't like by killing them instead.
Deliberate lies in print, even on web-pages is Libel.
Well now, that's your opinion, isn't it? Everything else you wrote was dictionary-form accurate, but if web-pages and print were commonly agreed to be identical forms in a legal sense, then this story wouldn't have made it to Slashdot.
The reason stories of this nature are interesting is that their outcomes are currently up in the air and the rules (and fate) of the internet is still being decided.
I certainly hope that anonymity is maintained on the web, because the people who decide these things are corruptible humans unworthy of the public trust they currently hold as it is.
People should instead be taught that information offered up by an anonymous source is of less value than that which comes attached to a real name. Read at your own risk and don't get your knickers in a twist. Anyway, forums should self-regulate. I notice that around here hate-speach people tend to get side-lined. The Mod system, for all its warts, is actually pretty amazing.
-FL
stupid quote. Use "Free speech, if it is anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear".
That actually explains why we have to allow people to say things that we don't like, rather than being merely a statement of the value which Voltair placed on free speech.
FGD 135
As far as I know, in the UK at least, you can't sue for being insulted. You can if the comments made were racist, sexist, homophobic etc, but not simply insulting. You could possibly have them charged with verbal assault though. Also, as has already been mentioned, slander and offensivness do cross over from time to time, but are separate.
The problem is once you start closing down the avenues of speech it could become a slippery slope. Almost any kind of contentious speech could be labeled as "hateful" by one party or another. Or are the cartoons of Mohamed too distant of a memory for you? If you want to allow free speech, you have to allow all speech, hateful or otherwise.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
That's a new defintion of 'can'. I suppose I 'can' stick a toasting fork in your head too - woohoo for freedom.
FGD 135
Sounds like Justice Heather Robertson needs to go back to law school... Freedom of speech and the right to anonymity exist in Canada as well and a Supreme Court judge should be aware of that.
We also made a song to help you remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRwiH18QwpU
He can demand and order all he want but that doesn't change the anonymous nature of the internet.
Basically. . , when the Fox News talking heads are arrested and locked away for libel, then Americans can talk.
Or should only millionaires be allowed to Troll?
Basically, anonymous posting is necessary in the same kinds of ways as anonymous voting.
-FL
Silly Americans ....
The first time you tried to steamroll the border we burned your little White House down.
Psh. That because you were still under the King's thumb, it was his navy that came in and sacked DC. Although now days, there's really no need to invade America Jr. USAF already patrols the non-joining borders around Canada, and with all the work programs/trade between the two countries the only thing actually separating us would be the respective governments.
No, Canada is the 53rd US state, after Japan and Mexico, eh.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Just because people are Ass Hats doesn't mean that outright lying and defamation of character isn't a crime. It is. I am quite aware of the fact that people troll, just to start arguement for the sake of arguement, but at some point, those who are being defamed, even by trolls, have a right to fight to keep lies from being printed about them. Since the posts were comments made about a on-line news site, and the news sites are printing their articles in a public written forum, any posters are also then contributing to written materials.
People take racism seriously, sometimes too seriously, and sometimes not seriously enough. If there is ample evidence that the posters comments are true, then the lawsuit will be likely thrown out. I'm gathering that the comments must be pretty bad for the judge to immediately state that the names must be turned over.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
The judge, case, and hate speech law in question are Canadian. Even if Americans made comments on the The Coast article, only Canadians or those under Canadian jurisdiction will be subpoenaed. Why do so many Americans commenting on this article have a difficult time comprehending this?
It's strange to me how people will say "free speech is incredibly important" and then say "you should not be accountable for your words". If words are important (and I believe they are) why shouldn't you be accountable for them? If you shouldn't be, why hold anyone accountable for anything? You can utterly destroy someone by spreading rumors about them.
Words are much more powerful than guns or bombs or weapons of mass destruction (that's why free speech is so important). But free speech is not cowardly speech. If you really believe what you are saying, why don't you think it's important enough to stand behind your words (even if that may mean prosecution or death)? Forget anonymity, it is just another word for cowardice. The last thing we need is more worthless cowards cluttering up the air with their idle words.
If I post that your mother intimately cosorts with farm animals and it isn't true then I am a TROLL.
That's not trolling, that's slander (libel if it's written) unless it's true, and if it is you better have some proof. If I say your mother is ugly and you're a moron and your dad is a loser, THAT'S trolling. One is actionable, the other is not.
Free Martian Whores!
glen beck young girl 1990
In the US we understand that the words of an anonymous coward are just words, and only have the power that you, the pussy, give to them. And as such, there can be no damage to reputation by the rantings of an anonymous coward on a message board.
Do you live in different US than I do?
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
One of the great joys of reality is that you CAN go up and assassinate someone for a slight. There may be consequences afterward, but no one (other then the police, FBI, and his bodyguards) is stopping you.
Canadian militia units served only either in Canada itself or attached to British units in the Michigan territories. And, while those militias performed admirably (the Battle of Queenston Heights, for example), they certainly didn't burn down the White House.
It should also be noted that the burning of the capitol was not exactly an auspicious occasion for the British. A tornado killed thirty of them (the only casualties of the event), they bled much-needed men and ships from other active campaigns (which they lost), and all they accomplished was eradicating anti-war sentiment in the US (which still ran high). And, adding insult to injury, the building still stands; something that cannot be said for the Parliament building in Ontario whose destruction the British were trying to avenge in the first place.
Why do niggers have to get offended so easily. Isn't it time for these dumb, ape looking niggers grow a thick skin and start acting like adults? I mean, we crackers have to listen to these unhappy niggers crying and bellyache about "mistreatment" and "what other people owe them". I want my family's money back for giving them a free boat ride over to this country.
I CAN also murder you. It is a possibility. However upon doing so I should be prepared for the repercussions. Such as jail time.
There is ALWAYS choice. You may not like it, which in this case is the whole point. It is a deterrent. Which I am pretty sure is the case with most laws.
Law are in place to moderate the actions of people to what is deemed "acceptable" behavior, as determined by judges, assigned by a chosen government who is elected. It is pretty simple: if saying certain things is not deemed "acceptable" behavior, then a law is created to deter those few individuals who wish to do so.
I don't understand how someone can think they can say whatever the hell they want, without fear of what they said coming back to bite them in the ass. Be that a punch in the face (who would then have to face the music for punching someone in the face), or legal issues.
People should exercise some thought about what they say before they say it.
That said, the counter argument to that is:
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me..."
But if Sarah Palin says that the new government health system would implement death panels, that's news, even though the statement is obviously false.
AFAIK, in here in the US you can't sue someone for racist or sexist statements. That's why the KKK, Neo Nazis, etc., are still able to function in plain sight. If someone were to cause physical harm, then that's a hate crime and subject to law enforcement, but holding rallies and spewing racist comments is completely legal. That's the thing that surprised my wife the most, I think.
Then again, maybe I'm a moron who doesn't understand Free Speech laws as well as I should. 8^P
... that most of the comments were posted from phones registered to the president of Mexico.
Have gnu, will travel.
But we could always sue for emotional damages! It's verbal abuse!
It's unrealistic to think you can allow all speech.
In the US you can't engage in obscene speech acts, you can't say something likely to lead to "imminent lawless action," nor can you engage in libel or slander.
The Canadians may have drawn a different line than us, but there are genuine social interests that outweigh certain types of speech.
No Canada is the made up of 13 states. Duh!
(My apologies to my Canadian girlfriend)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Hmmm.
If what you say is accurate, I'm honesty more concerned that you can be tried in absentia in Canada than I am with this discovery.
C) The fact that the posters are not Canadian citizens is immaterial. You break the law in Canada be it fraud or in this case Hate Crimes you are still subject to the repercussions.
Was the crime actually committed in Canada?
Its not that this thing happened in Canada or whatever that gets me. I get their law is different. My thought is asking GOOGLE to hand over identifying information about users who posted on a website not controlled by Google. Um, hello?
Maybe there is something in the article, but I am too lazy to pull it up, and instead am going to blast unannonimously for all the world to hear.
I don't know where you're from, but in the USA in which I live, any police officer present can and often will stop you any time they wish if they think you are imminently about to slug someone or commit any other such crime. Part of freedom of speech in the USA is that you are supposedly free from violent retaliation for speaking your mind. What is this third-world country you describe where nobody stops criminals from indulging in the old fashioned honor approach?
Experience shows me that plenty of people might very well stop you if you rear back a fist. Maybe they will, maybe they will not.
For sake of argument if you *are* describing the USA in your post, try leaving your mom's basement or trailer park.
If you think it would not be a good world if some coward could run hide [sic] behind a judge, why do you think it is such a good world where you, Anonymous Coward, hide behind an anonymous post?
Your attitude toward speech is Stalin's attitude.
I don't know about you, but I think it is a bit suspicious that Mr. X has never publicly denied being a moron.
Nonsense. He's not nearly as much of a moron as he used to be. At least, that's what his illegitimate love child says in tonight's exclusive interview.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
The point he was trying to make is that freedom of speech is protected by law, thee should be no restrictions on speech, your saying that there is repurcutions, well there shouldnt be.
They're also generally more polite (except French), and less materialistic (except Brits and Italians). At least, that's my observation, and may be considered insulting to Americans, or even a nationality-based form of racism. 8^P
And before anyone mods me down, please realize that I'm trying to be satirical, and don't actually mean what I just said. 8^P
Even more interestingly, many people in Canada fail to realise how great our privacy laws are, and how fortunate we are not to be living in the United States.
Personally, probably because I was born and raised in Canada, I wouldn't give up my right to privacy in exchange for the US idea of freedom, in which theory is very different from practise.
I'm deeply saddened to read of this incident involving the firefighter. Based on my experiences and observations some 15 years ago from living in the area, there is a deep history of racial tensions and racial segregation among 'whites' and 'blacks' in the area as a whole. Africville, which is now know as Preston/North Preston, generally seen as a community of repressed 'blacks' dating back to the 1900s. Wikipedia has a summary, but if I correctly recall there is a museum in the Halifax area dedicated to explaining the history of the segregation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africville,_Nova_Scotia
In addition, I lived in the Coal Harbour area of Halifx/Dartmouth and left some 15 years ago. I was witness to the first (of now several) riots that broke out at Cole Harbour High School. The first riot was certainly racially motivated, and the later ones from CBC accounts were as well.
Here are some links:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/25/coleharbour-violence.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/26/coleharbour-suspensions.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/25/coleharbour-violence.html
That's not basically how it works in Canada. Read about Sec. 13 of the Human Rights Act, which reads:
" 13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking."
If you look at the convictions under this section, what is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" is understood broadly.
I don't know the details of the Halifax case reported here (don't really care right now to read them), but I would bet that Sec. 13 is being invoked as they are talking about postings on internet boards.
Are you serious? You wouldn't give up the right to be an outrageous asshole (which I personally never chose to do) in exchange for free health care and six weeks paid vacation a year? If my family didn't live here, I'd be gone in a heartbeat. Then again, I'm not deluded that my country is the greatest in the world simply because I happened to have been born in it.
Payback is a bitch, innit?
I can imagine a virus or worm that hijacks someone's machine to harvest accounts to post libel. Who is responsible then? What happens when the judge's computer gets hijacked? Same with any speech we find the need to control, who does the law find responsible? Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
There not going after AC because of hate speech, but because the postings were not in english and french as is required by law. I wonder how well hate speech would translate.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
That issue is anonymity on the internet. My gripe basically boils down to this; If you are going to disallow someones anonymity on the internet because of any punishable law, you should then have to go back and punish everyone who has ever broken any punishable law under the guise of anonymity on the internet. This is of course impracticle, so throw that idea out of the window.
Actually, I believe that's exactly what he intends: that a person on the internet has no right to privacy if they are believed to have committed a crime.
That said, I know in the US the courts are not required to prosecute every potential crime, so it would hardly be impractical. Just take the cases as they come.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
"Canada has hate thought crimes."
nope, you're free to think whatever thoughts you want to.
what's criminal is the PUBLIC EXPRESSION of those thoughts, if they are deemed to incite hatred.
"When you can not, by rule of law, call a person a name or state they are inferior just because of their race, or sex, or ethnicity, then freedom is lost, and probably will never be regained"
again, you seem to be missing some core concepts of the hate speech legislation. Statements along the lines of "Mexicans are lazy" or "black people are all thieves" are not hate speech.
"kill all arabs" and "burn the jews" are hate speech statements, because they are call-to-action statements inciting violence.
No, they aren't.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
In Canada, legal precedent shows that slugging someone, even if "they deserve it" is worth about $20k. (That's about $20k US.)
I am not a lawyer, but I do have one on retainer.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I see it differently. Freedom of speech is the freedom from government intervention preventing you from expressing your opinion. It has nothing to do with other private citizens. Thus, it is freedom from legal consequences (in most cases, see harassment, fighting words, slander, etc), not from social or personal consequences.
Put another way, you are free to say offensive things, not free from people being offended by what you say.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
From what part of Europe?
Things seem to vary quite a bit. In Spain a judge ruled that calling your boss "son of a bitch" isn't a good enough reason for firing.
I mean, I know it's likely that these are untrue statements made about the people filing suit, but I thought the thing about libel was that other people had to believe that what you said is true? I would imagine that "racist ranting in the anonymous online commentary section" doesn't really make the grade, as far as believability factor goes.
When you can not, by rule of law, call a person a name or state they are inferior just because of their race, or sex, or ethnicity, then freedom is lost, and probably will never be regained.
Followed immediately by....
And no I am not a racist.
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? You do realize that sentence one is the definition of racist?
You're correct that not being able to freely say to a black man "Niggers are like rats, and should not mingle with the White Race" is a restriction on your freedom. Just like not being able to shoot anyone you want on sight is a restriction on your freedom, or not being able to fuck any woman you want, regardless of whether she agrees or not, or taking somebody's car, regardless of whether they want to give it to you. And, if you want to restrict it to speech, you are not allowed to say to someone "I'll kill you if you don't vote my way", or the obligatory "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
This was your quick introduction into the topic of the social contract, whereby you give up some of your rights to live among others.
Oh, and as for your last bit about "nigger" landing you in jail - Michael Richards didn't go to jail.
Racists would be funny if they wouldn't be so ignorant and violent.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Although you may look at it as "Americans have the additional right of anonymous free speech" you could also look at it as "Americans lack the right to find out who is responsible for making improper comments about them."
However, to be clear, I think that freedom of anonymous speech should have priority.
Wow, so is it hate it speech if I call you a fucking nazi? Cos' that's what you sound like, you fucking nazi.
Some people obviously place more value on principles...
Stop! Dremel time!
Six weeks vacation? What sort of crack are you smoking? Basic employment guidelines are 2 weeks paid vacation per year for a full-time employee. You can also simply be paid for that and not given the time off in some circumstances. A good unionized job probably gets you 3-4 weeks to start and moves you up with seniority but you are only guaranteed 2 weeks.
Yes we do get "free" health care. That means that our monthly user fees are based on our income (from free for the right poor people on income support or with a decent work medical plan all the way up to over a hundred per month for a family, at least in my province. That does not include prescriptions though and some user fees. We pay less than our southern neighbors for prescriptions, but we do still pay. We do get subsidization, again based on our income and also possibly by having a decent work medical plan. Still, given some of the horror stories I've heard from US friends in car accidents, I won't move south without a hell of a medical plan...
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
For example, the priciple of "if you state something as a truth on slashdot, someone will bluntly disagree with you without providing any rationalization" is quite universal, as just demonstrated.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
That was my thought. Even if they're posting to a Canadian server/company, if they're in the US they shouldn't be breaking any laws. They could if they were actually Canadians, because law can apply to citizens even outside their country, but it would be absurd to convict a foreign person doing something in a foreign country.
Dilbert RSS feed
We have tribunals and judges well-versed in case law and guidelines in order to interpret whether or not an utterance or written item can be considered hateful...this determination is made by looking for the motivational intent of the item in question.
For example:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081010/muslim_complaint_081010/20081010?hub=Canada
The tribunal ruled against a group of Muslim complainants in regards to a Macleans article essentially warning people about the potential for a Muslim-ruled world.
The cartoons themselves were also brought before a tribunal:
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/2008/01/mohammed-cartoons-and-civil-rights-in_28.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant#Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
The complaints generated by this were dismissed or withdrawn. There is some sanity here.
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
Umm... "free" healthcare is not, well, free in single payer or similar arrangements... It's just either pre/post-paid by YOU or paid for by OTHERS.
And, no, I wouldn't give up any freedoms I consider important for "shared responsibility healthcare". I would not, for example, give up my right to speak without fear of government sanctions due to the content of my speech. I would not give up my right to a practice (or, in my case, fail to practice) a religion. I would not give up my right to a trial by a jury of my peers (well, something resembling them at least). I would not give up my right to assemble. I would not give up my individual right to keep and bear arms. I would not give up my right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I would not give up my right to refuse to testify against myself. I would not give up my right for my property and self to be shielded from unreasonable searches. I don't even think I'd give up my rights to not have soldiers quartered in my home in some circumstances -- but I'd have to think about that one since I've never exercised that particular right.
I don't think America is the greatest country possible -- I would make a lot of changes if it were my decision (including strengthening the implementation of most of the rights I mentioned above). I do, however, happen to find it, as compared to other major countries, the most compatible, at the moment, with my priorities. Fortunately, as you imply, it's a big world and there's no world police to prevent people from going to a country that better meets their personal priorities -- assuming of course that that country accepts them.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I'm Canadian and I agree that the examples are absolutely appropriate. I can relate to them and understand the point that the original poster is making. Some principles are indeed, universal. Being blind to the obvious applicability of the examples has nothing to do with "Canadian identity hypersensitivity", some people just don't get it.
But legal consequences are exactly what's being discussed (different AC here, by the way).
I'll assume your wife is beautiful and that is why you married her because she is a fucking moron.
FTFS "reporting that Google and a newspaper called The Coast"
So by your logic since google is an American based company they should tell that judge to fuck off then, using your logic there.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
Someone that thinks you should sue someone for calling them a 'stupid moron' is a stupid moron.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
--Salman Rushdie
Who, it must be admitted, has also suffered at the hands of those who took offense at his freedom of speech.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
So you're totally in favor of people being allow to say things that you agree with? So is every fascist. I find racism repugnant, but if we start restricting speech on the basis of content, including repugnant content, it's the beginning of the end of freedom. And no, restricting speech that would clearly result in immediate violence isn't the same thing.
You do not have a right to silence opinions you disagree with. Other people have the right say things that hurt your precious feelings - try not to be a pathetic wimp about that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'd say we draw the line between expressing an opinion and expressing facts.
I should be allowed to say whatever I want, as long as it's clearly my opinion: "I think...", "It is my opinion that..."
I should not be allowed to say whatever I want if I'm presenting it as fact.
"I think John Doe is a pedophile and a terrorist" - You go ahead and think that.
"John Doe is a pedophile and a terrorist" - You can't go around making false statements like that
Reasonable?
The only difference between "anonymous political speech" and "just spewing hate" is whether it hurts your feelings. Man up. If the government gets to decide between "political speech" and "hate speech", then all criticism of the goeernment eventually becomes "hate speech". Disagree with the current American leadership? Why, racism is your only possible motivation for that, and we won't be having any racism here, no sir!
That technique has been used sucessfully to create one-party political systems many times, and that's a far worse threat than someone getting his feelings hurt.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Please point out where I am in favor of restricting free speech that goes beyond promising death or that is designed to cause significant and immediate physical harm? If you're stumped, I also offer reading comprehension lessons.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I think it's a question of magnitude. If someone calls you a stupid moron, well that person is an immature prick but it's not worth wasting a whole court-full of people's time over. Tell them to eat a bag of dicks and get on with your life. They are only empty words in the air. People need to spend less time bickering over the little things, and more time enjoying life.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
If I were to anonymously, repeatedly, and convincingly (perhaps I'm a REALLY GOOD TROLL) outright state that you are a rapist and the only reason you are not in jail is because of some technicality, what recourse do you have?
I reply to the post, with the facts, backed up with documentation (trial transcripts, etc.).
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I am all for bringing back dueling. There have never been any laws requiring participation. Just a person's honor and good name. As long as it is carried out in a (relatively) safe manner where no innocent bystanders are hurt in the process, its between two consenting adults, and no outside interference takes place, why not? Laws exist to protect us from each other, not from ourselves. That is the basic principle of a limited form of government. I fail to see how a duel carried out under the aforementioned conditions puts anyone but the participants in any kind of danger.
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? You do realize that sentence one is the definition of racist?
you do realize there is a difference between saying something should be legal, and actually doing said act?
You're correct that not being able to freely say to a black man "Niggers are like rats, and should not mingle with the White Race" is a restriction on your freedom. Just like not being able to shoot anyone you want on sight is a restriction on your freedom, or not being able to fuck any woman you want, regardless of whether she agrees or not, or taking somebody's car, regardless of whether they want to give it to you
Except one is merely offensive, the others are harmful, and force an action upon an unwilling person. A big difference.
In my mind, limits to free speech are important when that speech crosses the line into hatefulness. I see no reason why people shouldn't be held to account for damages that they willfully cause through verbal abuse.
(As an American) I agree that some speech should be limited by force of law - but generally-speaking I think you'll find most Americans go as far as protecting public safety and stop there ("Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.)
The problem is with your second sentence. "Held to account for damages ." What kind of damages can possibly be rewarded by the court? How do you quantify it? Is calling someone a "faggot" worth $50 but calling them a "dirty faggot that must die!" worth $100? Is there a chart, or an Excel spreadsheet with some formulas we can input?
What if I don't care if someone says hateful things to me? Or what if I'm someone who's hyper-sensitive to hate speech? The same thing said to two different people has two different results.
Or is the intent all that matters, not its effect? In which case, what if whenever I say "Have a nice day" what I really mean is "I hope you die in an oven"? Once again, how do you quantify the degree of hatefulness so you can fairly judge them?
When you can not, by rule of law, call a person a name or state they are inferior just because of their race, or sex, or ethnicity, then freedom is lost, and probably will never be regained.
Followed immediately by....
And no I am not a racist.
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? You do realize that sentence one is the definition of racist?
So what race does the post claim is inferior? Does the post in fact claim that any race is inferior? Does the post imply that the poster believes that any race is inferior? The (honest) answer to all these questions is no. Permitting expression of racist ideas is not itself racist.
There is no cognitive dissonance here, only a recognition that freedom requires that racist ideas must be permitted expression for freedom to survive. Freedom is not racist.
This was your quick introduction into the topic of the social contract, whereby you give up some of your rights to live among others.
The GP was your quick introduction into how the social contract is not an excuse for statists to enact all of their big brother fantasies while still claiming that the subjects of their regulation and surveillance are still "free"
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Apparently some low-ranking district court judge now makes law.
Congratulations on one of the most backwards decisions in recent history.
"ip number gives it away" its misunderstandings like this that are causing all this hoopla. The IP address you are using at a given time will be used by someone else in the near future (in most cases). While the ISP can track you - assuming you do not use a proxy, or series of proxies, which everyone with a brain who posts hateful comments now will - they can only track it to your house. MAC addresses are easily spoofable.
Now, imagine you share your wireless network with three or four people - family, or friends. How do we establish who was posting?
Or, better yet - your wireless network is unsecured! Ooops! Anyone can now post using your IP. Checking the neighborhood, I see all kinds of default password and WEP-less open access networks. Good luck tracking down who is who.
I'm sorry, I have not read the comments and so cannot speak to their nature, however, no matter how bad they are, I don't think that this kind of disclosure is necessary - it will have a huge chilling effect. And the clever ones will still be able to say whatever they want, and innocents will get caught up in bizarre legal dramas because of both the courts and the defendants incomprehension of the underlying technology.
_____
I know everyone here knows this, I am cross posting from the Globe and Mail. Rarely have I been so outraged at a ridiculous and backwards court judgement.
N_GGERS
As opposed to hanging at every word of one 'Pamela Jones'?
The factor isn't whether somebody's 'screen name' (nickname, handle, whatever) looks ridiculous or not, but whether what they are saying is, in fact, taken seriously. That's why it's perfectly okay to call a teacher an asshole but claiming that you believe you saw him doing something less-than-honorable with a 16-year old student is something else entirely. The content of the message doesn't change when it's "lulzmaster101" vs "John Marks, Sr.".
Even if you believe people shouldn't be that stupid, and that the courts certainly shouldn't agree, the 'court of public opinion' is one entirely different. Just look at review sites where, by and large anonymous, reviews actually -can- affect business (for better or worse).
As an American with an average work health plan, I think it's funny that you think $100/month per family is a lot.
You directly stated the equivalence between making a generic racist statement and murder, rape, and shouting fire in a crowded theater. You specifically gave an example that was neither promising death nor inciting violence, and went on to explain that giving up the right to make such statements is part of "the social contract".
Admittedly, I'm just assuming that you are against murder and rape, and for "the social contract", and therefore favor restricting generic racist statements. Do I have that backwards?
You also directy implied that Stonewallred is a violent, ignorant, racist for expressing his opinion that "if we outlaw racist statements, freedom is lost", which seemed a wholly unprovoked insult.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Reading Comprehension, part 1.
"You're correct that not being able to freely say to a black man "Niggers are like rats, and should not mingle with the White Race" is a restriction on your freedom." is a sentence that states a semantic fact. It says nothing about whether that restriction is positive, negative or in force anywhere. The other examples are also restrictions on freedoms, with again nothing being stated towards their net positive or negative effects on society. "And, if you want to restrict it to speech, you are not allowed to say to someone "I'll kill you if you don't vote my way", or the obligatory "Fire!" in a crowded theater." is the only sentence that declares the examples to actually be existing law somewhere.
Reading comprehension, part 2.
"This was your quick introduction into the topic of the social contract, whereby you give up some of your rights to live among others." is a compound sentence, where the part after the comma defines the object of the part before the comma. Note that others is missing qualifier, as grammatically, it refers to "rights", not the implied "people".
Note that at no point do I define what rights should be given up to live among other people. I only said that in the context of the social contract, some rights are given up to allow for peaceful co-existence.
In short, I compiled a list of rules. Nothing more, nothing less.
So yes, you made a whole bunch of assumptions that are not supported by what I wrote here. It's particularly funny since I'm frequently railing against laws that ban hate-speech.
As for Stonewallred being violent, ignorant and racist - you're correct, on a second reading, the sentence I quoted isn't nearly as damning as I thought. For that, you'd have to read one of his posts from earlier today. I must admit it tinged my perception of his post in this thread. There's the possibility that he's just being sarcastic, but... it's unlikely at this point.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I didn't say it was a lot - just that it wasn't completely free. I was agreeing that we had cheaper medical care.
I thought the OP was on crack in regards to the six weeks vacation. That's France or something - not Canada.
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
I would not give up my right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
]
Hmm, I live in the US and I always thought that in case of someone suing you for something YOU'RE the one having to prove you didn't do it.
How about "Is Mr. X a moron? Shocking revelations!"
As I recall, the Americans also captured Toronto (called York at the time), and burned the Parliament building there.
I think that particular bit of chest-thumping was pretty much as a wash.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
IANAL, but as I recall in the US...
For criminal cases the standard is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And you're innocent until the jury (or judge if you waive a jury trial or you plead guilty) says you're guilty.
For civil cases the standard is generally, IIRC, that the "preponderance of the evidence" finds the defendant liable - much lower bar than the criminal standard. The burden of proof remains on the plaintiff. Obviously with a lower bar to clear for conviction, the defendant in a civil case may need to put up a stronger defense in order to prevail (hence, a person can be found "not guilty" of murder but lose a civil lawsuit for damages caused by the same murder - think OJ).
Also, in civil cases the judge/jury can consider a defendant's decision to "exercise their fifth amendment right" and refuse to testify. In a criminal case the judge and jury may not attach any significance to a defendant's decision to "exercise their fifth amendment right" and refuse to testify.
Yes, I think the instant case was a civil case (I didn't RTFA of course).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The efforts to control speech are most offensive..
What to do.. what to do..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
That post is from 2004. Things have changed since then. US readership of /. makes up 45% of traffic according to the latest stats source. Slashdot has a global audience. Every day there are stories posted about other countries, particularly in the YRO section.
Take your cultural imperialism and stick it up your arse! At least 55% of this site's visitors don't want to hear it.
Damages are typically based on real world costs incurred. In this case it would likely be the cost of counselling + lost wages. The wages could be considered lost if they didn't get a promotion (due to reputation damage), quit their job or had to take leave without pay to cope with the stress of loss of reputation.
sonmething about dogs
I think this can be best summed up in three sentences.
You have the right to say what you want.
You can and will be held responsible for what you say (coercion, extortion, the proverbial "fire in a crowded theatre").
You do not have the right to hide behind a shield of anonymity under these scenarios.
Free speech is a good thing(TM) but not as the yanks have it, you need to have more responsibility with free speech.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
A more apropos story. The Plain Dealer of Cleveland recently outed the poster of anonymous comments, after, it decided to violate accepted anonymity norms. There was not a subpoena issued to the paper, the paper's TOS were not violated, no legal complaint had been threatened, no gross defamation of another individual had been established. The Dealer just decided to violate anonymity norms.
Compounding the issue it decided to then out the poster in a news article. Ratings and readership trumped the accepted, common, longtime practice of respecting posters' anonymity.
The paper accused Judge, Shirley Strickland Saffold of posting negative comments about an attorney with pending cases under her purview. Anonymously. The judge is suing the paper, no surprise. Her daughter has claimed ownership of some comments, Judge Strickland Saffold denies the remaining postings. The ``paper acknowledged that it had broken with the tradition of allowing commenters to hide behind screen names, but it served notice that anonymity was a habit, not a guarantee.'' That's not a paper I'd continue to support.
What matters is that a non-trivial number of newspapers, news media blogs are disenchanted with the trolling behavior of some, and want to supplant anonymity with demanded real names. No verification is suggested, there is the expectation that such a thing will weed the worst of the lot.
Supposedly comments are seeing as of little commercial value, so they can press the issue and or offend posters. I couldn't disagree more. I found tha Amazon comments, the /. comments of immense value. Amazon's moderation is of extreme value to me, and a source of loyalty from me to them. Worthless? Ha. Foolish. They have even thought out the moderation posse bias that can occur, and is rampnat here on /.. Let me tell you now, fuck you /. reader, mod me down. I see shit moderated down offtopic whilst other shit floats to the top. So here goes again, fuck you reader! mod me down troll, offtopic. It's not reverse psychology appealment, I just think the preponderance of 5 comments are shit and waste my time. I regularly wade through 30-40 five-rated comments that utterly waste my time. This shit began, what, 5-6 years ago when moderation points were given to ANY registered poster from time to time. Prior to that you earned mod points by receiving them from others for your outstading comments,. IOW, once you had to earn those fucking points you were wary to dole them back out except to outstanding posts from others. In those days, five-tared comments per any story were 3, 4 or five tops. Four-rated were a multiple of that. Now, shit floats to the top, in vast fucking numbers, and one's reading time is supremely being wasted.
The Huffington Post, The Wsahington Post and others are going to remove anonymity, amongst others. Drop dead. I was going to include a link but go fucking search it yourself.
You think like a ReThuglican Jew
I'd say we draw the line between expressing an opinion and expressing facts.
I should be allowed to say whatever I want, as long as it's clearly my opinion: "I think...", "It is my opinion that..."
I should not be allowed to say whatever I want if I'm presenting it as fact.
"I think John Doe is a pedophile and a terrorist" - You go ahead and think that.
"John Doe is a pedophile and a terrorist" - You can't go around making false statements like that
Reasonable?
Yes, much *too* reasonable, which is why it will never be allowed to be that simple.
[sarcasm]
Why do you wish to starve the poor trial lawyers' children? You know, those poor, poor trial lawyers that give so much money to politicians & political parties and even become politicians themselves. Thankfully, our government has seen fit to pass the IRS Auditor/Trial Lawyer Full Employment Act of 2010 (also known to a few as the recently-passed healthcare reform and the "stimulus" & TARP packages...yes, the stuff Bush passed too).
[/sarcasm]
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I actually had a long discussion about accountability vs. free speech with my wife yesterday, and she was shocked that you can't sue someone for insulting you (she's from Europe). The idea that someone can call you a stupid moron, and you can't sue them, is simply incomprehensible to her. I know that you can sue someone for making false accusations of adultery (or similarly damaging), and circulating the rumors (slander), or printing them in some fashion (libel). At what point does freedom of speech cross over to something which should be dealt with in a modern form of the old fashioned honor duel?
Maybe they don't have more important cases in there courts over in europe, but if we allowed lawsuits for talking smack, nothing would get done in courts due to all the backlog.
Who gives a fuck if someone insults you? Calls you names? Says they fucked your mom? Seriously, why do you care that some person online, anonymous or not, says? I don't give a damn about what you say.
I like to play EQ2, and you know what the favorite thing to do in that game is? Talk shit to peeps who take chat too seriously.
yep, I'm one of those. Watching you get pissed and angry over nothing entertains me.
Be seeing you...
I guess it's time to just start making anonymous sockpuppet accounts.
Use a few anonymous proxies, never log into those accounts on a normal connection.
Oh ya, lets see you go after me now...
=)
oh wait, i don't post anonymous because I'm not afraid of someone coming after me for what I say, in fact, i welcome it.
I want some big deep pockets company to sue me, so I can drag it thru courts. I don't work, I'll still get my disability, and I can spend my time in court.
Oh ya, sue this bloodless turnip, please!
Be seeing you...
Why do they want to blame the posters for posting something which was *permitted* to appear on a web site? If you are a well-read "newspaper" and want to be all Web 2.0 and show comments from readers, why isn't the onus on you to moderate comments?
I'm sure "letters to the editor" come in all shapes and sizes. Radio and TV personalities get ripped into and even get death threats. The latter get passed on to police to investigate, as they should. But if I write a letter to some personality or politician accusing them of being a kiddy fiddler, I doubt I'd get into any trouble. It's just my opinion, and it's just a letter.
Suddenly, because it's on a web site, it's a huge issue about slander and libel. The site published it, just as a paper might decide, or not, to publish a letter to the editor. Where's the responsibility of the site owner?
Of course those posters are complete idiots for making public accusations without proof. If you seriously want someone to be investigated, you go to the police or something, and be prepared to back it up. Not post a comment on a web site. But if you do, and the site is dumb enough to publish everything from the public that comes in, well... of course it's going to be ugly sometimes. That's life for a newspaper, always has been. Moderate it.
People like you should DIAF.... what u mad? u mad? hahaha, umad?
Ya well IANAL of course, you would have to ask one or look it up. I assume however there is recourse other than for a judge to throw up his hands in the air and go "Oh Well!"
I wouldn't doubt that is the practice. There are an ever increasing amount of things that people are found guilty of every year where they are guilty until proven innocent for the sake of expediency.
I find that more unsettling myself.
That and the use of the legal system for legalized extortion. It is so expensive to defend yourself that in many cases (perhaps most cases) innocent people are declaring themselves guilty as it is simply cheaper to do so. Something is terribly wrong with that.
If the website is in Canada, both physically (I am assuming), and corporately (Newspaper, ISP, etc physically reside in Canada)....
I don't see this any different than if someone made death threats to someone in the USA from a phone in Canada. Just because you are in Canada, doesn't mean you can do that without repercussion. Otherwise I bet this would be a real growth market! :)
That said I heard on the news that it really has nothing to do with hate crimes at all and is actually a lot more simpler than that.
Some people accused some Halifax firefighters of being racist. The firefighters in question asked the court to get the names so that they could defend themselves legally. It is the classic question of which rights trump which. Is the right to defend yourself legally greater than that of someone Else's privacy? Considering they posted on a public site, likely not.
This reminds me of the breathalyzer case down in Florida. A class action appeal was done from drunk drivers that wished to see the code that convicted them from the breathalyzer. The company (knowing full well that its code is shit) claimed that information is a trade secret. The court rules that the defendants right to defend themselves in court was a HIGHER oder right than that of trade secrets and ordered the release of the code. The company still refused, and is being fined on a continual basis until that code is released. It is still in the courts I believe. However until then, in Flordia, the breathalyzers now cannot be used as evidence in a case, or at least if it is, it is easily refuted by the defense.
Sheesh good thing I saw the post about the messages being deleted because the 31 left then when I looked didn't look even remotely inflammatory. Not really interested enough to waste time Googling for dirt... and I'm kind of expecting it to be pretty tame even if I did so.
I regularly see more comment about French Quebecers.
51st state:
Kind of funny how many Canadians that I know are kind of receptive to the idea(never'd work, be a nightmare and most of the provinces would have to be split into smaller chunks anyways if they wanted their share of Senators, tax codes, all sorts of things, just likely will never happen and if it did it'd make Iraq/Afghanistan look like they cost peanuts) while many other Canadians are rabidly nationalistic(which would be another problem).
Silly Americans ....
The first time you tried to steamroll the border we burned your little White House down.
I bet you couldn't do that again. No, go on, we all dare ya! And there's no way you could take out all of Congress within the Capital building at the same time!
I think you're correct - at least thats my understanding of the US legal system. Honestly, I can see merits in both systems - in the US you have full freedom of speech while in Europe (generally speaking - it is a continent, not a country after all) you have the right to not be harrassed or discriminated against. I also think both tread a fine line between freedom and something very bad. The US version is on the good side of the line that crosses into segregation, while the European one stays on the good side of a 1984 situation (everything being controlled). Honestly I think the European system is better as-is, as it protects more than it supresses freedom.
I wonder if the Westboro family would be permitted to picket the funerals of soldiers in most european countries like they can here? That was the thing that prompted the discussion between my wife and I. The idea that they can do such a thing, and face no repurcussions, is quite mind-boggling.
Couldn't tell ya, as I don't know the details of that, but from a quick google it seems that they can't face no repurcussions - they were ordered to pay the family several million dollars (~$10mil I think). Don't think that kind of thing would come under freedom of speech anyway, but rather right to protest (and when and where that right extends).
This week, that was overturned, and the plaintiff in one case (where his son's funeral was picketed) was odered to pay $16,000 in court costs.