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."
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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...!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.