jdobbin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 In his lawsuit, Kinsella would have to explain why he has delayed for weeks his transition to a stronger platform if he finds the protection of his reputation so important. And as we have seen, he has the paperwork to indicate that is exactly what he was doing over the course of weeks where there was attacks on his system. Quote
punked Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 And as we have seen, he has the paperwork to indicate that is exactly what he was doing over the course of weeks where there was attacks on his system. Ok I don't understand this? What happened? Did it screw up all his times, or just some of them? Quote
jdobbin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 Chilling, isn't it. Only if you feel the need to violate the law. Are not Tories supporters of Canada's laws on slander, libel and defamation? I have not heard complaints about them so far. Quote
punked Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 The law has always been in place and the anonymity people feel to violate it on the Internet is ending. What is sad is that people think they can flout the law without consequence.Free speech can still happen. Just don't think it means you are not answerable for defamation, libel and slander. Companies now routinely go online and find out who says things about their company. You can express opinions or viewpoints but there is a line that can violate the law. The Internet is no different. And the Liberal party has vowed to fight back against that, with net neutrality. Or was that just an empty promise. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 Ok I don't understand this? What happened? Did it screw up all his times, or just some of them? According to his website, it messed up all the times since denial of service started happening. He has been indicating through a lot of the summer that his website has been attacked. The claim Lifesite has made can be easily defended if there is information to back up the timeframe design. Essentially, Lifesite was saying the timechange was a cover-up. It is a claim that crosses over from freedom of speech to possible violations of the law. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 And the Liberal party has vowed to fight back against that, with net neutrality. Or was that just an empty promise. I think you are confused about net neutrality. It isn't about allowing the breaking of laws in Canada. Quote
benny Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) The law has always been in place and the anonymity people feel to violate it on the Internet is ending. What is sad is that people think they can flout the law without consequence.Free speech can still happen. Just don't think it means you are not answerable for defamation, libel and slander. Companies now routinely go online and find out who says things about their company. You can express opinions or viewpoints but there is a line that can violate the law. The Internet is no different. It is how the law works. It is how this forum works. Step out of line, get banned. Break the law and the moderator and owners of the board will turn you in themselves. Think that you are special and that free speech allows you to make claims that violate the law and be prepared to defend them in another forum, the court of law. Irving the son experiences that, with his free speech, he was able to force his father to send him on a month vacation. Edited August 5, 2009 by benny Quote
punked Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 According to his website, it messed up all the times since denial of service started happening. He has been indicating through a lot of the summer that his website has been attacked.The claim Lifesite has made can be easily defended if there is information to back up the timeframe design. Essentially, Lifesite was saying the timechange was a cover-up. It is a claim that crosses over from freedom of speech to possible violations of the law. Well I don't know why anyone would attack a website it seems petty and stuipd. Quote
punked Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 I think you are confused about net neutrality. It isn't about allowing the breaking of laws in Canada. It would make it so on the Internet someone would have to prove the harm first in a court of law before an ISP could release that persons name. As it stands no WK could go to court get a bloggers name sue them into closer with just legal fees. The other way he would have to spend his money to first prove his cause then the person would be able to have another case to defend themselves. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 Well I don't know why anyone would attack a website it seems petty and stuipd. It has been happening all summer to many websites. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 It would make it so on the Internet someone would have to prove the harm first in a court of law before an ISP could release that persons name. As it stands no WK could go to court get a bloggers name sue them into closer with just legal fees. The other way he would have to spend his money to first prove his cause then the person would be able to have another case to defend themselves. Kinsella does go to court. Quote
benny Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 It has been happening all summer to many websites. These websites may threaten the media monopoly of the Irving family in New Brunswick. Quote
punked Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 Kinsella does go to court. Yes I understand that but under a net neutrality law the Liberals apparently support, and ISP would not ever have to give a bloggers name up until the person sueing proved that they had a case and even then they would not have to give up the names and address. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 Yes I understand that but under a net neutrality law the Liberals apparently support, and ISP would not ever have to give a bloggers name up until the person sueing proved that they had a case and even then they would not have to give up the names and address. Actually, at that point they would. A court order is all that is required if the plaintiff can show harm. Quote
benny Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) Actually, at that point they would. A court order is all that is required if the plaintiff can show harm. Losing a strategic asset in not being able to invoke "deny of service" or time any more is not an admissible harm. Edited August 5, 2009 by benny Quote
punked Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 Actually, at that point they would. A court order is all that is required if the plaintiff can show harm. Not in a world with Net neutrality as the Liberals promises they want. An ISP could say I entered an agreement with this client, and if you want to find who they are you will have to find another way. Irwin Toy v. Doe [2000] O.J. No. 3318 (S.C.J) Quote
benny Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) Not in a world with Net neutrality as the Liberals promises they want. An ISP could say I entered an agreement with this client, and if you want to find who they are you will have to find another way.Irwin Toy v. Doe [2000] O.J. No. 3318 (S.C.J) We are speaking of Jesus-Christ here and this Kinsella thinks he can "steal the show"! Edited August 5, 2009 by benny Quote
jdobbin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) Not in a world with Net neutrality as the Liberals promises they want. An ISP could say I entered an agreement with this client, and if you want to find who they are you will have to find another way.Irwin Toy v. Doe [2000] O.J. No. 3318 (S.C.J) The response is this: http://canton.elegal.ca/tag/court-ordered-disclosure/ In the 2000 Irwin Toy Ltd. vs Doe decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case before the court would order disclosure. That means that, “at first glance,” the request for disclosure has some legitimate merit. This would stop meritless cases from going on fishing expeditions. An ISP cannot refuse a court order if you make your case. Edited August 5, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
benny Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 An ISP cannot refuse a court order if you make your case. By going to court, Kinsella would certainly make Harper happy. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 6, 2009 Report Posted August 6, 2009 Well I don't know why anyone would attack a website it seems petty and stuipd. Today: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090806/tech...nternet_twitter Twitter was down for more than two hours before engineers at the California firm were able to get it back online with a warning at the website that "we are continuing to defend against and recover from this attack.""On this otherwise happy Thursday morning, Twitter is the target of a denial of service attack," Twitter executive Biz Stone said in an official company blog. Quote
punked Posted August 6, 2009 Report Posted August 6, 2009 Today:http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090806/tech...nternet_twitter Well I think we can both agree you can't yell at WK one minute for him attack free speech with lawsuits then attack his site the next minute. These people are not ready to stand by their convections and are idiots. Let people in this world have their say in all forms of media am I right? Quote
Molly Posted August 6, 2009 Report Posted August 6, 2009 Sheesh! If it was all a Liberal conspiracy, who the heck did they get to act the role of Harper in the video? Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
M.Dancer Posted August 6, 2009 Report Posted August 6, 2009 Sheesh! If it was all a Liberal conspiracy, who the heck did they get to act the role of Harper in the video? Who played JFK in the assination conspiracy? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
punked Posted August 6, 2009 Report Posted August 6, 2009 Sheesh! If it was all a Liberal conspiracy, who the heck did they get to act the role of Harper in the video? Maybe they got all those Liberals who said he ate the host off the camera? Maybe that is who. Quote
benny Posted August 6, 2009 Report Posted August 6, 2009 Maybe they got all those Liberals who said he ate the host off the camera? Maybe that is who. Camera has been invented to immortalize key circumstances. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.