Ex Stephen Harper advisor makes disturbing comments about Child Pornog

[scribblet]

Why don't you try doing a bit of research?

He admitted that 'he got put on the mailing list', someone did it for him.

He's pretty naive if he thinks looking at those pictures is strictly passive and doesn't harm anyone. I didn't realize that those comments were made in 2009. The link to the 2009 article doesn't work now.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/02/28/pmo-says-flanagans-child-pornography-comments-epugnant-ignorant-and-appalling/33837?page_requested=

“It’s a long story,” Prof. Flanagan said. “But I got put on the mailing list of the National Man Boy Love Association and I started getting their mailings for a couple of years, so that’s the closest I ever came to child pornography.”

[Sleipnir]

He admitted that 'he got put on the mailing list', someone did it for him.

Yeah I don't buy that argument. I would if he cancelled the subscription after recieving few 'materials' - however, it went on for years until he simply check the box to get off the mailing list.

[Boges]

Wait so NAMBLA actually exists and isn't just a South Park joke?

Weird!

[Sleipnir]

Wait so NAMBLA actually exists and isn't just a South Park joke?

Weird!

Can't tell if serious or being sarcastic...

[scribblet]

I agree that not cancelling it two years is weird, but he didn't take out the subscription, someone did it for him.

Either way he's made a grave error in judgement and should've known that there are consequences to free speech. It's too bad that this will be inexorably tied to Harper in attempts to paint our PM as having similar thoughts.

[Boges]

Can't tell if serious or being sarcastic...

I really didn't know it was a real group, I'm not up on organizations like that. I thought it was a South Park joke.

[scribblet]

Can't tell if serious or being sarcastic...

Not sure either but it does exist. http://www.nambla.org/ In fact I recall reading about them asking the U.N. for recognition or something years ago and wanting to lower the age of consent. A thoroughly despicable group of *&*&*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association#Controversy_and_loss_of_UN_consultative_status

In 1993 the United Nations conferred consultive status to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). The ILGA included NAMBLA in its membership. As early as 1993, the ILGA wanted all its members to treat all sexual minorities with respect. It wrote, “The recognition of pedophiles as a distinct ‘sexual minority’ is a key demand of advocates of adult-child sex. By making claims as a ‘minority,’ pederasts can essentially follow in the footsteps of homosexual activists and demand legal and societal changes to guarantee their rights.’

I believe ILGA eventually expelled NAMBLA.... there was a big stink at the time but most of the links now don't work.

[Boges]

I hope you're not researching that on a work computer. Just saying.

[scribblet]

I hope you're not researching that on a work computer. Just saying.

You are right, I just thought about it... http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2006/may/06051902

[Guest]

Wait so NAMBLA actually exists and isn't just a South Park joke?

Weird!

I thought the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes was actually the most likely of the two...

[Guest Derek L]

Quoting the media and the primary source itself doesn't constitute as a libel.

And where did you quote the media?

[scribblet]

I hope you're not researching that on a work computer. Just saying.

Actually, not a work computer, at home but you still have a point. I guess we don't really know how much we are being monitored.

[waldo]

Free advice, tread carefully in what you say……….Do or don’t as you please, it’s not my nose (or website), but as I said, a clear example of both libel and breaking of forum rules and guidelines on your part.

hey now... you're an internet lawyer too! Perhaps we are alumni - yes? Perhaps this ruling extract from Canada's Supreme Court might have relevance:

To prove the publication element of defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has, by any act, conveyed defamatory meaning to a single third party who has received it. Traditionally, the form the defendant’s act takes and the manner in which it assists in causing the defamatory content to reach the third party are irrelevant. Applying this traditional rule to hyperlinks, however, would have the effect of creating a presumption of liability for all hyperlinkers. This would seriously restrict the flow of information on the Internet and, as a result, freedom of expression.

Hyperlinks are, in essence, references, which are fundamentally different from other acts of “publication”. Hyperlinks and references both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. They both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content-neutral. Furthermore, inserting a hyperlink into a text gives the author no control over the content in the secondary article to which he or she has linked.

A hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers. When a person follows a hyperlink to a secondary source that contains defamatory words, the actual creator or poster of the defamatory words in the secondary material is the person who is publishing the libel. Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered to be “published” by the hyperlinker.

I am late to the thread... and there does appear to have been some post editing. In that context, I interpret you placing key determination on distinguishing passive complicity in the receipt of mailing list distributions. Or, in other words, you're attempting to parse the word "subscriber" to mean active solicitation. My lawyerly response to that might relate to the standard 'unsubscribe' option presented to mailing list members - as in, 'select the unsubscribe option to remove yourself from this mailing list'... would this not, implicitly, suggest a mailing list member is a... subscriber... of said mailing list - yes?

[Sleipnir]

I really didn't know it was a real group, I'm not up on organizations like that. I thought it was a South Park joke.

Yes, they try to advance their cause that it should be ok for adults to be in a 'relationship' with minors.

[Sleipnir]

Whether yourself or someone else put your identity on a mail-list and you don't remove yourself for at least 2 years - yes that would make you a subscriber because you are being subscribed to the mailing list.

Do people not know what it means to be subscribed to a mailing list?

My lawyerly response to that might relate to the standard 'unsubscribe' option presented to mailing list members - as in, 'select the unsubscribe option to remove yourself from this mailing list'... would this not, implicitly, suggest a mailing list member is a... subscriber... of said mailing list - yes?

Whether yourself or someone else put your identity on a mail-list and you don't remove yourself for at least 2 years - yes that would make you a subscriber because you are being subscribed to the mailing list.

Do people not know what it means to be subscribed to a mailing list?

Edit: due to advice from a pm I'll won't response anymore regarding Flanagan and Nambla.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Sleipnir

[jacee]

Ya maybe now we can get beyond the child porn 'apologists' and back to the real topic.

TOM FLANAGAN IS TOAST!!!

And frankly, the entire school of Harper-Flanagan ideology is looking pretty sicko today.

[Boges]

So where in the Conservative platform do we find Flanagan's views on Child Porn?

[Canuckistani]

I have no great love for Harper and his crowd, but they did raise the age of consent, for which I give them props.

[Sleipnir]

TOM FLANAGAN IS TOAST!!!

I don't see how anyone can repair their reputation after a comment like that.

[Canuckistani]

He's been saying this for quite some time apparently. Wonder why it's only a big deal now?

[GostHacked]

Actually, not a work computer, at home but you still have a point. I guess we don't really know how much we are being monitored.

Well, Bill C-30 was struck down, but the monitoring is still happening, don't kid yourself.

[PIK]

The man has had nothing to od with the consevatives for a long time. The guy is a idiot but the media party will try and make a big deal out of it. Funny how the libs always have a vote on lowering the age of consent ,during thier conventions, but yet the media does not pick up on it. Thank god there is still some decent people left in that party to vote it down......for now.

Edited March 1, 2013 by PIK

[Canuckistani]

The man has had nothing to od with the consevatives for a long time. The guy is a idiot but the media party will try and make a big deal out of it. Funny how the libs always have a vote on lowering the age of consent ,during thier conventions, but yet the media does not pick up on it. Thank god there is still some decent people left in that party to vote it down......for now.

So Harper had an idiot for a campaign manager in 2004? What does that say about Harper? It is a pretty big deal, but I don't say his views on child porn represent the CPC.

[Boges]

Perhaps that's why he lost that election. He's won 3 since.

[Canuckistani]

Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper began publishing together in 1996-7 with "Canadian conservatism is at its strongest level in many years"....

Flanagan and Harper co-authored their last article in 2001...Flanagan was a key player in Stephen Harper's political rise to Prime Minister of Canada. Flanagan managed his leadership campaigns for the Canadian Alliance (2002) and the Conservative Party of Canada (2004). He also managed the Conservative Party’s national election campaign in 2004. He was the Senior Communications Adviser for the Conservatives successful 2005–2006 election campaign.^[48]...

In 2001, Flanagan helped Harper seek the leadership of the Canadian Alliance. Flanagan managed Harper's leadership campaign, and Harper went on to win the Alliance leadership in March 2002. Flanagan then served for one year as chief of staff to Harper, who was then the Leader of the Opposition.

Flanagan returned to Calgary in 2003 but continued as campaign manager. Before the next election could take place, the Alliance merged in late 2003 with the Progressive Conservatives to form the new Conservative Party of Canada. Flanagan then managed Harper’s successful leadership race against Belinda Stronach and Tony Clement. After that was concluded, Flanagan organized and managed the Conservative national campaign for the general election of June 28, 2004. The Conservative Party lost that election but did succeed in bringing Paul Martin’s Liberals down to a minority government, which set the stage for future Conservative victories.