Freedominion Closed - A Sad Day For Canada & Freedom

waldo · February 4, 2014

The issue is one of free speech.

defamation is not free speech

.

I have the right and the obligation to be insulted and have my feelings hurt and to refute comments with which I disagree by presenting evidence to the contrary.

from this linked/quoted interpretation your expressed right/obligation appears intact:

...from the Canadian Bar Association:

What is defamation?

.

.

The law doesn't protect you from a personal insult or a remark that injures only your pride; it protects reputation, not feelings. So if someone calls you a lazy slob, you might be hurt, but you probably don't have a good reason to sue. If he goes on to say you cheat in your business dealings, you probably do have a good reason to sue, as long as he says it to someone else, not just to you. If he says it only to you, you can't sue because he has not hurt your reputation.

.

waldo · February 4, 2014

Some have accused a certain highly litigious person of doing something very similar.

accusation... by some... of a certain person... doing something... ~~similar~~ very similar.

let's see now: about the only real qualification you've added is "highly litigious". Care to qualify that a bit more and come out from behind your vagueness shield?

.

Michael Hardner · February 4, 2014

The issue is one of free speech. A person should have the right to say anything on the internet (or any other media) so long as it conforms to the law regarding liable and slander.

As Waldo points out, I don't think there is a lot of disagreement on that. What's not clear is now the case relates to that point.

Argus · February 4, 2014

I think that your service provider (ie. Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, or reseller) just has to provide your account information for the IP address, which is also traceable. You're only anonymous to each other, not to the admins, to the telcos, or the government.

I've never heard of any of these outfits recording the IP addresses of those who use their comments section. I honestly don't see why they would.

Does MWB keep records of the IP addresses of people who sign in? For how long? And don't those IP addresses change fairly frequently anyway?

Michael Hardner · February 4, 2014

Does MWB keep records of the IP addresses of people who sign in? For how long? And don't those IP addresses change fairly frequently anyway?

Some software does automatically record the IP address but it doesn't matter, as the telco has logs that allow anything to be traced from my understanding.

Sorry - there is still encryption, and jumping to another machine I suppose which will cover your tracks somewhat.

Queenmandy85 · February 4, 2014

I should have included defamation in with liable and slander. I'm not a lawyer.

My rule of thumb is never type anything into a computer that I do not want to see on the front page of the G&M.

Michael Hardner · February 4, 2014

I should have included defamation in with liable and slander. I'm not a lawyer.

My rule of thumb is never type anything into a computer that I do not want to see on the front page of the G&M.

Right, and as I stated above that's what this case is about. Your opening statement above says "the issue is one of free speech" but defamation isn't free speech as Waldo pointed out.

cybercoma · February 4, 2014

I've never heard of any of these outfits recording the IP addresses of those who use their comments section. I honestly don't see why they would.

Does MWB keep records of the IP addresses of people who sign in? For how long? And don't those IP addresses change fairly frequently anyway?

When you post on a message board, every single message you write is signed with your IP Address. It's accessible to the administration. I would be VERY surprised if news comment sections were any different.

cybercoma · February 4, 2014

Some software does automatically record the IP address but it doesn't matter, as the telco has logs that allow anything to be traced from my understanding.

Sorry - there is still encryption, and jumping to another machine I suppose which will cover your tracks somewhat.

You don't have to jump to another machine. Most browsers allow you to proxy your IP, which can still be traced back to you most of the time. There's other things like Tor which bounces your signal around so much that it's extremely difficult, to the point of being nearly impossible, to trace your IP. There's also VPNs which can mask your information and encrypt your data. So there's lots of ways to get around your IP address even from the same machine.

Michael Hardner · February 4, 2014

You don't have to jump to another machine. Most browsers allow you to proxy your IP, which can still be traced back to you most of the time. There's other things like Tor which bounces your signal around so much that it's extremely difficult, to the point of being nearly impossible, to trace your IP. There's also VPNs which can mask your information and encrypt your data. So there's lots of ways to get around your IP address even from the same machine.

I mean routing the message through another computer.

cybercoma · February 4, 2014

I mean routing the message through another computer.

That's not exactly how it works, but I think we're talking about the same things.

Bonam · February 5, 2014

You don't have to jump to another machine. Most browsers allow you to proxy your IP, which can still be traced back to you most of the time. There's other things like Tor which bounces your signal around so much that it's extremely difficult, to the point of being nearly impossible, to trace your IP. There's also VPNs which can mask your information and encrypt your data. So there's lots of ways to get around your IP address even from the same machine.

While Tor is a good effort, it's not exactly "nearly impossible". In fact, it has known vulnerabilities to several attack types, not to mention all the NSA-subverted nodes in the Tor network.

GostHacked · February 5, 2014

That's not exactly how it works, but I think we're talking about the same things.

In a nutshell that is how it works, routing your information through another computer. No matter if you use a proxy, VPN or other similar services, works the same way, through another PC.

Michael Hardner · February 5, 2014

Thanks GH...

I was part of this drift, which is still related to the OP, but back to the core discussion maybe...

cybercoma · February 5, 2014

While Tor is a good effort, it's not exactly "nearly impossible". In fact, it has known vulnerabilities to several attack types, not to mention all the NSA-subverted nodes in the Tor network.

Yes. Recently it has been compromised, but that's all come out only in the last 6 months or so.

Michael Hardner · February 5, 2014

So taking us back to the point of departure - is it really a sad day ?

In September and October 2007, Warman sent two letters to Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins-Fournier, proprietors of the right-wing Canadian forum/website, Freedominion.ca. The letters accused Fournier and Wilkins-Fournier of libel, stated Warman's "intention to commence an action for libel against [them]," and requested a complete retraction. The letters claimed that posts written by the Fourniers and forum participants were libelous in that they accused Warman of engaging in censorship, stifling free speech, and being a "professional complainer," among other things.

Unless there's reform of our defamation laws, then this type of thing will continue to happen. I don't see this situation being all too different with what has happened OFFline in the past.

Argus · February 5, 2014

So taking us back to the point of departure - is it really a sad day ?

Unless there's reform of our defamation laws, then this type of thing will continue to happen. I don't see this situation being all too different with what has happened OFFline in the past.

It's different in that people get involved in casual conversations in small web sites like this one, for example, and never dream that the public individuals they're discussing might actually hear about it and then take legal action. Sites like this encourage a more casual conversation, as if you were having drinks around a table in a pub, People tend to speak in ways they wouldn't if they were being interviewed in front of a TV camera, for example. People aren't going to shout into a camera that "Joe Smith is a creappy scumbag!" and if they did it likely wouldn't be aired anyway. Furthermore, the people who are involved in public mediums are generally those with money, or organizations with money to support them if someone does decide to take action against what they said.

But now we have these little web sites, and the people who own these sites, and those who write things on them don't have anything like the kind of resources that media companies enjoy, so are largely defenseless against legal challenges which can be extremely expensive to fight, even if they've done nothing wrong. But web sites like this are squishy, confusing area of what is and isn't public. Technically, anything said here is public. In reality, its extremely unlikely a third party ever hears about the way they're being referred to here, let alone would be concerned enough to take action. After all, how many people would ever read about what was said on Freedominion, or here, for example? A few dozen, perhaps? Public figures have little interest in publicizing such commentary, especially in light of the relative poverty of those involved.

Where this runs awry is when the party involved has cost-free access to the legal system lots of time on his hands and an ideological axe to grind. As per the cite I posted earlier, which is more than 3 1/2 years old, Warman had sued or threatened to sue over 60 people for defamation as of that time. How many people do you think the average individual, even one who is somewhat in the public eye, sues or threaten to sue during their lifetimes?

Edited February 5, 2014 by Argus

Michael Hardner · February 5, 2014

It's different in that people get involved in casual conversations in small web sites like this one, for example, and never dream that the public individuals they're discussing might actually hear about it and then take legal action. Sites like this encourage a more casual conversation, as if you were having drinks around a table in a pub, People tend to speak in ways they wouldn't if they were being interviewed in front of a TV camera, for example. People aren't going to shout into a camera that "Joe Smith is a creappy scumbag!" and if they did it likely wouldn't be aired anyway. Furthermore, the people who are involved in public mediums are generally those with money, or organizations with money to support them if someone does decide to take action against what they said.

Yes, that is different. Nevertheless, Google catches everything you say on here so it's potentially out there forever.

Where this runs awry is when the party involved has cost-free access to the legal system lots of time on his hands and an ideological axe to grind. As per the cite I posted earlier, which is more than 3 1/2 years old, Warman had sued or threatened to sue over 60 people for defamation as of that time.

The number really doesn't mean anything if he indeed was defamed 60 times does it ?

How many people do you think the average individual, even one who is somewhat in the public eye, sues or threaten to sue during their lifetimes?

That's neither here nor there. As I say, he was likely defamed more than, say, Mr. Dressup to pick an anti-hero at random.

So I concur that the medium is different, and I'm generally in favour of making systems more relevant to media of the day, however I don't think a highly defamatory post on a web forum would ever be, nor should be an exception.

GostHacked · February 5, 2014

One thing I'd like to see in terms of transparency, is this:

With posting on many forums and creating these situations, we are being forced to use our real identities and held liable for those statements we make. Sure I might be all for that if we no longer hear lines like 'anonymous government sources' and similar terms that do not reveal who they are and what their position is. It also tells us the stake they have in that certain area.

But when it comes to libel/slander and the like, a simple disclaimer is all that is needed. 'NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIEW OR POSTS OF MEMBERS'..... legalese many other entities use to absolve them of responsibility. This is the medium in which our posts are carried. Should you shut down the mail system if someone sends hateful messages through it?

There is no way that anything any one of us post here should mean that Greg(aside from what he posts directly) and Co should be held accountable of the damage caused to someone else.

Hudson Jones · February 6, 2014

Freedom of speech is a great concept in theory and in practice. Fools quickly expose themselves and ideas of merit rise. Freedom is not for the coward or the feint of heart. Those can take shelter, quite easily, in the legal equivalent of their mother's womb, in a dictatorship or authoritarian country of their choice. Freedom implicates a battle of ideas. Bigoted or unsupported opinions, in time, go to the bottom.

I can see outlawing speech which directly and immediately advocates violence or creates danger, such as falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. I can see preventing the pre-publication of troop movements. Other than that, if someone wants to make foolish statements, let them. I am just as outraged by the action of my fellow Jews in stifling an anti-Jewish website in BC (link to article, excerpts below):

I found both attacks on freedom, and abhorrent.

I just wanted to say that we agree on all of this. It's important to acknowledge sharing opinions when it does happen.

I believe we should have no limitation on free speech. I believe no one should be banned from coming to Canada because of what they say. It doesn't matter if it's Ann Coulter, Galloway, some extremist Sheikh or some Koran burning preacher. Everyone should be allowed to speak. It doesn't matter how foolish they may sound.

Argus · February 6, 2014

So I concur that the medium is different, and I'm generally in favour of making systems more relevant to media of the day, however I don't think a highly defamatory post on a web forum would ever be, nor should be an exception.

Well, what do you call "highly defamatory"? If I say McGuinty is an incompetent moron is that defamatory? If someone calls Chretien or Mulroney a crook is that defamatory? What about liar or scumbag?

Personally, I think such things should be treated more like conversation and less like publication. Yes, it's available to the general public, but it's not like anyone much ever heard it. The idea someone has the right to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars because of it, without even the need to demonstrate any damage to their reputation, seems ludicrous to me.

Btw, if you read the cite I've mentioned twice, from Ezra Levant, he appears to me to be making most of the same accusations against Warman, very baldly, and bluntly, which Warman sued Freedominion over. The only exception is he didn't accuse Warman of making the specific posts about Anne Cools.

Michael Hardner · February 6, 2014

Sorry -what post?

I think the courts can decide what is defamatory, and your complaint is with those laws, I think.

Argus · February 6, 2014

Sorry -what post?

I think the courts can decide what is defamatory, and your complaint is with those laws, I think.

That I have a problem with the sweeping nature of some laws does not mean I don't also have a problem with those who take advantage of those laws. I despise human rights commisions, for example, and the laws under which they operate. That does not mean I don't also despise everyone who works at thsoe places, and everyone who complains to them.

Likewise I hold the Canadian judicial system in contempt, along with just about everyone who works in it, starting with the judges.

Michael Hardner · February 6, 2014

Likewise I hold the Canadian judicial system in contempt, along with just about everyone who works in it, starting with the judges.

But should I be able to put your real name on here (and let's assume it's a unique name) saying that you are a sex offender, and giving spurious proof and so on ? Should you be obliged to "show damage" to such a thing, even if the post comes up as the first result when your name is Googled ?

People like Hudson make a great case for free speech, but every civilized country does limit free speech in some way. Instead of posting platitudes, it might be a better discussion to describe those limits.

Argus · February 6, 2014

But should I be able to put your real name on here (and let's assume it's a unique name) saying that you are a sex offender, and giving spurious proof and so on ? Should you be obliged to "show damage" to such a thing, even if the post comes up as the first result when your name is Googled ?

People like Hudson make a great case for free speech, but every civilized country does limit free speech in some way. Instead of posting platitudes, it might be a better discussion to describe those limits.

You're taking things to extremes again. What Warman was accused of was nothing anywhere near that shocking. He was accused of being the anon persona who made nasty posts about anne cooles. And he has previously admitted to creating false personas in order to go on hate sites (to investigate those posting there, he says). In the cite I posted (post 92) Ezra Levant says that Warmman has used these false personas many times. So how shocking was this new allegation? Not shocking in the least. I don't see how, whether one believed it or not, ones opinion of Warman would have changed.

Recall the original accusation was made by an 'expert witness' in another court case Warman was involved in, and reported by the National Post. The people on Freedominion were acting on this basis. So just how damaging was their conversation? I'm betting it wasn't, in the slightest. I don't contest him demanding the Post retract the story if it couldn't be proved, but to go after some people posting on a web site was over the line, imho.

And yes, you should be required to demonstrate that a statement has caused damage to your reputation or business.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Argus