Freedominion Closed - A Sad Day For Canada & Freedom

BubberMiley · February 1, 2014

I never used to use the ignore button, but finally decided that life is too short to continually suffer someone else's bad breath.

Ignoring involves not talking. I've never seen anyone so chatty about not wanting to talk to people. If you have nothing to add, then don't.

It's odd that people who find insults where there are none would be the ones defending libel. :lol:

Argus · February 1, 2014

no - not when you continue your false OP statements improperly equating defamation with free speech infringement. You continuing to pronounce it... doesn't make it so.

It does whent he law of defamation is so broad and so open to interpretation it eludes real definition, and when the mere cost of litigation (free to the litigator) can bankrupt people. When Warman demanded the library in Vancouver remove a book which he claimed defamed him the library removed it for fear of litigation, and its enormous cost. The BC government later passed a law protecting libraries from such suits, but most of us have no such protestion.

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2014

I really think that this thread is directionless without at least a general description of the offending posts, the reaction from the plaintiff and what actions FD did or didn't take.

If the posters were posting truly horrible lies, damaging to his reputation, and he replied with a request to remove said posts - which was thereby ignored then would we really think that the judgement was so unfair ?

RB · February 1, 2014

......Very few on the left that I encounter have the slightest support for freedom of speech when that speech disagrees with their own beliefs....by Ezra Levant

indeed sad for freedom of speech...I had even donated to this site to help out with the same cause and I am not conservative. However, I am not sorry to see the site itself go...

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2014

indeed sad for freedom of speech...

Why do you think that ? As I have said a few times, there are missing details here, details that I think would help us understand the implications a lot better.

waldo · February 1, 2014

It does when the law of defamation is so broad and so open to interpretation it eludes real definition, and when the mere cost of litigation (free to the litigator) can bankrupt people.

eludes real definition? I previously directly replied to you with a very precise/lengthy article I quoted from the Canadian Bar Association - here: Did its detail/explanation... elude you? Care to expand on your reference to costs, particularly in regards to judicial ruling attachment of costs.

.

When Warman demanded the library in Vancouver remove a book which he claimed defamed him the library removed it for fear of litigation, and its enormous cost. The BC government later passed a law protecting libraries from such suits, but most of us have no such protestion.

yet another thread distraction? I'm still waiting on your reply to my challenging you in regards your earlier 'Suzuki' distraction. In any case, the action to include the library as a defendant was within the scope of the law. The law you reference being changed does not allow a library to host a book that has an injunction placed against it nor, quite obviously, if that book has been found defamatory. The only distinction you're highlighting is that a library can host a book (for review/lending) up to the point a judicial ruled injunction has been placed against it.

.

waldo · February 1, 2014

ok, ok... calling all you echoing the "sad day" comments, please - step forward... only 42 days left to contribute! You can clearly remain anonymous, and more pointedly you can make your contribution under your MLW member name. I look forward to each and every one of you making your contributions and identifying you've done so within this thread. After all, seeing your MLW member name listed as a funding contributor is a true testament to raised concerns... particularly those claiming to be "deeply troubled".

Anonymous Troll Could Send Us To Jail! - A defamation order has forced us to shut down our Canadian political forum under threat of prison! Help us appeal this oppressive decision and fight this law!

RB · February 1, 2014

Why do you think that ? As I have said a few times, there are missing details here, details that I think would help us understand the implications a lot better.

Obviously the court had the missing details to make their decision. I recall this in the news however did not follow. I guess for all the "Loosey Goosey" social mouths, there is no recanting as in Galileo - you're just going to be put out to dry.

Edited February 1, 2014 by RB

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2014

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/former-calgary-mayoral-candidate-and-his-son-charged-with-inciting-hatred-1.1666202

Here you go - Calgary police restricting free speech !

Calgary police have charged a father and son in connection to complaints regarding the use of offensive signs in the downtown core.

On Friday, police charged 72-year-old Milan Papez with four counts of public incitement of hatred and one count of defamatory libel.

Complaints surfaced last week after Papez Sr. was seen standing on a street corner in Chinatown with signs comparing members of Calgary’s Chinese community and a prominent attorney to Nazis.

One day after his father was formally charged, 53-year-old Milan Papez Jr. was charged with three counts of public incitement of hatred and one count of defamatory libel

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2014

Obviously the court had the missing details to make their decision. I recall this in the news however did not follow. I guess for all the "Loosey Goosey" social mouths, there is no recanting as in Galileo - you're just going to be put out to dry.

My question isn't why did the court make its decision - it's why did you make a judgement call on this ? Why did you call it a sad day ?

jacee · February 1, 2014

I really think that this thread is directionless without at least a general description of the offending posts, the reaction from the plaintiff and what actions FD did or didn't take.

If the posters were posting truly horrible lies, damaging to his reputation, and he replied with a request to remove said posts - which was thereby ignored then would we really think that the judgement was so unfair ?

The news article indicated that's exactly what happened, and that the Fourniers and the posters refused to settle out of court by removing the libels, apologizing and agreeing to a very reasonable $5000 each in damages.

They pushed it to the limit to challenge the laws and the court, and they lost.

No doubt there will be an appeal.

.

Edited February 1, 2014 by jacee

Michael Hardner · February 2, 2014

The news article indicated that's exactly what happened, and that the Fourniers and the posters refused to settle out of court by removing the libels, apologizing and agreeing to a very reasonable $5000 each in damages.

They pushed it to the limit to challenge the laws and the court, and they lost.

No doubt there will be an appeal.

.

I'm more interested in whether they refused to take it down, and why as well as the nature of the offending post.

bleeding heart · February 2, 2014

Yes, it's hard to cut through the flak (whether correct or not) without knowing the details of the case.

Argus · February 2, 2014

I'm more interested in whether they refused to take it down, and why as well as the nature of the offending post.

My understasnding of the case, which might or might not be entirely accurate, and which comes from various web sites, including wikipedia (which you guys could check if you really cared much) is that the National Post, during its coverage of an earlier lawsuit Warman launched, quoted an expert for the defense suggesting Warman had made some on-line posts insulting Anne Cools. Warman then sued the Post, other media which also quoted this person, and Freedominion, apparently because the Post article was discussed there (likely with unflattering comments about Warman). The Post backed down, issued a retraction, and paid him some money. Freedominion evidently did not want to cough up the cash, and was further sued for the names of the people there who were posting about it so they could also be sued.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Argus

Michael Hardner · February 2, 2014

My understasnding of the case, which might or might not be entirely accurate, and which comes from various web sites, including wikipedia (which you guys could check if you really cared much) is that the National Post, during its coverage of an earlier lawsuit Warman launched, quoted an expert for the defense suggesting Warman had made some on-line posts insulting Anne Cools. Warman then sued the Post, other media which also quoted this person, and Freedominion, apparently because the Post article was discussed there (likely with unflattering comments about Warman). The Post backed down, issued a retraction, and paid him some money. Freedominion evidently did not want to cough up the cash, and was further sued for the names of the people there who were posting about it so they could also be sued.

Yes, I checked and there's not enough information about the offending information for anybody to make an opinion on the judgement IMO. "likely with unflattering comments about Warman" - what comments. Why is it so difficult to get more details on this ?

Here's the Digital Media Law Project :

Richard Warman is a Canadian human rights lawyer based in Ottawa. Formerly with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Warman is best known for initiating human rights complaints against members of white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements for engaging in hate speech on the Internet.

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.

Big Guy · February 3, 2014

I believe that the person who has created a web site is responsible for anything that is published on that site. There are many "letters to the editor" sent to reputable publications and the publication, being the venue for distributing that letter, is responsible for its content. Most reputable publications will not publish any letter without knowing, verifying and identifying the author of that letter.

When one creates an electronic bulletin board allowing individuals to post anonymously then one accepts the responsibility for what is "published". There are many electronic bulletin boards (usually special interest boards) where any submission from the public is first censored by a moderator before the opinion is allowed to be seen by the public. When a board allows anonymous submissions to be posted in real time on its web site then the individual who created that board and who has decided to "trust" that it will not be abused takes that chance and the responsibility for anything and everything that appears on the site.

The life time of most electronic opinion boards which allow anonymous membership is very short for that reason. I commend the moderators of this board and the saner members of this board on their ability to rein in the more radical vandals, trolls and destructive negative nabobs who feed on disrupting civil and intelligent discussion.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Big Guy

Argus · February 3, 2014

Yes, I checked and there's not enough information about the offending information for anybody to make an opinion on the judgement IMO. "likely with unflattering comments about Warman" - what comments. Why is it so difficult to get more details on this ?

Here's the Digital Media Law Project :

Maybe they don't want to get sued.

http://ezralevant.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=Kinsella

Edited February 3, 2014 by Argus

Argus · February 3, 2014

I believe that the person who has created a web site is responsible for anything that is published on that site. There are many "letters to the editor" sent to reputable publications and the publication, being the venue for distributing that letter, is responsible for its content. Most reputable publications will not publish any letter without knowing, verifying and identifying the author of that letter.

To begin with, you're completely wrong. I've had a number of letters to the editor published at several newspapers and the only one that ever contacted me was one which wanted to send a photographer to take my picture for it. In addition, almost all on-line newspapers now have comments section, and while they do police them, most will simply allow you to post what you want, and only read it if someone complains.

I think what's absent from the law is whether or not what someone publishes actually causes any real damage to anyone. In the vast majority of cases it simply does not. I would agree that a web site should remove something when asked to do if that post is insulting a person by name. But I don't think you can insist every web site monitor ever post made every single hour of the day.

Suppose I say something clearly insulting about John Smith here. He finds out and demands MWB remove it. They do so. As far as I'm concerned that should pretty much be the end of it. I don't think he should be able to sue MWB for damages, especially without even being able to demonstrate how he was damaged.

Let me give another example. I go on the CBC site and post something very scurrilous about myself, using an anonymous ID. I then sue the CBC for damages. Should that be able to happen? It could under your belief. I could make a good living posting libel about myself anonymously on all kinds of media comment sections and then sueing them for damages.

Remember, I don't actually have to demonstrate any damage.

guyser · February 3, 2014

To begin with, you're completely wrong. I've had a number of letters to the editor published at several newspapers and the only one that ever contacted me was one which wanted to send a photographer to take my picture for it. In addition, almost all on-line newspapers now have comments section, and while they do police them, most will simply allow you to post what you want, and only read it if someone complains.

Dont all of them require a name address etc in order to be published? Perhaps they already vetted you w/o you knowing.

Most online comment sections require sign in. Nat'l Post, G&M , Sun...

Argus · February 4, 2014

Dont all of them require a name address etc in order to be published? Perhaps they already vetted you w/o you knowing.

Most online comment sections require sign in. Nat'l Post, G&M , Sun...

You can put whatever you want if they don't check it out. I'm registered with the Post and GM under an anonymous yahoo account.

Bryan · February 4, 2014

You can put whatever you want if they don't check it out. I'm registered with the Post and GM under an anonymous yahoo account.

This. You can sign in with anything, it doesn't have to be real. My Discus account points to a yahoo email that has no personal information connected to it at all. All my comments at news sites always get posted, and my letters have been printed several times too.

Bryan · February 4, 2014

Let me give another example. I go on the CBC site and post something very scurrilous about myself, using an anonymous ID. I then sue the CBC for damages. Should that be able to happen? It could under your belief. I could make a good living posting libel about myself anonymously on all kinds of media comment sections and then sueing them for damages.

Remember, I don't actually have to demonstrate any damage.

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

Edited February 4, 2014 by Bryan

Michael Hardner · February 4, 2014

You can put whatever you want if they don't check it out. I'm registered with the Post and GM under an anonymous yahoo account.

This. You can sign in with anything, it doesn't have to be real. My Discus account points to a yahoo email that has no personal information connected to it at all. All my comments at news sites always get posted, and my letters have been printed several times too.

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.

cybercoma · 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.

Unless you're using some method of masking your IP, which most people don't bother doing.

Queenmandy85 · 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. If I put forth an argument with which someone disagrees, everyone has the right to refute it with a counter - argument. When Nobel Laureate William Shockley published the hypothosis the there was a difference in the level of intelligence between the races, he was banned from speaking on many campuses. David Suzuki, at that time host of Quirks and Quarks, invited Shockley onto his program where they engaged in a fifty minute formal debate. That is how we should deal with issues.

While insults have no place in the exchange of ideas, banning them is outrageous. When I first read Barbara Amiel's book comparing Human Rights commissions to the thought police, I was aghast. Now I see how right she was. 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.