Ah, so now it's also the left's fault that you don't leave your echo chamber.

That's going to leave a mark.

Typical of the "left" thought process , but actually quite funny.

Ok , but it is a rather large world ... which "Mark" would you be referring to and perhaps a link?

I still don't know who is being referred to as the first blogger, can you hook a brother up with a link?

I've updated the post and moved the link to make it clearer. Thanks for pointing that out.

http://myblahg.com/?p=2327

Robert, you need to take care of that before you start posting about libel on anyone's site. There is already one standing offer from a lawyer to represent her pro bono.

I await the notice of libel, you crazy old cooter. But I fail to see what that has to do with how the left is responsible for you locking yourself into an echo chamber.

I read numerous Canadian discussion forums and I've seen a few threads on the HRCs but most haven't a clue what's going on and the few who do seem to think the information that we post is libelious lies. I can't seem to get it through their thick skin that the information is coming from HRCs transcripts, they'd rather believe that it's all lies than investigate or do some research to educate themselves regarding the HRCs antics. To be fair, that is why the leftards hang around Conservative Blog sites without them who'd do the hard work and research?

Well Kate, we have only been blogging about it for a year and a half. And it has only been covered by the Canadian Press, CBC, CTV and other media big names. I have brought the issue forward on several Blogging Tory sites when they have been threatened by "He, who must not be named for fear of sued", it also only ties in directly to Michael Geist, Open Politics and Wayne Crookes.

In fact I can distinct remember Steve Janke blogging about this Green and Green action and I also remember a few other Blogging Tories doing the same.

Sorry Dear Kate, you are Johnny Come Lately to this battle and the excuse that you didn't know is hardly convincing, given the amount of noise and media attention that has already been paid to these specific cases.

Friday, April 20, 2007 at 05:17 PM
http://stevejanke.com/archives/223575.php

Even Janke said we should keep an eye on this issue, unfortunately Janke took his eye off the ball.

I will see if I can't dig up a few of the other blogging tories that noticed this issue, unfortunately Stephen Taylor seems to have disabled or hidden the search tool on the Blogging Tory site, so I will have to dig via alternate search engines.

I could also recommend http://section15.blogspot.com and if you can get over the use bad language, my blog as well for more information. Not that I am shilling for traffic, and I would only welcome people who are truly interested in this case.

Respectfully,
Zorph, The Wingnuterer

What is amazing is that you called Patel a lefty.
This internet self-promoter who has founded numerous blogs is by no means a lefty. Although I do not if Patel is a Conservative, Liberal or Alberta Alliance supporter, I would have thought his views would be as right as yours Kate.

It's the same reason why left political parties don't raise as much money as right parties; why left people don't donate as much to charity as right people... lefties believe in TAKING from others for themselves and righties believe in GIVING their money for what they believe in. It's the inherent difference between a lefty and a righty.

When free speech is attacked we jump to the defense of the attackee. A lefty waits for someone else to do something about it.

It made news all over the place, and bloggers did send some funds. The problem was, the cases -- Crookes is suing Google, Yahoo, PBwiki, OpenPolitics.ca, a dozen or so people -- are so many, the individuals are buried in the mountain of claims.

There was press, plus a CBC The National minidoc last summer.

Oh, an entire blog has been removed from the Internet due to a Crookes claim (Crookes v. Google), no court order involved:

http://greencompostheap.blogspot.com/

All over one post which suggested Crookes should use right of reply instead of defamation torts, and someone's political comments.

The whole blog gone from the planet over one post, due to a complaint from British Columbia.

Blogspot is hosted in the US. See the clear risk? To sue in Canada, you need not be a citizen. You only have to prove that you have an interest within the jurisdiction you file in.

Chris Tindal wrote a great piece on the Crookes v. OpenPolitics case. I'd link to it, but he's being sued for libel by Crookes over it, and Crookes sues people -- like me -- for linking, even indirectly and inadvertently, to posts and even domains he is suing. That case is Crookes v. Geist, as in Micheal Geist.

I own the domain libelchill.ca, but a server crash killed my content. Never got it back up. Maybe it's time?

You know Kate, I read many blogs I often disagree with, including yours. It is time-consuming, I admit. Try it sometime.

Crookes' claims:

http://crookeslawsuits.pbwiki.com/

robert mcclelland - the comment was about the failure of the left to raise concerns about 'one of their own', that 'failed Liberal candidate' (no-name, no link, no knowledge).

If the left is so concerned about human rights then why didn't they go to his assistance? Why do they expect others/the government to do this?

So, rather than driving by here and throwing out garbage, why not actually answer some questions and engage in a rational discussion?

So now it's ok for me to ask lefties where THEY were during the Brockie case, when Bishop Henry was charged by the HRCs etc.?

Oh no, wait, that's different...

Speaking of echo chambers: my stats demonstrate that when the likes of Itty Bitty Lib, Cynic, Dawg, et al link to me, they rarely send over more than a total of about 150 unique visitors.

I know their traffic sucks to begin with, but really: talk about an echo chamber. Their readers are obviously taking what they say about me at face value. They like to label their opponents as "incurious" but I guess it really does take one to know one.

Pfffft disingenuous outrage and fraudulent indigity from a core member of the progressive-soviet.

I'm still waiting for the high trafic left bloggers to take action against all the Islamist antisemitism floating around the Canadian blogopher...but they're all to busy turning conservative bloggers and Christian ministers into nazis to care about real racism.

Frig 'em...too ethically vacant to bother with, that's why their blog traffic is nearly non existant.

McClelland "engage in rational discussion"? Surely you jest.

McClelland "engage in rational discussion"? Surely you jest.

failed Liberal candidate was not happy with some of the press about his past and present criminal record."

First off , do we really require a distinction between "past " and "present" when we're talking about a record.
Doesn't a record, uhm, record both?

It's difficult to keep all the liberal criminal histories straight, due primarily to their being so many of them.
Which liberal criminal is he talking about?

I posted on this a few days ago and got a comment from Green Party Candidate / Blogger Chris Tindall that for just talking about the libel suit he also got sued by Wayne Crookes.

McClelland - what part of "I am not in that photograph" do you not understand?

Gee Robert, how do you suppose that someone who doesn't "leave her echo chamber" ever came to read a post on alberta pubdit's site? Never mind. Too logical for you I guess.

Anyhow, you should be happy that there is someone out there willing to step up to the plate and defend free speech. After all, they are also defending your right to your incoherent mumblings and vulgar bigotry. Something about the Jews wasn't it?

I may disagree with you, but I will stand up for your right to put your bigotry on display ... in your own words of course.

typical of the socialists . . wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting, then cry victim and wait for a government handout.

The real echo chamber is the void between RM's ears.

McLelland calls this blog an echo chamber. After all these years he still can't come up with anything more creative. Meanwhile, he has grown his blah-g to two or three fellow leftards who participate in his comment section. And one of them is himself.

It appears he spends more time over here, though, attempting to make some sort of point that he can't quite grasp himself. Perhaps one day, with a lot of luck and a drug therapy that grows brain cells, he'll be able to scrap together a moderately intelligent opinion.

Nah, the peckerhead wasn't born with enough intelligence to begin with. They certainly won't waste medical breakthroughs on a common house plant.

I have no words for McLelland which can beat a few simple facts.

This is a blogger who claimed to have spray-painted "f*** the Jews" on someone else's personal property. This is potentially a violation of HRC section 13 AND Canadian Criminal code regarding hate crimes (not to mention vandalism.) Maybe he didn't actually do it, but writing that his did and repeating the slur online surely could be actionable under the HRC's fit the HRC's weren't run by partisan activists on the left.

AND

This is a person who supports HRC including section 13.

Clearly, he is a person with issues.

The left looks for any reason to elevate their own self-esteem, they will cling to this silly notion desperately. The majority of lefties I suspect would love to work for the HRC's and are simply ticked off they didn't think of it before the tide turned.

Who is this "Robert" person? Never heard of him or any associated blog.

iowavette

He's nobody. He will remain nobody.

Robbie the Retard said: "Ah, so now it's also the left's fault that you don't leave your echo chamber."

It is, actually. You're boring.

Just finished that lengthy article about Warman and the HRC in Macleans. What a sick way to get rich. Seems he has made himself the god of social conscience here in Canada.

I was a bit angry last week now I'm totally P#&&#d. You will be getting another $50.00 donation in May and it will continue till this is won.

Another amazing fact: Some bloggers (I won't mention Warren Kinsella's name) use the term
"free speecher" like it's an insult.

What next, "democracy fanatic"? How can one withstand such punishing epithets?

The leftards are no different today than they have been throughout history. They claim to take a higher road, which makes them feel superior. The truth is that they're scared shiftless of the decline of the civilization that pampers them. They think, however, that they won't have to take a stand against tyrants because that will be done by "others". They can sit at home and tut-tut the dirty masses that do the heavy lifting and then, in the end, enjoy all the same liberties that those same masses fought and died for.

I find it disgusting....

No offense, but that crack about the echo chamber is bang on.

The fact is, Mr. MacLellan, we should be keeping a much sharper eye on those of the political left, and in some cases, we should be keeping guns and ammo close at hand too. It is our fault that the HRC's are a legal trainwreck, it is our fault that Richard Warman is cashing in on frivolous lawsuits instead of being pelted with rotten vegetables, and it is our fault that idiots like Warren Kinsella actually held a political office.

But the fact is we are coming out of the echo chamber and we are not liking what we see at all. The left is going to lose this battle over freedom of speech, and rightfully so. If you liberal dolts even had a clue, you would be asking yourselves how it is that you came to defend moslem racism, islamofascism and political censorship.

The rebellion has just begun too. Now would be a really good time for certain liberal individuals to STFU, lest they be held to answer for their doings.

Is there a reason why my previous comment was not posted here Kate? I did get the message that my comment was pending your approval.

rabbit,

I'm waiting for the short form accusations of 'speechism!' and 'speechist!'

So now it's ok for me to ask lefties where THEY were during the Brockie case, when Bishop Henry was charged by the HRCs etc.?

We're discussing libel, Shaidle. Do try to keep up.

McClelland - what part of "I am not in that photograph" do you not understand?

It looks like you. Besides, since when did the truth ever matter around here.

Curiousity peeked, I did some Googling for the story involved and finally found the blog in question.

The link that Google tossed back to me was from today and it mentions that Kate has talked about the story and provided a link to this post.

What was missing?

Hows about a link to the STORY!!! I'm sorry, but not only is the left side of the blogoshpere apparently an echo chamber, but by all appearances it ain't very bright either......

THAT is what is really amazing.

Before putting much stock into that blather, may I suggest that anybody google the author Werner Patels. He has spawned countless blogs and been banned from most areas where open comments have been allowed.

Werner has some serious issues as his rather well documented internet history attests to. If he had some indications of a grasp on reality, I would take some of his postings seriously. So far however, he appears to be as out of touch with reality as he ever has been.

When the defenders of the attacks on free speech are of the caliber of Werner Patels, it shows how truly weak the case that the people supporting censorship of the internet really have.

Robert - "since when did truth ever matter around here?" Bullsh-t happens when you post it, Robert. It appears that truth isn't that important on your blog either. If it were important you would correct the record - make a full retraction of your statement along with a sincere (now there's a joke)apology to Kate for the uncalled for insult.

Robert, you're like to kid that nobody likes always showing up for shinny, or baseball. When it comes time to pick teams you're always chosen last. Maybe that's why you have that "attitude" as a grown up (sorry, make that "adult") - you've yet to grow up.

Mclelland and his ilk are no different from a previous era's fellow travellers who suddenly became pro-war only after the Soviet Union was attacked.

Zorph wrote:
"Is there a reason why my previous comment was not posted here Kate? "

Too many links.

I'll let you in on a secret. I don't tend to read blogs that devote themselves primariy to slagging other bloggers - so that excludes 90% of the Canadian leftosphere, doesn't it? There's your real definition of "echo chamber". You're all very eager to throw the accusation at me, but you've never wondered why your readership levels are forming a scum line at the bottom of the tank?

Wouldn't the logical approach be to ask me how to structure your surfing habits, in order to present something that keeps your readers coming back?

Here's another secret - when you habitually trash up your commentary with the f-word and the c-word and the kkk-word and every other vile expletive, and when you permit the Ti-Guys of the blogosphere to smear feces all over your comments sections, I'm not linking to you.

And if there's virtually no chance of linking to you, I'm not going to waste my time reading you. Besides, you all spend most of your time slagging bloggers.

That said, what's wrong with the left? Why isn't Mark's war chest topped up to the six figures by now, if it received that much exposure? I mean, don't any of you own wallets?? I know what my primarily conservative supporters contributed in the space of 48 hours, and without any major media coverage at all.

So where are Mark's friends, Zorph? Why should he need help from his political adversaries?

"http://myblahg.com/?p=2327

Robert, you need to take care of that before you start posting about libel on anyone's site. There is already one standing offer from a lawyer to represent her pro bono."

HOLY SHIT Kate, you do keep EVERYTHING! Guess you weren't kidding the other day when you said
"The Canadian left have provided me the fodder for a full time career as a plaintiff."

Kathy Shaidle said if she sold enough books she could blog full time. In your case you could blog full time from the proceeds of lawsuits. WOW.

Horny Toad

AtlanticJim - This guy is suing anybody who links to the story. So that's why you won't find the original thing linked in a lot of places.

And McLelland, this story wasn't even picked up on the big lefty blogs - it was just floating around with intolerant, gay-bashing, anti-semite bottom feeders like you.

HT - Robert was informed by me, in his own comments section, that I'm not in the photo.

The person he has to worry about is Carol's campaign worker, who by now, has a pretty good case, I'd say.

... when you habitually trash up your commentary with the f-word ...

I made the mistake of making a quick visit over there, and while I can swear with the best of 'em, a blog really comes across as childish when it's peppered with f-bombs as Zorph's is.

So where are Mark's friends, Zorph? Why should he need help from his political adversaries?

Gee Kate, I didn't think Freedom of Speech was left vs right issue here. Face Kate, if Mark, Michael Geist and Open Politics lose their cases, you are dead in the water, and that is a fact.

And I am sorry if you can't be bothered to take an interest in the world outside your own site, but maybe you should start making the effort and then you will not caught off gaurd in the future.

Lastly, I even managed to find reference to this whole issue on your blog, you do read your blog I hope.

Anyone who has read Patels' blog and still believes his obstuse claim to being 'conservative' can have first dibbs on my perpetual energy machine.

Conservatism ain't skin deep.

Ridiculous Kate. As Robert said, you don't leave your echo chamber? It was on the friggen National even. When THE INTERNET (Yahoo, Google, P2PNet, etc.) get SUED, you don't notice? And one doesn't exactly think first thing when they could get sued for just linking to something, that they ought to write left, right, and center about Mr. Crookes' lawsuits.

Still, congratulations for noticing. Finally.

"Gee Kate, I didn't think Freedom of Speech was left vs right issue here"

Well, that's a point we've been trying to get across to the left on the larger issue of the so-called "human rights commissions" pursuit of speech, isn't it? To little effect. So, yes - it appears it is a left-right issue, for you.

My question wasn't about that though, was it? I asked if any of you had wallets. What were you waiting for? Mark's post states he had so few donations that setting up the website again wasn't worth it.

How much did he get from CC, do you suppose? McClelland? Murphy?

Would it buy him a burger?

Robert,

I believe Kate is indicating she's big enough to take a blow below the belt from a junior flyweight like you without crying to the cops.

Now go get your shine box.

Wait, Zorpheous has a blog? It seems so! I just went there, and if Mark Francis was ever mentioned I'd have missed it.

Mark Francis got sued for linking to a guy who linked to a guy who had something "libelous" about some guy named Wayne Crookes, ex-Green Party member from BC? News to me.

So I google "Mark Francis" and get bupkis. Google "Mack Francis case", nada. Finally google "Mark Francis lawsuit", I get two (2) hits.

That's some bigtime coverage, Zorph. You guys just never shut up about how free speech is being threatened in this country.

If I said "the process is the punishment" Zorpheroonie, would you give me an argument? I'm thinking probably yes.

Mark got nothing from me, Kate, and that's not going to change. Just like you, he should have disentangled himself from the fight by retreating. That he chose not to is his own fault and I'm not about to support his stupidity.

As for this being a right/left issue, just look at the comments left by your flying monkeys. They're all ranting at "the left" over these issues despite the fact that numerous leftwing bloggers have come to your defense and none have said they think there's a case against either Steyn or Levant at the various HRCs. Helping you nutters doesn't pay any dividend so I don't see why you expect it.

Another fabulous defense of freedom by Robbie the Retard. Congrats Robbie, you've out done yourself this time.

McClelland,

You're a special level of stupid.

We aren't saying that the left shouldn't have any rights. We're saying both that the left is usually the extinguisher of rights and that if the left cared about rights they'd do a better job of helping themselves.

Even now, the left expects the right to pay for their freedoms.

As for your idiotic "should have retreated" line, you frenchmen tactics don't work. Warmen sued even those who kowtowed and recanted.

I hope to hell that on day you're up in front of an HRC some day.

The Phantom Said;
Wait, Zorpheous has a blog? It seems so! I just went there, and if Mark Francis was ever mentioned I'd have missed it.

Gee Phantom, he is only mentioned about 16 times in the last three posts, maybe it's time for you take up some remedial reading. ~rolls eye~

As for link's to Mark's case Phantom, I have provide a wack, CBC TV, CBC On-Line, Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun, Canada.com and even a few Blogging Tories who have noticed this case. Enjoy and try to have a nice day.

So, if I understand you correctly, robert mcclelland, you are not helping out 'one of your own' because, according to you, he should have 'retreated'. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying that IF someone sues you for being one node in the multi-node system that is the Internet, that you should apologize for being that node?

That shows a profound ignorance of the structure of an informational network. The point of such a network is..its connections. If you read, for instance, Duncan Watts' Six Degrees: The Science of the Connected Age, you'll realize that an informational network is connected to..well..everyone.

Libel, on the other hand, is an action that requires an original author and original intention.

Why have so few people come to the defense of Mark Francis and others sued by Crookes? These people have, in common, that they are political pundits of the left. The question is - why hasn't the left supported them? Never mind asking why 'the right' hasn't supported them.

The first base of support always comes from those who are ideologically closest; then, support can come from those who may be politically different but ON THIS ONE ISSUE, support you.

Again, why haven't those who are ideologically close to these people financially supported them? Your answer, about yourself, is that Francis ought to have 'retreated' - what does that mean?

Oh, and why do you always insert personal insults into your posts? [That's my third question to you].

I just deleted all my bookmarks to Patel's blogs last week. His slagging the conservative blogosphere as untalented hacks was very annoying and off-putting. He sure seemed upset that "amateurs" like Kate can get published by the National Post.

I also find it offensive that he puts the term free-speechers in italics, I assume as a pejorative.

So, no more traffic from me I guess.

Mech Eng.

Patel is his very special brand of "Teh Stupid", the guy is nuttier than squirrel poop!

Sounds like Robert is playing the I'm a victim of other victims card. That is so pathetic

The information regarding these lawsuits, including the statement(s) of claim, is out there but you have to do a little bit of digging to get there. I'd provide the links but I don't want to get anybody else sued.

They have certainly not been publicized on the net to the extent that the Warman vs. (fill in the blanks) have. It does however sound like they would have a chilling effect on the blogosphere should certain of these be successful.

I know that Zorpheous has made veiled reference to this case in a discussion with respect to a threat emanating from Warren Kinsella. However details were not clear enough to learn much from that reference. At the time it sounded more like a personal dispute than anything. It is more than that.

What I find interesting with respect to this issue is that conservatives are now the community activists and radicals. When did those others, who were once experts in this regard, become so emasulated by the belief in a beneficent and munificent nanny state that they haven't a clue how to drum up financial and moral support for friends facing difficult legal conundrums.

I do however think these lawsuits are something that anybody who blogs and comments on blogs needs to be very concerned about.

Oh and Robert, I've read your blog. You do not strike me as the type to back down under pressure, even from your peers, when you believe you are right. With that in mind, should these suits be successful, and should you wish to continue blogging, you might consider buying some insurance.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/law/1077150111.php

In the meantime, would it kill you and your friends to drop a nickel or two in the poor guys hat?

These days, its far to easy for some slightly off balanced wing nut with a cause to pick up a phone and find an equally off balanced or ambulance chaser lawyer willing to slap around paper work and court cases.

Thankfully they can't hit what they can't see. Small wonder a few of us have gone 'underground' and are blogging under nom de guerres and nom de plume.

Sure, not using a 'real' has a cost, but so does standing up and being the tallest nail when it comes to 'Free Speech' here in Canada.

Blogger Pimpernell on da scene!

Kate I dropped a 100 bucks into the mail for you and will send more next month. I have also sent funds to Ezra. Keep up the good fight,you have many supporters.

A lively post. Am enjoying it.

Left vs. Right.

Rarely does Kate bother to talk to mentally-disordered leftists, but when she does, that usually means they're going to be figuratively vaporized...

If the leftists had brains, they'd stay away from Kate, but as the leftists haven't any brains, here they are... oh, I can't watch... nah, yes I can, and I'm loving it...

Okay, I got fired up about this Francis/Crookes case and ready to maybe donate, and then I notice a Mark Francis in a throwaway comment about how closed minded Kate is upthread, and suddenly I'm a lot less interested in helping. Maybe I should just donate to Kate's warchest concerning this issue, rather than donate to the leftosphere where biting the hand that feeds you, seems to be a badge of honour.

McCelland is like most leftist, couldn't drive a sharp stick up a dead dog's a... let alone accomplish anything intelligent...

I got around to reading Patels blog post and I have no idea what case he's talking about, but it isn't mine.

"Mark got nothing from me, Kate, and that's not going to change. Just like you, he should have disentangled himself from the fight by retreating. That he chose not to is his own fault and I'm not about to support his stupidity." -- Robert McClelland

I have no idea what you are getting at here Robert. I reposted two posts in a closed Yahoo group for which no one in the group or who ran the group received a libel notice for. Yahoo had deleted the posts -- which were not libelous -- due to a complaint from Crookes, a complaint the group was never told about. It took Crookes months to notify me that he objected to the reposts.

I also helped run a wiki featuring candidates for internal GPC elections during the summer of 2006. Many months afterwards I received a libel notice, citing the Yahoo reposts and the fact that the wiki had on it a simple link, sans commentary, to a candidate's site upon which there was a link to OpenPolitics, which Crookes objects to. The candidate who set up and recommended the link was never sued. On principle, I refused to apologize. Why should I apologize for libel-that-wasn't? Why should I defame myself?

Even if you apologize, you can still be sued for libel. Legally, the apology only mitigates damage.

There was no attempt to attack Crookes publicly, or privately, by me, and, Robert, you should definitely not be saying or suggesting I did so in open forum.

As for the rest of you...

I am a minor player in the slew of cases Crookes launched, which is why I don't show up. The names you want are 'Kate Holloway', OpenPolitics, 'Micheal Geist' and 'Chris Tindal'. Even better, just Google 'Wayne Crookes.'

Just off the top of my head, there was coverage on CTV, P2Pnet, Slashdot, CBC website and The National, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Techdirt...

And what's with Kate et al here going all partisan over this attacking the 'left' for not giving the defense enough money? Just a few days ago, the argument was that the left best support Kate et al less we lose freedoms. Now, upon learning that there are regressive libel suits threatening online freedoms which are far more advanced in the courts that Warman's (and, now, Kinsella et al), back comes the partisanship commentary and the cheap shots.

And my earlier post linking to the lawsuit docs didn't show up here.

If the OpenPolitics case fails this October at trial due to lack of funds, Kate is going to be fighting an even harder uphill battle because the case deals with the responsibility of online publishers when they are not generating content, in this case, a wiki.

Zorphorpheous snidely said: "Gee Phantom, he is only mentioned about 16 times in the last three posts, maybe it's time for you take up some remedial reading. ~rolls eye~"

Sorry dude, between the swearing and the KKKate crap is was kinda hard to make out what you were driving at.

You mentioned the guy in three whole posts? Wow! Awesome. So how's his lawsuit war chest doing, got a couple grand in donations from you posting that stuff?

No? Gee, why not?

Incidentally, we're up to like 60+ comments here and none of you noble Leftist freedom fighters have posted a link to the guy's legal fund, or now that I think of it even mentioned if he has one or not.

Hence Kate's continued mocking, and mine. Get serious or get stuffed, Zorpharoneaous.

Mr. Francis,

You read other blogs (like this one) because they are interesting and well written. When you manage to meet those 2 criteria with your blog you may see more traffic.

Sincerely,

Jon

Dear Robert McLelland:

Get a scoop, clean up the poop and take a hike.

Kate said: Besides, you all spend most of your time slagging bloggers.

Exactly! Virtually everytime I take a peek, lefties are getting all wet mocking out other blogs. I used to wonder why ... then I realized it's likely got something to do with the fact that they have nothing to add to the debate.

In the blog world, they are the village busybodies, with a lot of f - ese tossed in. Gossip, whisper-campaigns, and high dudgeon make them feel superior, and they never have to read a book.

My blog gets linked to by a number of leftard blogs on a regular basis ... it's always some sort of "outrage" that I've posted. Funny thing though ... hardly any hits come through. One link from Kate, for instance, even a BT, and there is a cascade of hits.

Goes to show who's being read, and who's not. I guess that f - ese doesn't sell to intelligent people.

"Now go get your shine box."
Thanks for that Mr. Strangelove, I choked on my lager.

I go all over the Web. Like Kate I didn't know about this either till she posted a link to a site that mentioned this fellow. Someone should contact him , so at least he knows he's not alone, or better yet get his take on this.

I think I would very much like to here what happend to him in his own words.

Revnant Dream, he has posted in this thread:

Mark Francis at April 14, 2008 12:39 PM

Someone should contact him , so at least he knows he's not alone, or better yet get his take on this.

I left a comment over at his blog. Told him that Kate was getting all my donation money. Suggested that maybe he could hit his lefty friends up for some cash...

There's a new libel lawsuit from warmad$warhen about a FreeDominion comment.

Jan said: "...who were once experts in this regard, become so emasculated by the belief in a beneficent and munificent nanny state that they haven't a clue how to drum up financial and moral support..."

Gee, sounds like a description of the current state of the elite natural governing party...

I might add on this subject by saying this transcends political ideals. That a Liberal MP see’s a problems with this abomination & its imps,. You know there is a problem. The Conservatives should support this. He may just see it as coming back to bite even them. Canadian elite or not. Zimbabwe should be a cautionary tale for where appeasement gets you with Inqisitorsors or money mad ideologues.

This is a fundamental attack on our most basic right. The right as individuals to free expression & conscience. This is NO coincidence that this assault happened. Its akin to the Ontario social services going after Pentecostals to get a spanking law in. This led to The US having to give them sanctuary in Michigan in believe.

I noticed the New Mexico ploy was the same used in Alberta by the gay lobby. Now its being used again by the same group.

I don't blame the gay's as much as those behind them. There are people , groups, individuals who hate Democracy or its freedoms for individuals as well as the idea of common equality, common law for all. They vary & come from every walk of life, gender. Or ethnic group.

This is not a conspiracy in the regular sense . We have always had these types in every society. Most cultures call them traitors. They hate there own people or culture to such an extent, they will betray it. At every opportunity even if that harms themselves. You find these individuals at all ,levels but particularly the intelligentsia. Mainly because they are gilded from the realities of these dogmas they so love. Its sad but true. Most are naive , willing fools if history is any guide. There are the quislings though.

On this subject I think the left is ignorant more than vindictive. They just cannot see that tomorrow may bring them face to face with a nightmare of there own creation made in good faith.

We as a people have forgotten what real Constitutions are about. They are certainly not show pieces of faddist ideology nor fashionable statements of a time or place.

They are the Vault, the safe of our common heritage, our societal consensus of what’s right or wrong. The vestibule of our obligations as well as rights as citizens. The safe against the fads & follies of every age from purloining our cultural foundation ,thus our rights as citizens..

Those that would destroy this connection, annulets our souls as human beings. When that safe is plundered . All are left to the robbers mercies. The witch hunters greed. The strong mans will.

Civil litigation has become the new tool of a wide variety of leftist groups attempting to force their point of view on others. Its not limited to the kinsella/warman/hrc assault on free-speech. Victim cults are now taking to suing states for personal harm done to them by state/terrorist activities within their borders. The methodology is actively being promoted as a way to achieve and even when they can't secure a legal means through a criminal or international court. It has apparently met with some success, as its a win-win for unstable states and victo-fascists - the state gets to wash its hands of the problem when the civil court renders a favourable decision for plaintiff, and the plaintiffs get big cash.

BB:

Thanks for the info (O:}

My, there are a lot of scoundrels and schysters out to make a dishonest buck these days. I blame the internet.

Now, I understand how they used to operate: fleece and flee. Jurisdiction being a local thing, they could prey on the defenseless, make themselves odious, and move on. They can’t do this now. “Information just wants to be free.” They have no recourse but to exploit the law as a weapon. Since ours is a degenerating (and degenerate) society, and we are ruled by laws, rather than schooled by them, only money and time constrains them…for now.

As a society, we hold the law in contempt. Significant segments of society view violence and terror as legitimate political tools. And no, I’m not primarily referring to the “racialized minorities” here. This is mainstream. Such barbarians have their defenders among the “citizens of Rome” (and I ain’t talkin’ the church, although there too – black liberation “theology” anyone?). But, what happens when this viewpoint truly goes mainstream among the masses? What happens when the rabble is big enough to take matters into their own hands? Oh, sorry – forgot…that’s already happened.

At some point the “wrong victim” is going to be tapped, or some cornered rat will go TANJ and decide he’d rather get hung for a sheep.

Their whole modus operandi is predicated on an endless supply of plump, peaceful, sheep.

What happens when the supply fails?

We can only pray Ted Turner was correct.

May they prey on each other.

Mark:
And what's with Kate et al here going all partisan over this attacking the 'left' for not giving the defense enough money? Just a few days ago, the argument was that the left best support Kate et al less we lose freedoms. Now, upon learning that there are regressive libel suits threatening online freedoms which are far more advanced in the courts that Warman's (and, now, Kinsella et al), back comes the partisanship commentary and the cheap shots.

Everything has a context. In this case, the partisanship was introduced by Mr. Patels, who was all "Why won't the Right help out?" and then Kate said back, "When have you ever helped out?" and I think you just have just fallen into the middle here.

Now, unlike Kate, I have heard of your case before, and it's definitely chilling. Best luck and all.

"Now go get your shine box"

Folks, I think we have the winner for the line of the week, and it's only Monday!

Zorpheus - since I can't be bothered to sign up for your combox, a few points - no, I don't read Steve Janke, I follow the BT in only a cursory manner, and with over a quarter million comments here? Nope. I don't read all of those either.

Truth be told, I don't surf the Canadian blogosphere very much at all. Nor do I watch CBC, or CTV news more than perhaps once every week or so.

I await the notice of libel, you crazy old cooter. But I fail to see what that has to do with how the left is responsible for you locking yourself into an echo chamber. -Robert McClelland

What echo chamber, genius? Aren't you allowed to comment on Kate's magnificent blog?

Maybe you could persuade your remaining two synapses to hold hands long enough to eke out a coherent thought on occasion.

/You hypocritical libs should be careful what you wish for.

I'm beginning to wonder if blogging's worth it anymore. Or if it was worth it to begin with.

Call someone a name, you get sued. Compare someone to an aardvark, you get sued. Link to someone who calls someone a name in one of their archives that you didn't even read, you get sued. Link to a Wikipedia page, you get sued. Link to a Google image, you get sued. Talk about someone getting sued, you get sued.

Maybe we've finally hit the high water mark on this internet deal, and it's all going to be downhill from here. Every lawsuit and human rights complaint invites the government further and further into cyberspace. It won't take long until you'll need a publishing license to open a blog or a website. Can you do anything else today without a damn license or application?

Today, just for the hell of it, I took a spin around Blogger. I kept hitting "next blog." All kinds of family photo albums, some dude talking about baseball, a girl's trip to South Africa, a bunch of Japanese blogs I couldn't understand, another Egyptian one, some lady that likes taking pictures of her dogs, another guy with advice on insurance, on and on.

Political types (and I'm one of them, when I get on my soapbox) forget how many people use these things to communicate with friends and family, or just to screw around for a while. Unfortunately, those people are going to get caught in this stupid crossfire, as more and more oversight and scrutiny is brought to bear on the net. In the end, some poor bastard is going to end up on an obscenity rap just for swearing on his football blog.

I hope I'm not sounding paranoid, but the way I see it, it took twenty years for the internet to go from something cool, to complete, regular, bureaucratic shit.

If we all unplugged, life would probably be all right. I don't think too many people got sued over their letters to the editor.

Sorry for the long post, and for any hint of sanctimony. If it sounded sanctimonious, too bad.

Sean?

If we all unplugged, life would probably be all right. I don't think too many people got sued over their letters to the editor.

Damned good point. Puts it all in perspective.

Most lefties don't understand that we have real jobs,in the real world, and don't have time to trawl the net like they do.

Ok, so some people don't like my swearing, people like Phantom are just to easily distracted by a few special words in the Queen's English. Then again, I find many of the comments here and else where offensive, yet I will still read and try to move past it to try to figure out what the writer is saying.

Phantom, you are Rightwings Ti-Guy, nothing but a clown, are you two related perchance?

Now back to the subject, since Mark is by far the better writer,...

I am a minor player in the slew of cases Crookes launched, which is why I don't show up. The names you want are 'Kate Holloway', OpenPolitics, 'Micheal Geist' and 'Chris Tindal'. Even better, just Google 'Wayne Crookes.'

Just off the top of my head, there was coverage on CTV, P2Pnet, Slashdot, CBC website and The National, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Techdirt...

And what's with Kate et al here going all partisan over this attacking the 'left' for not giving the defense enough money? Just a few days ago, the argument was that the left best support Kate et al less we lose freedoms. Now, upon learning that there are regressive libel suits threatening online freedoms which are far more advanced in the courts that Warman's (and, now, Kinsella et al), back comes the partisanship commentary and the cheap shots.

And my earlier post linking to the lawsuit docs didn't show up here.

If the OpenPolitics case fails this October at trial due to lack of funds, Kate is going to be fighting an even harder uphill battle because the case deals with the responsibility of online publishers when they are not generating content, in this case, a wiki.
Posted by: Mark Francis at April 14, 2008 7:32 PM

Sorry Kate, if these cases are lost, your battle is have already been lost. It is not my fault that you do not take an interest in world outside your own sandbox, maybe you should make the time.

And no, I don't troll net and blogos all day long reading, like many of you here I have a real job that commands most of my time.

Zorph, my approach to profanity is practical, not ideological. (After all, I spend a lot of time in autobody shops. I've heard and used them all.)

The problem is that a high number of my readers view SDA and the links I use on work computers. I don't need to make life more difficult by tripping up word filters.

Look, I'm not expecting anybody on the Left to suddenly embrace Kate or anybody on 'our team' but isn't it just good manners to say 'hey, thanks for the link' or hat tip to the issue instead of this bitchy whine about 'where were you when'. You know you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

No one gets sued over letters to the editor? Tell it to Stockwell Day.

My thoughts, exactly cynical joe. It does little good for anyone's case to continue to complain that, that which the knowing knew should have been known by the unknowing.

Zorpheous, for my part, it can only be answered, I did not know. But thanks for bringing it to my attention. Now I do.

Now will you stop fretting about what we didn't know. I'm fairly certain that I also know some things that you don't, but should. I promise though not to fret about it on your blog.

Now, is there anything else you know but don't know that we don't know, that you think we should?

PS - I see you have begun to mobilize the progressives. Well done and good luck.

Zorpheous, you're calling me a clown yet still no fraggin' link to a Mark Francis legal defense fund? Does the guy even have a fund? Does he even need any money for it? If I give him money do you think he's a stand up guy and can be trusted to spend it on the lawsuit?

Ti-guy wanted to know.

I guess the conservatives have been excluded from the MSM for so long, they have learned to depend on the internet as their means of spreading information - and our networks are in place. But the liberals, they have not needed to build them...so when one is under attack and the MSM turns blind, nobody really learns about it!

If what he says on his site is true, then this is completely outrageous! It would be an attack on the freedom of speech, as well as the freedom of association (well, electronic association), because if I understand it correctly, he is being sued for linking (associating with) a site which has many links, one of which contains material that the person suing him objects to... That is just not right! Canadian laws could not possibly be abused THAT far! Could they?

Please, let us all know more about what is happening here! Assault on free speech is an assault on us all, and we do need to 'circle the wagons', in a manner of speech!

And, thanks for raising the issue.

If what he says on his site is true, then this is completely outrageous! It would be an attack on the freedom of speech, as well as the freedom of association (well, electronic association), because if I understand it correctly, he is being sued for linking (associating with) a site which has many links, one of which contains material that the person suing him objects to... That is just not right! Canadian laws could not possibly be abused THAT far! Could they?

Xanthippa,

You have summed up the case in a nut shell, and you have it bang on. Many of us have been screaming at Liberal, NDP and CPC MPs to change our libel and Defamation laws for over a year and half now. If Wayne Crookes wins against OpenPolitics (and then by default Mark and Kate falls to) it means the end of the Internet in Canada. And these are not laws made by Liberals or Conservatives, but are based on old English Tort laws we inherited from British common law.

Canada needs some very serious Libel/Defamation TORT law reform and some very strong Anti-SLAPP legisation placed on the books. This situation is by far more impartant than the HRC legal abuses.

The coice is to Canadians who want their free speech rights to remain secure. Once the OpenPolitics is won, it is only the first step, after that we need to bring pressure to bare on politicians to change our laws. Although I don't think Harper and CPC will be too keen on changing these laws, since they are in the middle of using them against the Liberals, sorry but that is truth. Now turn about is fair play, every liberal and NDP MP I have approached about this issue don't seem very interested in championing this cause either. These laws are very useful to SLAPPing people, and unless you have the pockets to fight these case, you lose our voice.