Imagine an office – all your colleagues and all your supervisors and anyone with a say in your tenure prospects, your research funding and your publications – where everyone organizes their careers in such a way that a “human rights” commission would have no reason to object. Their teaching practices, their research, their political views; everything they think and do including and especially their “private” lives from the television they (do not) watch to the fast food they (do not) eat to the sex lives they (do not) allow themselves to have. Even the concept of a “private” life dismissed as reactionary and/or illusory and in any event subject to the scrutiny of any undergraduate with internet access and a grudge. That is the life I escaped. Even a couple years after the fact I find it a surprise when my internal censor warns me against writing something for fear of losing my livelihood and my career and I realize I have already crossed that bridge, burned it and done a little dance some time ago. It is a small price for freedom compared to the price so many have already paid for me. But it is something.”
The bigger picture is slowly beginning to sink in.
The CHRC reach into the realm of our impolite medium treads upon the internet’s most sacred ground, something we have taken for granted since the earliest days of Usenet – the right to call each other names.
“First, they came for KKKate, and I did not speak out because I was a leftard.”
the thing is, that if kate’s case gets tossed then precedent is set. i’ve gone through comments at major news outlets, ctv the globe etc, and seen sda quality comment threads, including some base and potentially actionable stuff. if kate gets walloped, there’s a certain sense that she had it coming from a purely combative and ideological perspective. that said it would contribute to a chilling effect on the blogs. many of us would need to reconsider our approaches.
I wonder how many of you have paused to consider your own databases, and the google caches they lurk in? Have you thought about how you might be called to account for readers who have accused me of being bought and paid for by politicians? Of being a “Nazi sympathizer”? Who’ve denigrated my artwork? Who have posted fabricated “quotes” they’ve attributed to me?
Because, in case you haven’t noticed, there’s really no way for me to lose. I may shell out a few dollars over this complaint, but the precedent will be a gold mine. The Canadian left have provided me the fodder for a full time career as a plaintiff.
So, hurry now.
Purge.
But, set that aside for the moment – have your commentors accused Brian Mulroney of criminal activity? Jean Chretien? Grant Devine? Every premier in the history of British Columbia? They’re all private citizens, they all know good lawyers.
And as a commentor accessing this medium – what then? Welcome to your new role as “Exhibit A”. Will the blog owner trade your identity for a free pass?
Someone in media asked me in private conversation why this issue is so heated, so personal. I answered, “Then, you don’t understand. This is an existential threat to the Canadian blogosphere. This is not about what we say – this is about who we are.”
Kelly: I know, that’s what made it so funny.
This is getting scary.
anonymousbloggerformerlyknownasrichardballwhichwasnothisrealname
When the left talk about a moderated blogosphere, they assume that it is they who will be doing the moderating.
When the left talk about enforcing human rights, they assume that it is they who will be doing the enforcing.
When a diversity committee is established at a university, it is assumed that it will be populated by left-leaning individuals who think in lock-step on all the matters that matter to them.
When the left talks about the sanctity of the Charter and the courts that re-write and interpret it as they please, they assume that it is they who will be doing the re-writing and interpreting.
When a right-leaning person comes near to any one of these apparatuses of power, the left goes ballistic and screams bias, hidden agenda, unsuitable, etc.
[A stellar example of the latter is the Liberal MP who claimed that anyone who believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God was unfit for public office.]
The left’s goal is a complacent, compliant populace submitting to the left’s velvet totalitarianism.
And I am unanimous in this.
it’s all about freedom isn’t it.
You’re up early.
“First, they came for Kate, and I did not speak out because I was a leftard.”
…when they came for leftard McClelland there were no Kates left to speak against it.
You never were the sharpest knife in the drawer McClelland. If you think attacks on internet freedom only effect the “wrong brand” of offensive political posters. Think of your own liabilities.
This is a collusive attack on the internet with a partisan political motive drivng it and it is an attack on Canadian cyberspace in scope and precedent.
It might do you some good to drop your dogmatic partisanism and reflect in rational thought for a moment before going back into loud mouthed misanthrope mode…you have more to lose than most.
If you can’t see that you are either cataleptic or morbidly stupid.
The left is using any tool, even a useless one like Lucy Warman, to try and squelch freedom of speech and if they could, thought. The wheels have been kicked off their leftard wagon, and their ass is dragging on the ground.
The left’s goal is a complacent, compliant populace submitting to the left’s velvet totalitarianism.-Richard
I wonder how many of you have paused to consider your own databases, and the google caches they lurk in? Have you thought about how you might be called to account for readers who have accused me of being bought and paid for by politicians? Of being a “Nazi sympathizer”? Who’ve denigrated my artwork? Who have posted fabricated “quotes” they’ve attributed to me?
Yes, and it has been my experience, at least, that people on the right side of the spectrum are far more generous in giving personal funds to causes in which they believe. But it’s not just me, there are numerous surveys and studies that bear this out.
Those on the left side of the spectrum tend to seek funding from “the collective” in support of their causes. I don’t suspect defending a civil lawsuit falls under the scope of the average grant or government funding scheme.
Unlike Kate, et al, many of those bloggers/commentators might have some difficulty raising the necessary funds to offset the whack of cash needed to secure competent legal advice.
“Wow, many of the comments at stageleft are very anti-free speech. They speak of the improvements the precedent will bring, of a moderated blogosphere.”
This is the left’s self destructive love affair with statist authoritarianism…it will eventually consume their freedom too, but they are too intellectually vacant or deeply indoctrinated in fallacious dogama to see it.
I find it interesting, hypocritical, and highly ironic—not to mention unjust—that the HRCs are, in fact, themselves, guilty of what they charge, prosecute, and punish law abiding citizens for, all done outside due process.
E.g., Unlike the benefit of the doubt virtually always accorded the favoured groups in Canada, the HRCs make mincemeat of the claims that the Stephen Boissoins, Kates, Ezras, and Kathys, not to mention Macleans, make on their own behalf. After rejecting any such claims out of hand, the Tribunals or Commissars (Commissioners), the Diana Moon Glampers* of the HRCs, then proceed both to name call the person charged and to hold identifiable groups up to ridicule and contempt. In Barbara Hall’s OHRC case, the slagging was premature: it happened without even benefit of a hearing.
* Diana Moon Glampers is the “Handicapper General” in Kurt Vonnegut’s hilarious black humour story, “Harrison Burgeron” (Google it), where all of society is under the jackboot of an HRC like state. For all of us worried—with very good reason—about where our society’s headed, this story’s a must read. It’s only a few pages long and hilariously funny—don’t read it while drinking coffee or red wine—but it beautifully sets up and skewers the kind of dystopian gulag towards which the Warmans of this world would happily take us. (From what I know of him, I believe he’d make a fine Handicapper General: maybe he’s even got a little military outfit in his closet already . . . )
The left blogosphere needs to think long and hard about their own “published” vulnerabilities. There but for the grace of God and the right’s belief in freedom of speech, go their futures and their fortunes. They need to hope that vengeance doesn’t enter into a new conservative collective. The moral high ground will be littered with the corpses of the intellectually eviscerated. He who is without sin…
i hereby at this time and in this manner fully and unconditionally recant any critical hurtful craven past commentary by myself that in any wise directly or indirectly cast any aspersion slight or lese majeste toward the estimable warren kinsella….i was wholly in error mistaken and misguided and apologize and retract with extreme grovelment knowing it was utterly MY wrongheadedness and wilfulness and error filled attitude that led to my egregiously over the top rude at times crazy talk.
i have come to realize mr kinsella is a political paladin protecting an ignorant populace from their excesses….free speech is a heady intoxicating wine which has been dispensed too lavishly at times in our society….i drank too deeply and am as contrite as is it possible to be considering my mental debauchery and appallingly unfair admittedly cruel expressions on the internet.
i earnestly seek and curry mr kinsella’s favour and forgiveness and if there is anything…anything at all i can do to further his good works and the good works of the LPC he need only ask.
Ok, I’m going to pick a jumping off point here, and this person’s sentiments are as good a place as any.
“But the left knows the law works for them, not against so they are immune.
If Conrad Black was a lefty would he be in jail? Not a chance.”
YOU FOLKS ARE BEING DUPED! Don’t you see it? It’s not the leftards who are your enemy. It’s not the dimwit who spews racial hatred on the net.
It’s the Lawyers. Who makes up the bulk of legislators and who drives not only laws but policy too? Who advises and writes the words, refines them, seeks new opportunities for themselves and their firms? LAWYERS!
Think of what they have done with Family Court in the past decade and a half. Did you know that 40% of all new legal cases stem from Family Court? Have a look in a phone book and see how many lawyers offer services in Family Law. (Should be called guidelines open to the personal bias of presiding Judge.) Now, take this a step further. Imagine a Lawyers wet dream. Litigating endless complaints over words and conversations transmitted on the internet.
WOW! They are spinning and salivating worse than the Tasmanian Devil himself. If only they can pull it off. Now, you see the Family Law cash cow is only good for so long. The way things work ’round these parts is, make changes and let the pendulum swing all the way to the left, stop and then swing the other way, stop…you get the pic. Eventually it finds a mean. Plus, folks react, like a falling rate of marriages etc. That means a whole lot less cases for lawyers to agitate and prey upon. So they need further opportunities. Look at it as income averaging.
As to Conrad Black, I think the fix was on. Why him when there are so many? What good did this joke perpetrated in the name of justice do in the end anyway? Kind of like George Bush saving Iraqi’s from Saddam.Yup, done a right good job George. Shades of Nam.
I’ve got so much to say about this, but people only read so much then go, NEXT. So Kate, you might be nasty, I don’t know yet. If you are, you will hear from me. But I support you on Freedom of Speech, and have written to persons who have brought cases before HRC’s before in an attempt to help them to understand that such things are a privilege, and not something to be abused. To cry Wolf once too often, does no one any good
I also think Internet freedom of speech threatens politicians, who are largely lawyers anyway. So don’t look for a lot of help there. Judges were lawyers and represent the ruling class, as well they are purveyors of the cult mentality in many cases. The screw turns.
A piece of advice folks. Don’t be so quick to label people leftards or neo con or other. Sometimes peoples’ thoughts, attitudes and experiences transcend stereotypical labeling. Take me for example. I’m willing to listen until someone proves themselves incapable of maintaining a reasonable degree of objectivity and show that they prefer to have someone else do their thinking for them.
Hugger
remorse…remorse and shame….mixed together…..and sorry…genuinely blushingly sorry…..gushing over with contrition…..had no idea i was so deadened to other people’s sensitivity and pain……i’m just a brute…it’s that simple…..i could have been a moderator at stormfront i was so brutally callous…but that’s ALL behind me now…..and the proof is i’ve just renamed my dog….his old name was ‘shorty’ but his NEW name is ‘do something realistic about climate change.”
i feel i’ve been reborn.
This had to happen. Just like a booming stock market, the progressives believe that the good times (the PC time)will go on forever. They do not see the bust coming.
Everything travels in cycles and the anti-PC side is just starting. As someone already posted, the PCers will still win some of the battles but the cracks in their amour is showing.
Where does the ‘progress’ in ‘progressive’ stop? It stops when (a) every single human being is paid the same amount, regardless of their contribution (b) every single human does or does not do as per dictated by their ruling elites (c) no human being thinks any unprogressive (i.e. “reactionary”) thoughts, let alone communicates them.
This is called existing, not living.
I hereby retract anything I’ve EVER said, on the internet, in conversation, letters to the editor, or anywhere else. My contrition is double that of JB, I regret, I regret, I regret.
I was in a room once, where marijuana was being smoked, back in the 1960’s, and may have inadvertently inhaled some of the smoke, thus addling my brain, and causing me to make remarks I now retract, for the past forty odd years.
Sigh.
It’s scary going to those left blogs. Please don’t make me go there again! Ewwwww!
richard evans – no, the fact that you can read the words on this blog doesn’t make the blogosphere a ‘written’ form of communication. I know it sounds strange, but, it remains oral.
Oral vs literate isn’t just a differentiation between whether the information is received by ear or by eye. It’s also the structure of the interaction. I can’t go into it here. Try an old book – Walter Ong. You can go into google for ‘oral and literate communication’ and find lots of research pointing out that the electronic system (email, internet) is an oral rather than literate structure.
It is also interesting to consider the difference between ‘private’ and ‘public’ in an oral culture. Quite frankly, an oral culture doesn’t enable much privacy. In a literate culture, where information can be ‘sealed’ against interaction from others, you get a focus on privacy, individual ownership, storage of goods. In fact, the literate era saw the development of many systems of storage; libraries, museums.
It’s very hard to control information in an oral age. I think a lot of laws that enable the individual to control information about themselves and others are going to be changed over the next years.
Skip said:
“They need to hope that vengeance doesn’t enter into a new conservative collective. The moral high ground will be littered with the corpses”
Quite right! The collective illiberal left has to understand you can only kick a dog so much before it turns on you. The dogmatic left have engaged in an ideological war with principled conservatives which is both barbaric, craven and civilly distructive….the only thing that has saved them from a very painful counter devastation is that principled conservatives do not employ venal, craven dirty tactics. Principled conservatives preferring to debate and expose rather than repress, censor and intimidate…..but that could change because many many conservatives see the politically motivated oppression of the right by HRCs and their despotic PC camp followers as an agenda so foul that perhaps malevolent political aggression by the intolerant left should be dealt with using their methods.
Being principled means being a punching bag for the unprincipled…but there are limits to reasoned toleration….passive principled tollerance can change.
“Wow, many of the comments at stageleft are very anti-free speech. They speak of the improvements the precedent will bring, of a moderated blogosphere. So, basically, if you say something that isn’t true, you’re in trouble. Sounds good, right? Who decides what the truth is? The government, of course.”
I can’t speak for our commenters (and I understand that’s what much of the discussion is about).
But I think the three of us who blog at Stageleft agree that anyone should be able to write pretty much whatever they want. I don’t enjoy hateblogs, but I support their right to exist.
What I personally don’t support is libel. It’s happened to me twice. Once was funny (I was called a Chinese Communist Spy by a lunatic), and once it was not (I was accused by a blogger of threatening his wife and children, of being a Holocaust denier, and whole bunch of other very bizarre stuff, all completely bogus.) It did me no actual professional damage, as far as I can tell, but it was pretty horrible. I didn’t take action in either case.
In this instance, I have huge concerns about a blogger being held liable for the content of his/her comments. I have less sympathy for those accused of actually alleging extremely damaging stuff against Warman that’s unproven. That was done to me, and it was wrong.
oh no you don’t dmorris…i’m WAY sorrier than you…..i just happen to be literally prostrate with a wholesome life affirming white liberal guilt……i’m stiff as a board with abject fear of offending someone..anyone…….why i’m so sorry about everything i just renamed my cat ‘rosa luxemburg.’
Balbulican said: … I have less sympathy for those accused of actually alleging extremely damaging stuff against Warman that’s unproven. That was done to me, and it was wrong.”
Agreed. But here’s where the wheels fall off: Warman is alleged on the internet, with some evidence, to have posted scurrilous remarks about another, under an assumed name and identity. He denies that’s true. But, a hearing is held that would illuminate the facts about a case in which he is an apparent participant, and which ais related to his alleged behavior, and he declines to participate (if I have my facts correct in regard to the most recent Lemire hearing…).
Further, he brings suit against his alleged libelers, and again, structures the suit such that he will not have to answer, other than by limited examination at court, to what, if any, role he might have had in the alleged posting. The implication is that he has something to hide, that while he may not have the posting in question, he may know more about it than has been revealed thus far. Warman needs to know, that in the world of truth and freedom, he doesn’t get to hit and run. To do so makes him no different then those he chooses to go after.
I am among those who wonder why anyone would fall for Flea’s preposterous caricature of the academy.
No need to pay heed to my preposterous caricature of the academy. The academy has made a preposterous caricature of itself without any help from me.
Well, a little. But I have grown out of it.
Skip: good point, but you’re still making a couple of untested assumptions about what Warman does and doesn’t know. I’m not knowledgeable enought about either libel law or technology, and any of the analyses on this issue I’ve read, on either “side” have seemed to start with a conclusion and cherry pick evidence that supports it.
In that way, I suppose I’m looking forward to a bit more clarity; more light, less heat.
Will someone explain to me why lawyers and others use the word “oral” (meaning: to do with the teeth and mouth) when they mean “verbal”?
Just thought I’d throw this in here and run away, giggling.
“In that way, I suppose I’m looking forward to a bit more clarity; more light, less heat.”
That’s what a trial is for Balby. You may want to keep that in mind rather than pronounce on the guilt of others as you have been doing.
The war is just getting started. It’s interesting and very helpful that PEN and the Canadian Association of Journalists have taken sides. I believe Artists and their associations will get involved as well. They must in order to protect their industry, ideas and source of revenue.
Sarah Polley was on Duffy the other day and during their discussion about the film funding bill, Duffy brought up the HRC topic. She clearly took the side of free speech.
Musicians, Poets, Film makers, et al, must and will get involved. However one may feel about it, nothing like a little ‘star power’ to draw the publics attention and opinion.
In a larger sense, section 13.1 is a bludgeoning instrument, arbitrarily wielded against those whose opinions the undemocratic, and unelected HRC’s don’t agree with. Therefore it effects everybody in communications and especially those that professionally depend on it – whether that be bloggers, musicians, poets, film makers, the media, advertising agencies, advertisers, etc.
So, this lawsuit is simply a skirmish in the much larger battle in which, in my opinion, the HRC’s are going to lose. As all those in communications start to realize that through the arbitrary and non-judicial nature of the HRC’s that they are all open to attack and censorship, they will support the fight to overhaul, or abolish the HRC’s.
The overwhelming odds are against the HRC’s as they currently exist.
I am astonished that the Canadian federal government has not yet effectively dealt with the cancerous CHRC. Freedom of speech is not just “an American thing” it is a human race thing.
Perhaps the Canuck Six will be forced to flee to the US and launch a BloggoFreeCanada network. The CHRC-KGB may run rampant for a while, but, like all thugocracies, the Warman Wall will fall.
I would like to thank Robert “the Retard” McClelland for perfectly exemplifying my point waaaay back at Ap.11th 9:27.
Kate says white, Robbie the Retard instantly says “BLACK!!!” Kate says “just kidding, black!” Retardo says “WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITE!!!!!!!
I am under the impression that the only reason McClelland and his troll chorus remain un-sued and un-investigated is that the human “rights” lawsuit industry is currently under Leftist management.
Meaning you can’t be sued for spewing vileness if you lean left. At the moment.
Robert the Retard is so busy slagging his enemies that he does not think “Gee, what would happen if the [gasp, shudder] Conservatives took over this operation? Oh no, look at my back catalog! There’s a TON of stuff I could get sued over. I am so screwed if that happens. Maybe I should lay off the slagging and get on the protecting of my own sorry ass here!”
And that, repeated a zillion times over the last couple of years, is why I like to call him Robbie the Retard. Even a CHICKEN has more friggin’ sense than that.
And now, balbulican. Dear Blob said: “I have less sympathy for those accused of actually alleging extremely damaging stuff against Warman that’s unproven.”
Blob, buddy. “…extremely damaging stuff”? Let us speak the truth ungilded, shall we? Mr. Warman has admitted, in court, under oath, to having previously done -exactly- what he is alleged to have done this time. I
WTF -is- it that forces you and your friends to continually ignore things like that?
This is YOUR personal ass on the line here Blobby. Just like Robbie the Retard you’ve got a back catalog that’ll make a prime fishing ground for manufacturing libel suits. None of them will have any merit, but you old son will be stony f-cking broke all the same.
The thing that kills me the most is that I posted almost exactly the same thing over at Canadian Cynic and some mental giant called me a hate spewing racist. If I were of that mind to do so, do you think I could conjure up a 50K lawsuit over that? Some people seem to think so.
Either its a free country or it isn’t, Blob ol buddy. If I’m not free, you’re not either. Your continued, unrelenting, mindless rejection of that simple fact is just one more reason I mock you at every turn. Please grow a freaking synapse, for all our sakes.
Boy sounds like you Canadians need the protection of the U.S. Constitution! This is all obviously a Karl Rove plot to give us yanks an excuse to annex Canada and take over the tar sands!
Simply put at the top of your blogs “Nothing written or said here is true”. There, disclaimer made. As meaningful as the imagined restoration of reputation ensuing from an apology. Perhaps some money is paid, an apology published.
None of that will change reality.
What with all the pseudonymous postings, has anyone else wondered if WK may himself have drawn that infamous swastika that he claims top have photographed in a boys washroom? Please, don’t tell me the pro CHRC crowd is above that.
To our American friends,
You should keep an eye on this. It seems Democrats are ever tilting left and may eye some of the tactics being used elsewhere. Given the UN/OIC axis of evil and their bill to criminalize freedom of speech, who knows if a Democrat controlled government might not just acquiesce and attempt to amend the first amendment.
We didn’t think it would happen here either.
Canada is just one of the fronts in this war.
You could all just take the Obama Approach:
“I didn’t read the comments. I wasn’t there when the comments were made. All the comments that the plaintiffs consider controversial are ones I vehemently condemn.”
That won’t fly when it comes to the Canadian Inquisition? Their chief weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to double-standards?
balbulican, there are a couple of points here, not that my opinion has any bearing on the legalities of the issue…
1. Richard Warman has posted hate speech under psuedonyms, and has admitted to this. He claims that he didn’t post *this* hate speech, and to say so has damaged him. I would argue that the damage was done prior to this, and by his own actions.
2. For those who hate Kate and the posters on this site, you need not agree with her to see where this is headed. If Kate has never been affiliated with the national socialist party and you have called her a nazi, then her case is even one step stronger than Warman’s. Warman has an established history, Kate has not.
3. The danger comes in splitting that hair. In civil court, you only have to prove that something is more likely than not. There are a lot of right wing bloggers who say all kinds of things about Kate, George Bush, and knuckledraggers in general, who would be at risk if this goes through. You don’t have to like or respect right wing bloggers to see that they are defending the rights of everyone in their defence of themselves. If they win, the KKKate comments can continue as right wingers roll in fields of happy clover. If they lose, those people might have to lawyer up.
kathy shaidle – no, ‘verbal’ isn’t the same as ‘oral’.
‘Oral’ doesn’t just refer to the objects of the mouth, tongue, teeth. It also refers to the mode of communication – oral versus written.
There’s a huge reference of books and articles on the oral communication system. See, for example, Walter Ong’s ‘Orality and Literacy’. Lots of articles about oral cultures as differentiated from literate cultures.
‘Verbal’s main meaning is ‘referring to words’. So, ‘verbal’ means a linguistic or word-based method of communication as differentiated from a gesture method or sign-method, neither of which use words.
Get the difference? Oral vs literate is a valid set of terms used in communication analysis.
ID said: “You should keep an eye on this. It seems Democrats are ever tilting left and may eye some of the tactics being used elsewhere. Given the UN/OIC axis of evil and their bill to criminalize freedom of speech, who knows if a Democrat controlled government might not just acquiesce and attempt to amend the first amendment.”
And this is why, in the US, you must stand firm against the current challenges to the Second Amendment. The second amendment is what gives force and effect to the first. Without it, you cannot hope to hang on to the first amendment. There is a reason why the framers placed freedom of speech as the first, then backed it up with the second – they were experiencing the consequences first hand, as we are here, in Canada.
Kakistocracy \Kak`is*toc”ra*cy\
(k[a^]k`[i^]s*t[o^]k”r[.a]*s[y^]),
n. [Gr. ka`kistos worst + kratei^n to rule.]
Government by the worst men.
[1913 Webster]
Kate:
I think there is something wrong with the Libel Tourism thread. It is not accepting comments.
I Googled “Making Anagrams” and, out of 55 556 possibilities there for Richard Bruce Warman, copied the following, way at the top of the list:
“Barracuda Wrench Rim, Armada Rubric Wrench, Anarchic Rewarm Drub, Anarchic Warmer Drub, Archaic Brawn Murder, Chairman Redraw Curb, Chairman Warder Curb, Chairman Reward Curb, Armchair Brawn Cured, Armchair Craw Burned, Armchair Redrawn Cub, Armchair Warden Curb, Rearward Umbra Cinch, Rearward China Crumb, A Harridan Crumb Crew, A Drama Rubric Wrench, A Rabid Rewarm Crunch, A Crewman Hard Rubric, A Mach Redrawn Rubric, Armada Birch Crew Run, Baa Warder Crunch Rim, Macabre Cad Whirr Run, Barmaid Re War Crunch, Badman War Recur Rich, Armband Arch Cur Wire, Armband Craw Cur Hire, Armband Haw Crier Cur, Armband War Cure Rich, Barman Arch Crud Wire, Barman Craw Crier Duh, Barman Craw Curd Hire, Barman Craw Cur Hired, Barman War Chic Ruder, Barman War Crude Rich, Cardiac Harm Brew Run, Charade Cram Burr Win, Radiance War Brr Much, Arachnid Mar Brew Cur, Arachnid Maw Curb Err . . .”
Fun.
Dear daisy,
Many, many of us here in the Great Satan are fully aware of the universally repressive nature of the Left, and that no matter where its foul breath is present it seeks the same Big Nasty Brother power.
Fortunately, we already have a First Amendment and the Second Amendment we’ll enforce it with. I pray it never comes to such an unavoidable option.
Free Canada. Free Humanity.
Not sure if I get the its who we are argument….bloggers or conservatives?
Anyway, the HRC issue is a problematic one. The lefter blogs are patting themselves on the back saying they are all reasonable and that of course there are limits on free speech….a right is something that describes a relationship of government/state power to the individual. This is where the argument is about the HRC’s, it is not for the government shut down speech or communication (in the extreme) This would mean criminal prosecutions etc.
Now we have accepted some of that in the past and there is a fair debate to be had to how far, if at all you come off the line. This is why credible death threats are criminal, communication of burglary plans are a conspiracy…these are reasonable and well backed up limits on free speech, the government versus the individual. So lets dispose of the argument that there are limits, there will always be limits.
The objection to the HRC’s go well beyond those limits, the entrapment, the creeping work into content etc. So it isnt about oral versus written or anything like that, these are all red herring and legalistic arguments. It is and always will be about where the line is on government power.
Is Warmna’s lawsuit an attack on free speech? At one level not at all…anyone is free to sue anyone else…you cant stop it nor should you. You just have to be sure that the process is fair and not open to abuse (unlike the HRC process).
I am still curious about the process of what happens when someone drops the suit the day before, I believe that would leave them open to a counter suit, but I could be wrong, the judge may still turn around and impose a penalty for frivilous waste of the courts and defendents resources….but perhaps a lawyer can answer that one.
The troubling part of suit is in fact suing of Kate for comments not posted, nor encouraged by her. That is the part that has real legal precedence and effect should it go against her. The others are being sued for comments they made and published. This is the difference.
This is the problem for the blogosphere. Look at what happened with Ezra and Ming the Merciless. Ridiculous comments buried in a long post. How much care and duty does the blog owner have to police….my answer would be some, but it isnt absolute since that removes the responsibility of the poster creating moral hazard, the equivalent of letting graffitti writers off the hook and blaming the building owner even if he has film, names and addresses of the perpetrators.
So whatts the point. The HRC’s, and Warman’s activities with them, can be seen as an enemy of free speech. Kind of tautological since the seek to regulate speech and communication therefore it is a limit on free speech. Its all about reasonable or unreasonable limits, always has been. The secondary argument is then about the adjudication of those limits. The process arguments cut to the fact that the law is not being applied equally, fairly or in a manner consistent with any other applications of state power.
This lawsuit on the surface is not but it has implications not just for blogs but any content provider that lay under the surface.. I do wish many would move beyond their ideological blinkers to see that. Sarah Polley, as often as I disagree with her politics appears to see the salient point. The government should NOT be expanding its role in managing communication.
The quibble I have with Polley is that that generally the payer has influence on the content. This raises an issue of whether government money should be used…period…to fund arts projects, or if they are should they only be used for infrastructure purposes and not content creation….its a tough argument…and one that will continue forever.
I am sympathetic to her argument though that the funding cannot nor should be revoked after the fact. to claim credit. Nonetheless I agree that the government should not be getting into the specifics of the content…subject to existing laws. But the goverment could say that projects that end up R rated, as an example, will not be eligible
This raises one final interesting point. What would happen if the government funded a project, since funding is allegedly blind, that was subject to HRC complaint. Would the government as funder be liable, would only the writer? would the actors? I am surprised Syed Sowhardy hasnt complained to the HRC about the movie True Lies….should it be removed from video store shelves and banned in this country….or what about anyone of a number of 70’s “blaxploitation” films, as there is heavy use of the “N” word.
These are examples to show that there is a reason why the government is kept out of the content evaluation business and probably should be for the most part. This isnt about limits versus no limits, there have always been limits.
This is about containing government involvement in communication for all the reasons that all government activity is limited and regulated…unintended consequences, potentioal for abuse and finally, the starting point do humans choose to give up their freedom in certain areas to live in a society or do humans fight to gain whatever freedom they have have….I think freedom belongs to individuals who agree to surrender parts of it for common and individual benefits. Government belongs to the people not the other way around.
I am a leftard, and I stood up for Kate. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
It has already begun to happen in the USA!!!
… … …
Christian Photographer Fined $6,637.94 For Not Filming Gays
The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment.
The New Mexico Human Rights court sentenced Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin a fine of $6,637.94 for refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony.
… … …
from Gatewaypundit April 9 2008,
Didn’t McClellands fellow travellers of the left censure and spank him not too long ago.If I remember correctly he screamed about his right to say FK the JOOS.Poor Robert,just another usefull idiot for Kinsellas agenda!
Posted by: john begley at April 12, 2008 9:39 AM
I shall forward correspondence forthwith, to the aforementioned party on your behalf, recommending acceptance of your sincerest apologies and sentiments.
Anything else I can do for you today? My Legal Aid rate is $195/hr. and $350 for those paying themselves. You have to cue for the legal aid rate. Don’t blame me, my secretary is new and still learning about double billing.
Hugger
People have been suing each other for libel regarding published opinions in Canada, and in the Western world, for centuries.
Nothing new here. No precedent.
Litigation is very expensive, and even after winning, plaintiffs typically only recover half their costs. The hope is that getting and collecting damages will result in profit, or at least a break-even.
If a defendant lacks money, the tort, if won, will end up a money-losing exercise.
I was reading a malicious prosecution finding the other day. The plaintiff, a police officer, won, hands down. The plaintiff claimed $50,000 in costs based upon legal fees.
The judge found that excessive and awarded $7,500.
Jurisdictions award costs based upon a scale, which only reflect a portion of true costs.
If this seems unfair, keep in mind that this applies to successful defendants as well. If you successfully defend against a lawsuit, you will typically still be out tens of thousands of dollars _after_ being awarded costs.
The cost of the average lawsuit in Canada, from filing to completion, without appeal, is $63,000.
No wonder 40% of defendants end up representing themselves.
Most libel cases do not have large awards, though Warman’s is heading that way unless people start noticing that the IP being associated with Warman is actually that of a Rogers load-sharing proxy servicing some 700,000 users back in 2003-2004 — including me.
http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-there-is-room-for-doubt-about.html
ET: I thought, oral meant “not written down” except of course later by anthropologists etc. Like “folk music” before the advent of recorded sound etc.
Surely the internet is absolutely the opposite of “oral” in my common-folk understanding. The comments are written. Retreivable. Stored in archives and “google caches” whatever they are.
Perhaps this is an example of Tenebris’ charge of over-application?
I DO agree with your more important observation though: what reputation???
In fact: here’s my latest view. Kate and Kathy should sue for URE (uncompensated reputation enhancement). To whit: Warman was a lone but winning loser before this free speech war broke out. As Canada is peopled heavily by lefties on tenures of myriad kinds, and as a much greater proportion of lefties now know the tragic loser, and as most lefties agree with said loser and see him as a noble knight in defence of niceness, his reputation has been ENHANCED not reduced.
stephen – I disagree with Sarah Polley. I think that the taxpayers should not be funding Canadian films.
If filmmakers want to make a film, they should go to the taxpayer in a direct rather than indirect manner; get the taxpayer to who wants to fund that film, to financially support it. Instead, Canadian filmmakers insist that all Canadian taxpayers, whether they want to or not, fund their films. I think that the films should be on the market; if they are viable, someone will be interested and will fund them. If they are garbage – and many are – then, no-one will come forth to fund them.
The expectation of so many Canadians in the ‘arts and culture’ that Canadian taxpayers should support them ‘just because’ is elitist and arrogant.