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.”
“That’s what a trial is for Balby.”
Yup. That’s my point, BCF.
It’s scary going to those left blogs. Please don’t make me go there again! Ewwwww!
Posted by: Soccermom at April 12, 2008 10:54 AM
Dear Soccer Mom,
Read the instructions for Political Party Apple Bobbing Quorums.
1. Hold your nose.
2. Learn to Bob your head in rhythm.
3. Only bite the Big Red things that float elusively by.
4. Avoid the bubbles. They might be farts.
Hugger
I very VERY politely disagree with Me No Dhimmi. Many of my Canadian friends, who are left-leaning people, are strongly outraged by this suit, and this man, and what he stands for. Perhaps I live in a small bubble of reasonable people, and perhaps I don’t see what Me No Dhimmi sees, but I know of no one who thinks this jerk is doing right. Or even TRYING to do right. His attacks are pathetic and transparent and I can’t wait to see him stopped. Neither can the company I keep. He is what gives us a bad name. I may not agree with everything that people on the right have to say, but I encourage the conversation. I think it’s IMPORTANT to have both sides of the argument. Just my $0.02.
Quite right, Mr. Lady. And even Chomsky agrees with you.
me no dhimmi – no, ‘oral’ doesn’t simply mean ‘not written down’. As I’ve suggested to others, you can google ‘orality vs literacy’ and check out some things there. There is an enormous amount of research on oral vs literate communication. You’ll also find that most communication research considers that the internet is ‘oral’.
A mode of communication that is not written functions differently than one that is written. The key word is ‘function’. It’s hard to explain and this thread isn’t the place for it, but the whole ‘mode of operation’ of an oral communication system is completely different than a literate one.
The literate one is linear; it has a ‘first time speaker’ (which is why you get the development of copyright – unheard of in an oral culture). Copies are meant to be exact duplicates of this ‘first time’. Changes are frowned upon..The notion of ‘ownership’ of thoughts and ideas emerges – also unheard of in an oral culture. You get storage of these first ‘editions’..etc.
The oral one is non-linear. There are no ‘first-time speakers’; the idea or thought is meant to be debated, discussed, changed. The whole community, in a sense, ‘owns’ the idea. We can store these ideas but remember, storage isn’t the key concept. For we can store all our blog postings, but who knows whether that idea is ‘first time’ expressed in this particular blog and wasn’t previously discussed elsewhere? There isn’t the concept of individual ownership as there is in a literate culture.
That’s also why our defamation and libel laws will have to be changed; they can’t handle the multiple authors and interactions of the internet.
Even the language structure changes when a society switches from and oral to literate communication method! (I did my PHD, in part, on that)..
As a libertarian, I have little good to say about the HRC. But they (progressives)are instigating this “war”. To use their own weapons against them is a perfectly rational response. After all, as a woman, you are a protected group…unless their is a rule that disqualifies conservative females.
HRC them and donate any money to the conservative bloggers defense fund (just remember not to use double sided paper in the complaint).
Posted by: Mark Francis at April 12, 2008 2:33 PM
Excellent post, and very informative.
Hugger
ET: as usual you are playing with words.
Internet blogs and comments are written communication. It is just more casual and informal than before.
There is an enormous amount of research on oral vs literate communication.
Posted by: ET at April 12, 2008 3:21 PM
Yes, and there is an enormous amount of hot air that rises in the House of Commons on a regular basis. And you hold a PHD?
“The oral one is non-linear. ” May I respectfully submit, this is only the case when one decides to move one’s tongue horizontally, as opposed to vertically. I’m speaking about the real world of course, not that of Academia. The land of Alice and wonderment.
Of course, great court cases and their outcomes are oft determined by such conceptualizations of “rational thought.”
The bones of it for average people, average Canadians is; are they going to trample what last vestiges of our rights that we have left? And, will we once again acquiesce?
Will we speak out in an organized and unified fashion, or will we once again submit to the ever so old tactic of divide and conquer?
We have both sides of the so called political spectrum espousing freedom, and decrying the erosion thereof. Yet, we argue over such things as the definition of Oral. Clinton said, it depends how you define is. Or was it, “IT”. It is all such a waste of energy and intellect.
Hugger
So lets see if I have this straight. If we leftards don’t howl at the moon alongside you then you’ll sue us.
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 11, 2008 11:32 PM
No Robert, I shall speak slowlyyyyyyyyyy. From hence forth when the far leftards libel us Cons by calling us Nazis etc. we are going to sue for libel. You see Robert, who travels the little yellow bus to school, we’ve had enough of the lefts’ abuse and normally we’d thunk your sorry asses in debate but no more. It’s time we used the far left’s practice of suing us up the wazzo, we’ve learned from the masters of snot and bawling this Grass Hopper has grown up.
Take heed liberal and far leftard bloggers and forums, I’m taking notes and copying your Libelous attacks on Christians and Conservatives. The free ride is over, the left will have to live up to the unreasonable standards they set for the right hence forth.
And for the guy so self righteously going on about freedom of speech, Conservative Party of Canada style, (Can’t be bothered to look up the post)
What about filibustering? What about Democracy? What about getting on with the Nations business? What about getting through committee and putting it before Parliament? What are you afraid of? Surely not Dion!
Filibuster
Submitted by Elizabeth May on 10 April 2008 – 9:55am.
There was a dramatic flourish as Conservative MP Jeff Watson pulled his McDonald’s meal from its Golden Arches paper bag. He grinned like the Cheshire Cat when asked how long his intervention might be. “Stay tuned,” he replied.
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/4293
Insult me, you dink. What do you care?
Hugger
Sorry to disturb your equanimity, Greg, but there is a great deal of research on the difference between oral and literate communication systems. Try googling the terms and reading a bit before you begin your sneer of contempt.
You might also check out the meaning of ‘non-linear’.
Most societies in the history of this earth developed and maintained their knowledge base via oral means. The literate method only appeared in very large populations, and late in history. So, it’s been an area of intense research, exploring how the human mind, both individually and collectively, deals with information when it is used/stored orally versus using a literate method. It’s astonishingly different.
No, AQS- you are quite wrong. The fact that the blogosphere is ‘written’ doesn’t make it operate in a literate fashion. It’s oral. Try to do a bit of research.
The point I’m trying to make, with this focus on the difference between oral and literate systems of communication, is that the old laws of communication, which include copyright, patent and also, the laws of ‘defamation’ and ‘libel’ aren’t correct when applied to the blogosphere.
The concepts of individual ownership of information, direct linear causality between one bit of information and a result – all of this is up for re-examination in our legal system. The blogosphere and internet are not just a faster method of communication, nor a more informal style. They deal with information in a manner that we are not used to…and it will take time to acknowledge this in our laws.
The idea of suing for comments on a blog is silly.
If a kid wanders down your back alley with a spray can, and paints a swastika on your garage door,or calls Richard Warman a bad name in paint, should you be sued? Or should you go after the miscreant with the spray can??
The carnival of Politically Correct is getting seriously stupid.
I just read the links, good grief don’t the left read? Honestly their ignorance regarding what the HRC employees and Warman have done (and admited under oath) in the past by setting up their targets is assine. They have no idea that the HRC lacks morals, ethics or standards for Operating within Principled Standards.
Holy shite, I can’t believe their ignorance and lack of knowledge. LOL they are debating a subject without any knowledge of the topic, Holy Hanna talk about a day late and a dollar short. Don’t they read News Papers?
Holy cow rose I dont thunk you no waht lible izz, golly.
“I am among those who wonder why anyone would fall for Flea’s preposterous caricature of the academy.”
After more than 30 years of dealing with academics, I don’t wonder at all.
I reiterate my earlier proposed solution. Add to the heading of a blog, in a disclaimer, a notice that nothing presented in the blog is represented as true or represented as a fact.
lookout, I kind of like the “Macabre Cad Whirr Run” (as in, Macabre Cad DID–not were–Run?) for Warman.
Warman has done everything he can to hit, then run. Any “light” and “clarity,” ironically, is going to have to be furnished by him…
…which isn’t going to happen anytime soon, methinks.
…i call on the Sgt Schultz clause over all this:
“I know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing”.
Like the Canadian cases, the New Mexico travesty is indeed troubling. Fortunately, there is an appeals process that proceeds through both state and federal realms. Perhaps, eventually, to end with a US Supreme Court decision. Other attacks or threats to free speech in the US have been dealt with via this route.
Does Canada allow for or provide an appeals process for the CHRC’s mayhem, or do its verdicts stand forever, ala Inquisition style?
Lynnh:
“To use their own weapons against them is a perfectly rational response.”
I couldn’t disagree more. To use the HRC against them just legitimizes it. I think all of here agree that the HRC needs to be stopped. We cannot support it in any form.
Besides, as if. They wouldn’t allow us to use it.
balbulican blurted: “Holy cow rose I dont thunk you no waht lible izz, golly.”
At the risk of repeating my comment to you at 1:01 pm Blobby, that statement you just made can be enough to launch a suit of equal merit to the one under discussion. It doesn’t have to be legit to cost you money, does it?
Meaning, O paragon of blobitude, that the process is the punishment. How many bogus, merit less libel suits can -you- afford to fend off? Is your speech free if it costs you 20 grand every time you open your mouth?
Are you thick thick naturally, or do you practice?
balbulican:
I read your views in one of the Blogs Kate mentions. I was not impressed. You do know the National Post is involved as well don’t you? Your seeming pose of a cynical laden sophisticate, coupled with a sense of superior condensation, gets weak after a while. You folks incredibly seem to think this is only for Conservative Bloggers while your buddy Mark too is under the hammer. See any disconnect here?
These are not isolated events. Someone wants too change the rules big time for the WWW for their own perfidious reasons. I say that because when have humans ever let something alone that works without dominating it to the point of near collapse? Using us & you to make it a president, or have a government imperator put on to enforce an individuals or groups will against personnel conscience. A great evil in my eye’s.
Time will tell who’s right, but by that time you as well will face the wall. These Nazis will not allow a last cigarette Every Act, statue, enforced bylaw multiplied by age equals slavery. Read about it in any Library. Its called compounded Tyranny. All for our good right?
Keep on your seat of the mocking, for in the end all you cherish will be devoured as well.
Don’t get insulted, but is it socialisms job to be wholly devoted to spreading ignorance?
Posted by: ET at April 12, 2008 4:46 PM
Speaking of sneering, while you were occupied with self indulgent unwarranted admiration, you simply missed the point. A caricature I have found to be common to academics of all colours.
While more enabled to partake in the joy of life long study of the anatomy of a Musca domestica (Linnaeus),(google that) they remain seemingly inept in the art of practical application of common sense and applications thereof.
The point was the common goal of Free Speech. Is that too heady for you, or do you simply prefer random meanderings?
Further more, I accept your respectful submission.
Hugger
Oy. Look, ignoring the tug-of-war over terminology, here’s another way to look at the question of how blog comments should be legally taxonimized: To the degree society supports certain narrowly defined cases of valid libel or slander claims, should blog comments that cross that legal line be considered libel or slander?
Prof. Reynolds has an excellent article on the matter regarding US law, where the sanctions against slander are more leniant that those against libel. He says slander. ET says oral. I agree with them both.
Reynolds, Glenn Harlan
“Libel in the Blogosphere: Some Preliminary Thoughts”
Washington Law Review, Vol. 84, p. 1157, 2006
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1030527
(Pick a link under Download Document.)
Renaissance artists would not have produced so many masterpieces if their patrons, Medicis and others, had simply given them blank cheques to be creative. It is not an offense against free speech for a patron to attach conditions to money given to an artist. Let our film-makers find real patrons who will make real demands on them.
The government-fed film-makers cannot be compared with the blogmartyrs of free speech. The latter are being hauled before the pseudo-courts for expressing negative emotions. Laws against “hate” are implicitly laws against love. If someone loves something, truly loves it, they hate what would destroy it. There is no love without hate. There is no hate without love. Love and hate are part of our natural endowment for dealing with life, both individually and socially.
If only wargirl, Steacy and his blind servant, and others in the hercs, were questioned on the Cools post in a real courtroom with real lawyers.
I believe I understand ET’s comments with regards to oral versus literate communications. This thread being an example of oral communications given the nature of the exchange. Proximity has nothing to do with it, alla the telephone.
The problem is legal definition though, rather than academic. Which has yet to be decided. A blog such as this is, afterall, defined as electronic publishing.
“That’s also why our defamation and libel laws will have to be changed; they can’t handle the multiple authors and interactions of the internet.” – ET
Will have to be changed, or defined as they have to do with the internet, legally.
—————
I’m wondering if and when Macleans/Rogers will sue Barbara Hall and the OHRC for the published comments she made regarding their case. Public charges, even a conviction of “Islamophobia” without due judicial process strikes me as libelous and defamatory.
vitruvius – yes, slander is an oral mode of communicating defamation. But, as you know, my differentiation between oral and literate cultures isn’t simply the mode of communication; that mode has infrastructural properties within the whole society. However..that’s another topic.
Glenn Reynolds, the founder of Instapundit, has impeccable credentials. He’s Distinguished Professor Law, Tennessee, and focuses on the internet etc.
He writes:
” questions of blog-related libel should be
treated differently than libel in newspapers, books, or television broadcasts.”
Why? Because of the nature of the internet, made up as it is, of ‘authors’ who cannot necessarily be defined as ‘original authors’ – as they can, in the literary medium.
“Under these
circumstances, however, the blog operator is immunized from liability by the
Communications Decency Act. 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) provides that “No provider
or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”9
“Another reason why blog libel lawsuits may be rare has to do with culture. First,
bloggers generally blog about public figures, meaning that a plaintiff would have
to show “actual malice” – that is, the publication of defamatory matter with
knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard as to whether it is true or
false.13”
“Mere statements of personal opinion, of course, cannot give rise to libel. See, e.g.,
Penn Warranty Corporation v. DiGiovanni, —NYS2d —, 2005 WL 2741947 (2005) (Noting, in
context of defamation suit over consumer-complaint website, that “statements that merely
express opinion are not actionable as defamation, no matter how offensive, vituperative, or
unreasonable they may be.”)
He specifically says that current libel law is based “on an industrial-age
paradigm: Information, at least valuable information, is comparatively expensive
and hard to find, and tends to be a mass-produced commodity.”
That’s the mode that I define as ‘literate information’ with a particular author.
The internet doesn’t work this way; errors are corrected almost immediately and remember, the internet has multiple authors, even if those authors are not blog owners but are commenters.
“Making up your own mind is key, and the lack of the voice-of-authority is a
characteristic of the blogosphere. If we police defamation more severely than
slander because we think that people will believe what they read in the newspaper
more than what they hear over the water cooler, then blogs might better be
analyzed under slander than defamation.”
Exactly. The internet communication is like gossip; many voices, many views. The internet corrects errors rapidly – maybe not on that post but on others.
“Search engines like Google, Technorati, etc. have the effect of undercutting
authority by making the full story readily available.”
“libel laws are out-of-date in a time
when the victims of defamation have the means of response via the
internet that they never had in print or broadcast.”
The internet is self-correcting about facts. If Warman doesn’t like what he reads about himself on one site, he can post his version on another site.
“People can generally
tell – I’m pretty sure that nobody actually thinks I drink blended puppies – and thus
the harm done to reputations by any particular blog posting is likely to be quite
low.”
Our old libel laws assume that the public is ignorant, is a passive recipient of The Truth as written in the Newspaper or spoken by the TV pundit. That’s a rejection of the capacity of the ordinary person to reason, to think…
“This leads me to suggest a few ways in which treatment of defamation in the
blogosphere should be different. First, I think that the threshold of harm should be
fairly high. Since defamation law is intended to remedy actual harm to people’s
reputations, courts should take cognizance of the reality that blogs are not
generally relied on as sole sources of information:”
“Third, courts should take into account the ease with which plaintiffs can get their
own story out, via blogs and other electronic media, too. Indeed, a plaintiff who
feels injured can start a blog, publish his/her response, and – via a link to the
offending post – be confident that his or her version will be readily discoverable
via Technorati. This sort of self-help might even be regarded as necessary
mitigation.”
“It’s a rough-and-tumble
world, not a place where Marqis of Queensbury rules apply.”When it comes to free speech, we must all hang together or we
are all too likely to be hanged separately.”
Thanks, vitruvius. It’s an excellent article.
irwin daisy – yes, I agree with you. Barbara Hall and the OHRC’s published comments on the case, with the judgment of ‘Islamophobia’ is indeed defamation. In the current legal sense of libel.
I’m glad you liked it, ET, it thought it was excellent too. By the way, when I said colloquium earlier in this thread, I used that word incorrectly. I was thinking more of a salon or hot-stove setting, so I should have used the word symposium, in the sense of “A convivial meeting for drinking, music, and intellectual discussion among the ancient Greeks” 😉
greg ?….so you run yer practice out of a pool hall ?…is that why i have to “cue’ for an interview ?
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.
KATE!!, a precisely aimed return shot across the liebrals bow, aim a little lower next time. Best wishes for smooth sailing in teh future.
Posted by: ET at April 12, 2008 8:40 PM
That was much better. I presented a number of the same points elsewhere recently. We need to focus efforts, speak wherever we are listened to and above all avoid obfuscation.
Just keep in mind that
it takes two to tango
and it takes two to fence
and they’re both dances.
Posted by: john begley at April 12, 2008 9:18 PM
Sometimes. My soap box is portable.
Posted by: Vitruvius at April 12, 2008 11:18 PM
Ah Yes, the dance. The personification of freedom of speech.
Aye lad, funny how that works.
now how much would Kate make from Canadian Cynic, Warren Kinsella, Dawg, McLellan got to be a hell of a lot of good dirt there.
“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.”
So blazingcatfur are you offended maybe we should launch chrc complaints!
Red Tory has a good post
Did I say that? What’s the wait for a cat scan?
Agreed, Dinosaur. It was Red Tory’s essay that changed my mind to better appreciate what is wrong with Canada’s libel and slander statutes. I have a rather long essay on the matter, if you’re interested, here: tinyurl.com/4g29yx
ET: “Marshall Mcluhan was an idiot”
How you can dismiss one of Canada’s greatest and most original thinkers as an “idiot” is beyond me. Do you have a BA and an MA from the University of Manitoba, and a BA, MA, and PhD from Cambridge (not a university known for bestowing doctorates on “idiots”)? And of course, Mcluhan earned all these honours years before the PC crowd took over the campuses.
As Mcluhan noted, the message of cars was not the “content” of any individual car; it was suburbs, highways, big oil, and the separation of living and working spaces. The message of ICBM’s was not the content of any missile (none of which were ever fired), but the Cold War, proxy wars in the 3rd world, and existential angst throughout the West.
And your reference to the ‘net as an “oral medium” is just laughable. Oral interchange allows for sudden changes and sidetracks; on the ‘net, I still have to read your entire comment to see if it makes sense. When I read non-coherent entries on this, and any other blog, I automatically dismiss the author as a fool. You still need to express yourself properly in orthographic, linear fashion, which oral speech does not require.
Wait a second. This medium doesn’t allow sudden changes and sidetracks? I would have thought the opposite: it’s famous for them. By the way, have you seen the famous MacEwans Engineering Manure Remover?
But seriously, returning to some ideas I skirted around before, libel should apply to colloquia ~ they are supposed to be that formal. Symposia, on the other hand, what with all the drinking, music, and dance, should be held to what should be the lower standard of slander.
And I guess that’s what I’ve realized from thinking about the discussion above: blogs are symposia, not colloquia. They’re conversational, not reference. They’re dance, not accounting.
Virtruvius,
I don’t know where you got the idea that the defence of truth — technically, justification — can be defeated by an allegation of malice, but it’s not true. The defences of fair comment and qualified privilege can be defeated by malice, but truth is, in the words of the author of a leading text, a complete defence. From Raymod E. Brown’s text on defamation law in Canada:
“Justification or the truth of the matter asserted is a complete defence to an action for defamation. The published material must be false. What is true cannot be defamatory. No one can be heard to complain if only the truth is published about him. A plaintiff has no right to have his or her character or reputation free of an imputation that is not false.
The difficult with pleading justification is that the burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of the statement of fact. Not merely an honest belief. The truth. I think the defendants will have a difficult time doing that.
As for the argument that special legal rules should be developed so that the denizenss of the “blogosphere” should able to libel
at will because the internet in general and blogs in particular are some sort of magical truth-seeking machine, it is as silly and as poorly researched and reasoned as most of the legal arguments ET has trotted out on this and other subjects. I wouldn’t trust her to argue a traffic ticket, much less trust her proposal in a complex area of law such as defamation.
I’ve tried discussing issues with you before, Truewest, and you always turn out to be a disappointment, so I’m not going to bother again. You are a bait and switch hatchet man. Fool me once &c.
Vitruvius, I understand your point but would this not mean that the only defendant(s) named in this lawsuit actually subject to a charge of libel would be Jonathan Kay and the National Post? Seems to me this would be a dangerous and unfair proposition.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sickened by this and while I find the MSM takes the side of caution far too readily, I would hate to see them held to more strict controls than they already seem to impose on themselves.
I think what is needed is a modernization of our libel and slander laws and either abolishment or significant restrictions placed on the use of Section 13(1).
It is my belief that the CHRC, though its mishandling of Section 13(1) cases, has been a catalyst to this libel suit. Moreover, due to their lack of responsible oversight, serious questions are being raised about the ethical behavior of their agents and much evidence presented at many of these hearings could now be, to say the least, suspect.
Without their apparent tolerance of shadowy investigative techniques, we would not be where we are today. To accept that posting messages in kind on a Neo-Nazi website will somehow only have the desired result of information gathering but never serve to encourage more of the behavior/communication under watch is complete nonsense and/or demonstrates a willful ignorance of communication on the internet. But even if we were to accept this premise as true, under what authority are these people given a pass to escape the clutches of 13(1)? Their own, by pleading honorable intent? Take that reasoning a bit further and we have a quasi-judicial body that must now determine and rule on intent with every single case brought forward. So if the intent is deemed honourable, no harm has been done.
What a mess!
Vitruvius,
Call me names all you like – I’m not particularly interested in discussing the niceties of defamation law with a non-lawyer. But if you’re going to propose reforming the law, you might try getting the existing law right in the first place. You didn’t. Or rather, Red Tory didn’t and you accepted his statement of the law as valid.
Far from being defined by the various Libel Acts, defamation law has evolved over 400 years and continues to evolve. That evolution will be influenced by the internet and weblogs, but it seem very unlikely that either courts or legislators are going to allow proprietors or posters on weblogs a free pass for posting defamatory material simply on the argument that “this is who we are”.
arctic_front
You are right it will legitimize HRC and Section 13 but it may also destroy it. At the moment it is a tool that progressives use to beat anyone who disagrees with their agenda. Conservatives are always the defendands and bear all of the costs whether they win or lose. As noted, the process is the punishment since it is entirely biased towards the claimant.
What happens if conservatives that are part of the protected groups (gays, jewish, females, muslims) start to use the HRC to go after progressives that have “offended” them? I suspect they will shut them down. The MO was to monopolize the HRC weapon. Once the effects are felt on both sides and the progressives feel the financial pain, they will abandon their support of Section 13.
I agree with you, vitruvius, it’s impossible to discuss anything with truewest.
He is indeed a ‘bait and switch’ hatchet man. He operates, always, the same way. He allways begins with his assertion of his superiority (he’s always amused by our peasant-like ignorance); when challenged he retreats into slithering semantics and claims ‘you don’t understand’, and ends up, always, with ad hominem. Actually a very typical type of a dried out leftist.
kevin b- it’s easy for me to reject McLuhan and say he’s an idiot. I don’t give a damn about his degrees; it’s his books and writings that concern me – and they are fatuous nonsense.
It’s hardly innovative to state that ‘the message of cars’ isn’t their content but their relations with the other objects in the envt and the infrastructure in which they operate. Heck- that kind of analysis has been around for centuries. That includes analysis of the development of the changes in, eg, family and spatial use when a society moves into domestication of animals, or the effect of the spear on control of space and food, or the results of writing, etc, etc.
And I repeat; the net is an oral medium. Don’t confuse the term ‘orality’ with ‘vocalization’ or ‘speech’. It’s the structure of the interaction that is to be noted. You have to look at the whole Set of possible interactions in the net (heh -remember your words on McLuhan? Don’t just look at the content of the sentence; look at the infrastructure in which it operates).
And the net’s infrastructure is oral, enabling rapid interaction of multiple particpants, changes in meaning, terms increasing or decreasing in meaning-content, spreading to a larger population..changing as they go. That’s oral.
Nothing to do with properly expressing yourself. Heck, even oral speech requires that. I think that ‘man bites dog’ is different from ‘dog bites man’…whether spoken or written.
Despite all the fancy conversations some of you are having here,
which to me are mostly packaging and not so much substance,
I remain convinced the freedom of speech of the left is not as seriously threatened
– if it is threatened at all –
as the freedom of speech of the right is.
Believe me the people who want the Kate McMillens and Mark Steyns of this world to shut up are not spending hours debating on what is oral, verbal or literate and who was a great philosopher or who has how many university degrees.
You are missing the big picture.
ET,
If you stop demonstrating your peasant-like ignorance, particularly in legal matters, I’ll stop commenting on it. Don’t expect to see that any time soon, given your willingness to weigh in on the complexities of, first, constitutional law and now defamation law without doing a lick of research.
FYI,
– the Criminal Code provisions on defamatory libel, which you considered at length in relation to Warman’s lawsuiton another thread, have precisely NOTHING to do with the case at hand, or civil defamation generally.
– Glenn Reynolds may be an esteemed professor of law, but his comments that most defamatory comments on the web involve public figures who must prove actual malice in order to succeed in a defamation claim has no application in Canada. The public figure doctrine is based on a 1960s US Supreme Court decision, Sullivan v. New York Times that our courts, including the Supreme Court have repeatedly refused to adopt.