Canada's Wayne Crookes Sues the Net 200
newtley writes "Wayne Crookes, the Green Party of Canada's ex-financier, is in effect trying to sue the Internet. He's going after the Wikipedia, Google, and openpolitics.ca (run up by federal Green Party activist Michael Pilling) claiming he's suffered, 'an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress' over postings. Some 15 others may also have been targeted. "Mr. Crookes seems to be 'trying to unwrite history,' Pilling says. 'He was a central figure in the growth of the Green Party. His actions were highly controversial and if we have freedom of speech in this country, people should be allowed to talk about them.'" Newtley adds in a posting submitted 121 minutes later: "Literally 15 minutes after I posted [the foregoing], there was a knock on my door. It was a writ server telling me I, too, have been named in a lawsuit launched by Wayne Crookes..."
this is a useful reminder (Score:5, Interesting)
It's sometimes difficult for young'uns to remember that the internet, in it's populer worldwide usage form at least, is still very young. A great many people, organisations and countries were caught off guard by the freedom it gave for comment, and are still trying to remove that freedom.
Their efforts are going to fail, but not because of any moral or ethical issue, simply because of evolutionary principles. The internet is evolving faster then it can be censored. If, and this I doubt, but if they manage to censor all the current expression methods on the internet, more will be created to fill the gaps, and more. It's a fight that can't be won.
The only thing we need worry about is whether 4chan becomes the dominant player in the free expression market
Re:submitter's conflict of interest (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:submitter's conflict of interest (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:submitter's conflict of interest (Score:2, Interesting)
Wikipedia mostly-blanked and protected article (Score:2, Interesting)
The January and September versions have some meat on them. Whether they are accurate or not, who knows?
Re:Remember, It's Canada (Score:1, Interesting)
Did someone mention "Canada" and "hyper-sensitive" in a single post?
Dude, you are proving the poster's case. Lighten up.
For your info, it became a state agency's policy and carried the weight of law. The cows at the "museum" are live. It was suggested that universities and other state agencies follow the same policy. And, the first incident was because the so-called "twit" mentioned by the GP had the same name as one of the cows she saw at the museum and she took offense.
Maybe all that passive-aggressive attitude we have should be looked into. You're almost as bad as...strike that...you are as bad or worse than some of the Americans that post here. Maybe some medication will assist you?
Re:this is a useful reminder (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is an incredibly important distinction that is lost on some of the other posters here. The Founders were not (so far as I can tell) attempting to make us exempt from the consequences of what we say. They were very much aware of the potential consequences of opening one's mouth, or of setting ideas to paper.
They did, however, want us to have the power to speak in the first place, no matter what, and the biggest single threat to that ability is government itself. That fact is no less true today.
Re:this is a useful reminder (Score:3, Interesting)
It's may be true that you fancy barbie dolls and collect stamps, but the public has no need for such information and if you publish it to harm another (e.g. ridicule, contempt, etc) you may be guilty of libel.
Simply being true isn't enough. But I'm not a lawyer so I dunno if that's 100% correct.
Re:this is a useful reminder (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea that anonymous users exist on the net is an excuse to publish libel is nonsense. If you run a message board [or equiv] you should be held liable for any and ALL anonymous postings. After all, you're the one who is publishing it. I think it's reasonable that people moderate their websites such that libelous content is not widely distributed.
If that means changing existing website designs to disallow anonymous posts to become immediately published so be it.
Take a look at this [amazon.com] for instance. Not once did I "spam" usenet about the book. I posted one message in an on-topic usenet group (where I've was an active participant for the last 7 years) about the book, some asshole then took that post and reposted it to a hundred other groups.
Amazon was at one point hosting reviews that read such as [from memory] "I would never buy this book as he's a usenet spamming jerk. This book clearly is not worth buying, etc, etc..." While amazon was nice enough to take down the reviews [which were posted before the book was in print] they didn't remove the "discussion" threads which are still there today.
While I don't think that's the only reason the books aren't selling, I have to assume that it has had an impact on some of the sales, at the very least, one sale.
And what did I do to deserve this treatment? Be an outspoken advocate of free software, open source cryptography, and an enemy of snake oil. Because someone didn't like how open I was, how generous I was to give out free knowledge and software they decided to post spam, kiddie porn and other nonsense with my name on it. It wasn't like I was actively attacking others. In fact, the last round of joe-jobs before I just quit using usenet altogether were people re-posting my research posts [I had optimized my ECC implementation that I give out in LibTomCrypt].
Basically some guy decided he didn't like me so he nearly ruined my life (hint: you consider awful things when you're being labeled a kiddie porn peddler).
Is that what living in a "free" society is like?
God help us all then when some random asshole on the web decides to have it in for you. Maybe the next time someone does the same to someone else (yourself, a friend of yours, a family member), someone will respond with violence. In my case, there were times were I was afraid someone would mail a bomb, or worse, come to my house looking for a fight.
People should be responsible for what they write, and people should be responsible for what they host.
Tom
Re:Proof once again (Score:3, Interesting)
But yes, the stupidity of the Green party boggles my mind. This is coming from someone who was a member for a brief time. I'm very much about libertarianism and social justice, but I knew that it wasn't for me when I heard their candidate for governor (in VT) speaking about how he thought that Vermont should secede from the Union. Any party willing to run anyone for any office who didn't seem to pick up on the fact that states have no right to secede, as established a hundred and fifty years ago by our Civil War, is not a party I even want to remember. Kind of like waking up next to one of those people you would NEVER sleep with sober and just praying to God there's a condom in the trash.
In all honesty, I'm a little disappointed I got moded down. Then again, thinking I must have hit a few left wing nutcases pretty close to the mark makes me feel good about myself. I think I'll go have a cookie to celebrate.