Canadian Judge Orders Disclosure of Anonymous Posters 250
debrain writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that Google and a newspaper called The Coast must disclose all information they have about the identity of individuals who posted anonymous comments online about top firefighters in Halifax. The story in question is titled 'Black firefighters file human rights complaint,' and there are some heated opinions in the comments."
It's almost (Score:0, Informative)
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
Why don't you get THOSE people and hold THEM to account, you self-righteous prig!
Because he's a Canadian judge, and those people are American? It's one thing to not read the summary, but it's the FIRST WORD of the title. Or are you one of those people who think Canada is the 51st state?
Or maybe I'm just getting in the way of your self-righteous tirade, where facts are irrelevant.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
If you had read the summary, you'd have noticed we're talking about a Canadian judge. Canadian law about hate speech is very different from the US.
Your references to Cheney and such do not apply, you self-righteous pig.
Canada vs US (Score:4, Informative)
As Dean Steacy, chief investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission said: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
http://volokh.com/files/warmantranscript.pdf [volokh.com]
Re:Canada vs US (Score:3, Informative)
Well said!
And he can say that because he's the chief investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
What freedom of speech we have here in America is paid for dearly. Canada pretty much retained the British definitions and conditions. They've made their bed.
Re:From TFA (Score:1, Informative)
Do you have trouble comprehending the word "Canadian"? Hate speech and uttering threats are against the law here. If someone used the newspaper's website to commit a crime, the paper is bound to identify those individuals.
Re:What comments exactly? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: A Cold Day In Hell (Score:0, Informative)
Free speech is something Americans do right (or at least better) than Canadians.
I'll support people who agitate in the direction of more freedom of speech.
It's a "Norwich Order", and it's exraordinary (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't know who to sue yet, you can apply for a court order to discover the name of the person to be served.
To get it you have to convince the court you have a case, and require the information, at which time the court may chose to issue an order to a third party (eg, a newspaper) to identify the person.
It's far more common to be told to file the suit against "John Doe", after which the court will conclude you're serious and order the person's name disclosed.
See Halsbury's Laws of Canada under "Norwich Orders" or google for the recent "York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises" case
--dave
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Informative)
There are two issues here: the nature of what was said and how it was said. With regards to the first issue, hate speech is not legal in Canada. Americans seem shocked by this, but you are accountable for hateful things that you say in Canada. In my mind, limits to free speech are important when that speech crosses the line into hatefulness. I see no reason why people shouldn't be held to account for damages that they willfully cause through verbal abuse.
The second issue (the one that is less well established under law) is the manner in which the speech was said; in this case, the internet. There is no special protection for speech that is stamped as anonymous. I ask you: do you have trouble comprehending the word "anonymous"? A communication with a web server is not anonymous; it's subject to subpoena. There's no "ferreting out" here. The process is very clear.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
A) Canada has a thing called "Hate Crimes" where if you spread ideas that condone or incite hate against a particular people or race you can get into trouble. Regardless if you believe in the the law or not, it is currently in effect, thus the Judge is well within his rights to court order the name of those individuals. I didn't read the comments on the website, but I can imagine what they are like.
B) The Coast is a newspaper that exists in Halifax, Canada. Very much under the jurisdiction of Canada. Google also does business in Canada, thus also subject to the laws therein.
C) The fact that the posters are not Canadian citizens is immaterial. You break the law in Canada be it fraud or in this case Hate Crimes you are still subject to the repercussions. The question is can they be tried. Considering Canada and the USA have a long standing extradition treaty, Canada would certainly be within its rights to demand that those US citizens be extradited to Canada for trial. The US of course would likely be within its rights to refuse, at which time they would likely be tried in absentia and convicted, and a outstanding warrent issued for their arrest should they ever enter Canada. Essentially banning them from ever entering the country. If they ever land in a plane in Canada, they would likely be arrested and thrown in jail. Considering what was probably said in the comments, it is questionable if the US would make this a treaty issue.
Lately due to the crazy lady from the USA (Ann Coulter) the validity of Canada's hate crimes laws have come under question. I think people should be clear, we do have free speech in Canada, it is just tempered (as it is in the USA as well people tend to forget, just not as much). So you can say and believe pretty much anything you damn please, however if what you say is deemed so reprehensible a Judge may be called in to determine if it meets the criteria set out in the hate crime laws. These criteria as I am aware of them are pretty steep, you really have to go out there to go across the line so to speak.
It is a slippery slope I will give you that, however I also believe that someone has to be accountable for their actions, and that includes what they say in public. You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
99% of the time comments like these would A) never make it to posted, or B) be removed by the website, however given that this is a news paper they may have felt obligated to share the posts as part of free speech. Which calls into question how much responsibility does the news paper have in this matter? It could be that they did not meet their obligations and that partial fault falls to them.
Wow this was a pretty long post for discussing comments I didn't even read!
Re:anonymity. (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't really off topic and should not be modded as such. Someone needs to mod it back up. If you will remember, when Spartacus and his rag tag slave army was defeated by the Roman army, the general demanded that Spartacus be turned over. Spartacus said, "I am Spartacus." whereupon everyone else also yelled the same thing. I think that is an appropriate allusion here. Who posted these anonymous emails? Get it yet? Surely this is not too deep for /.
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about you, but I think it is a bit suspicious that Mr. X has never publicly denied being a moron.
Re:From TFA (Score:2, Informative)
Pithy, but incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Canadian militia units served only either in Canada itself or attached to British units in the Michigan territories. And, while those militias performed admirably (the Battle of Queenston Heights, for example), they certainly didn't burn down the White House.
It should also be noted that the burning of the capitol was not exactly an auspicious occasion for the British. A tornado killed thirty of them (the only casualties of the event), they bled much-needed men and ships from other active campaigns (which they lost), and all they accomplished was eradicating anti-war sentiment in the US (which still ran high). And, adding insult to injury, the building still stands; something that cannot be said for the Parliament building in Ontario whose destruction the British were trying to avenge in the first place.
Comments were racial discrimination in nature? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm deeply saddened to read of this incident involving the firefighter. Based on my experiences and observations some 15 years ago from living in the area, there is a deep history of racial tensions and racial segregation among 'whites' and 'blacks' in the area as a whole. Africville, which is now know as Preston/North Preston, generally seen as a community of repressed 'blacks' dating back to the 1900s. Wikipedia has a summary, but if I correctly recall there is a museum in the Halifax area dedicated to explaining the history of the segregation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africville,_Nova_Scotia [wikipedia.org]
In addition, I lived in the Coal Harbour area of Halifx/Dartmouth and left some 15 years ago. I was witness to the first (of now several) riots that broke out at Cole Harbour High School. The first riot was certainly racially motivated, and the later ones from CBC accounts were as well.
Here are some links:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/25/coleharbour-violence.html [www.cbc.ca]
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/26/coleharbour-suspensions.html [www.cbc.ca]
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/25/coleharbour-violence.html [www.cbc.ca]
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
That's not basically how it works in Canada. Read about Sec. 13 of the Human Rights Act, which reads:
" 13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking."
If you look at the convictions under this section, what is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" is understood broadly.
I don't know the details of the Halifax case reported here (don't really care right now to read them), but I would bet that Sec. 13 is being invoked as they are talking about postings on internet boards.
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada, legal precedent shows that slugging someone, even if "they deserve it" is worth about $20k. (That's about $20k US.)
I am not a lawyer, but I do have one on retainer.
Re:Canada vs US (Score:3, Informative)
There's a fair amount of Canada that traces its hearitage not to England, but France. And not just the Quebecois. The Maritimes are infested with some interesting nationalities also.
And then there's the indigenous populations, who are regularly ignored there as well as here, on both coasts and up North.