Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

ISP Fined $5000 For Hate Content

Posted by Zonk on Sat Mar 11, 2006 06:22 PM
from the slippery-slope dept.
eRondeau writes "In a precedent-setting ruling, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has fined a hosting company for carrying 'objectionable content'. The material in question was White Supremacist postings. From the article: 'The ruling sends a very strong message that Internet servers, if they are aware there is hate content and don't take timely action to remove it, can be held liable,' said the Ottawa lawyer who filed the complaint in February 2002. The individual posters were fined thousands as well."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Wait a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sedyn (880034) on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:25PM (#14899706)
    As a Canadian, I'm pissed that this has happened. Why? Because let's take this to its logical conclusion, if a patron of a restruant, a university student, or even someone on a bus, says something out of line and the owner of a "public" place does not object, then they might be penalized for it.

    What does this lead to? Censorship by citizens, censorship by the government is bad enough, but this could lead to a disaster.

    Frankly, the ISP shouldn't have to do anything unless ordered to. And, if in doubt, they should have contacted the authorities (I don't know if they did or not).

    Now I don't feel like hosting any form of forum in Canada, becuase I don't want to be held responsible for what some random fuckwad says.

    FTA:
      "The ruling shows Canadians have no tolerance for hate," Maillet said.

    I have little tolerance for censhorship as well. I pray that they challenge this ruling with the Supreme Court (assuming it hasn't already happened, which I doubt). Because I doubt this "Human Rights Tribunal" is thinking about the consequences of this ruling in a greater context.
  • How robust is the freedom of expression in Canada? I know that such a right in Europe is more of a matter of legislative tradition than constitutional law.*

    *For example, constitutional law in the UK is based on the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the Parliamentary acts, none of which guarantee freedom of speech to the citizens
    • by sedyn (880034) on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:30PM (#14899731)
      Freedom of expression is covered through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [wikipedia.org].

      The only thing that is really censored is hate speech (including Holcaust denial).

      • by Baseball_Fan (959550) on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:58PM (#14899885)
        The only thing that is really censored is hate speech (including Holcaust denial).

        How is arguing a position the same as hate speech? If someone believes the Holcaust never happened, why can't they make that argument, show their facts, and show their logic.

        What is better of the following 2 choices?

        • 1: Make it illegal to speak some idea. The idea will go underground, where nobody will dispute it. Groups will form, the idea will survive.
        • 2: All speech is protected. The idea will be spoken openly. People who disagree will come in mass numbers and disprove the idea.

        What is next? Will the people who wrote The Bell Curve go to jail for expressing ideas that most people disagree with? Will Rush Limbaugh be sentanced to prision for saying he thinks a black QB is given more chances to succeed than a white one?

        There is a HUGE difference between expressing an idea and motivating other people to violence. There is a difference between writing "Black people unfairly steal admissions seats at the University of Michigan Law School" on the internet, and going to the University of Michigan and giving a speech in front of a mob to incite them to violence.

        What will happen, if we let those with $$ decide what is true and false, is that anything they disagree with will become off-limits for debate.

        • of hateful ideas.

          The Nazis themselves were censored in 1925-1927, and yet during this time, their membership doubled. Clearly this censorship does nothing except remove "dangerous ideas" from the public forum and into private conversations where the public is denied a right of rebuttal.

          As I understand it, holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK, nor is chanting outside the Danish Embassy "Denmark, USA, 7/7 on it's way" (though there is a movement in the UK to criminalize the latter if Blair gets his way). Yet it is in Canada? Why? What rational purpose can this serve? And how can one create a situation out of a law like that which can afford equal protection to all as required by the Constitutional Act?
      • From the Soviet Constitution of 1936:

        Article 12. Supreme power in the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic is exercised by the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, and in the intervals between Congresses by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee.

        Article 13. In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

        Article 14. In order to ensure genuine freedom of expression for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic abolishes the dependence of the press on capital, and places at the disposal of the working class and the poor peasantry all the technical and material requisites for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books and all other printed matter, and guarantees their unhindered circulation throughout the country.

        Article 15. In order to ensure genuine freedom of assembly for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, recognizing the right of citizens of the Soviet Republic freely to hold assemblies, meetings, processions, etc., places at the disposal of the working class and the poor peasantry all buildings suitable for the holding of public gatherings, complete with furnishing, lighting and heating.
      • by theLOUDroom (556455) on Saturday March 11 2006, @09:14PM (#14900443)
        The only thing that is really censored is hate speech (including Holcaust denial).

        First off, one man's "hate speech" might be another man's social commentary. This is particularly true in the case of unflattering statistics about certain ethnic groups.

        Second, the level of freedom of speech in a given society has to be measured by the ability to say the most unpopular things you can think of. Societies don't censor people's ability to say "I like flowers."

        Third, it is important to let people with stupid ideas actually proclaim them in public so that they might be corrected in their errors. Let both sides have their say and let the free market of ideas decide.

        Fourth, by banning "hate speech" you are putting in place the mechanism for yet another holocaust. Part of the reason Hilter was so successful in his campaign was his ability to suppress information. All one has to do is redefine "hate speech" to mean "anything dangerous to those currently in power. Now they can censor their opponents as hateful "anti-canadians".

  • whos the boss? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zxnos (813588) <zxnoss@gmail.com> on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:28PM (#14899719)
    honesty, who gets to define 'hate speech'? and do we really want to define such a thing? what happens when the definition broadens? and it will...

    a few years back colorado made not wearing your seatbelt a secondary offense, you couldnt get pulled over for it. they recently passed a law to allow officers to pull a person over for not wearing a seatbelt. i know slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but it happens...

  • Rights... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BeatlesForum.com (545967) on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:31PM (#14899739)
    You don't have a right NOT to be offended. People need to get over themselves and the government needs to keep its hands out of where it doesn't belong.
  • by kibbled_bits (808617) on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:32PM (#14899743) Homepage
    Around the world freedom of speech, though and expression is under attack. People must respect the opinions & expressions of others even when it's WRONG. I could care less what White Supremists think, but I'd rather know who the crazies are rather then having them bottle it up inside. Take Germany for example, still there is Nazi sympathizers even though it's illegal to deny the holocost, etc.

    Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's a FACT, or it's RIGHT. More times than not, it means the opposite.
  • by aussie_a (778472) on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:33PM (#14899756) Journal
    Wow, I never knew Canada was so totalitarian when it came to freedom of speech. Guess if you don't tow the liberal line your wallet suffers the consequences, even though there is no reasonable expectation that your actions will cause physical harm to anyone (and if there was such a reasonable expectation, then the laws need to be a lot stronger then a mere fine).
  • by John Jorsett (171560) on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:39PM (#14899790)
    Freedom of expression is intended to protect things that offend somebody, whether it be a government or other people. If it's uncontroversial, it's in no need of defense. Canadians should be asking themselves if they're OK with having their right to express themselves in offensive terms squashed whenever some pressure group or governmental entity doesn't like it.
  • ISP shafted? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:42PM (#14899803)
    You could say that the ISP got shafted in this one and was fined for things beyond its control, but if you actually RTFA, you will find out that one of the persons charged personally for posting hate messages is also the owner of the ISP.

    I don't think this case is a precendent-setting as the original post makes out.
  • by leereyno (32197) on Saturday March 11 2006, @07:01PM (#14899901) Homepage Journal
    I think that the ruling sends a very strong message that in Canada freedom of speech is not nearly as important as making sure that no one's feelings get hurt.

    Why is protecting the rights of idiot white surpremacists important? Because they are the canary in the coal mine. When the rights of the unpopular are abridged, everyone's rights are in danger.

    Univeral freedom of speech helps ensure the health of society. When unpleasant ideas and beliefs are expressed, it acts as a sort of innoculation against them. When these ideas are oppressed and only shared in secret, they tend to grow like a cancer beneath the surface of society, unknown and unchecked.

    When universal freedom of speech is attacked and undermined, it sets the stage for further abuses. Just look at China. Is that what the people of Canada want for their children and grandchildren? Which is worse, living in a totalitarian regime, or living in a free society where you are sometimes subjected to ideas you do not agree with and find offensive?

    The only effective means of thought control is information control, but don't take my word for it. Here's a quote from someone whose mastery of propaganda and its uses is unquestioned:

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
    -- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

    Abridging the rights of the unpopular is the first dangerous step towards the kind of world Goebbels lived in. Not only that but it serves no useful purpose even in the short run. Making neo-nazi's be quiet doesn't make them go away. All it does is ensure that their activities and efforts at recruitment are that much more difficult to detect.

    You would think that people would know better, but then 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.

  • cough cough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@@@gmail...com> on Saturday March 11 2006, @07:10PM (#14899947) Homepage
    I suggest you all read this [justice.gc.ca]. (hint: bookmarking the CCC makes having legal discussions a bit more sensible :-) )

    Hate speech in Canada is only when it incites people to commit violence against the said group being hated.

    It's legal in canada to say "I hate all $GROUP" as long as you don't say "kill $GROUP".

    Tom
  • Freedom of Speach (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Millenniumman (924859) on Saturday March 11 2006, @07:14PM (#14899972)
    Racism is wrong, and it would be very bad for the government to support it in any way, but this is an inhibition of free speech. Now, stopping someone from expressing racist thoughts may not be all that bad in and of itself, but neither is unwarranted wiretaps of terrorists. If the government can prevent "hate" speech, it can prevent anything being said that is contrary to its values.
  • Whoa -- can everyone slow down for a second and take a look at the facts?

    From http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971 358637177&c=Article&cid=1142031016503 [thestar.com]:

    In a landmark decision, the tribunal ordered the men, one of whom ran the web-hosting service that carried the websites, to cease their hatemongering, levied penalties totalling $13,000 and awarded the complainant $5,000. It is believed to be the first time a Canadian Internet web-hosting service has been found liable for hate messages.

    In essence, the /. summary is not telling the whole story. This isn't a case of some corporate ISP where some customer happened to be running a hate site getting fined. In this case the ISP owner was providing the content, and not just hosting it.

    Additionally, it wasn;t the ISP that was fined -- it was the people who created the illegal content, one of whom happens to own the web service provider in question.

    You can't just start an ISP in order to avoid hate speech laws. The /. summary is highly misleading in this case, so please get off your high-horses and take a look at the facts before starting yet another rant, okay?

    Yaz.

      • by John Jorsett (171560) on Saturday March 11 2006, @06:56PM (#14899872)
        I know that a lot of Americans sometimes think of Canada as the 51st state, but they're a separate country with their own laws and everything. I know this is hard to believe, but the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has NO validity there.

        And this makes them immune to criticism? Canadians are always sniping at us about things like our "lax" gun laws and non-governmental health care, so we get to do the same. Or would that be more "hate speech" as far as Canadians are concerned?

    • Re:Common carrier (Score:5, Interesting)

      by yuna49 (905461) on Saturday March 11 2006, @07:24PM (#14900017)
      US ISP's are not treated as common carriers nor do they want to be. It's true that some legislation exempts US ISPs from responsibility for the content on their servers, but those are specific exemptions granted in particular cases.

      If ISPs were common carriers, the current controversy over a "tiered" Internet structure would be moot. Common carriers, by definition, cannot discriminate based on the content of the information being transmitted. Giving priority to particular types of data, or data sent by particular providers (e.g., Google), would be clearly illegal in a common carrier regime.

      Congress and the FCC distinguish between "telecommunications" services, which are usually covered by common carrier regulation, and "information" services which are not. These issues were generally resolved in the late 1990's in the context of payments by common carriers to the universal service fund which helps cover the cost of delivering telecom services to rural and other underserved areas. ISPs didn't want to make these payments (even if they were providing VOIP) and were successful in getting Congress to treat them as "information services." http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Rel eases/1998/nrcc8031.html [fcc.gov]

      Perhaps you were thinking about the section of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act that exempted ISPs if the material they hosted infringed copyrights
      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html [cornell.edu].
      There's nothing in this provision that applies common carrier regulation to ISPs.

      My understanding of the current state of ISP regulation is that, as private entities, they can refuse to host anything they dislike. However, unlike Canada, if the Federal government were to require the removal of content it found distasteful, the government would lose on First Amendment grounds. (I don't know whether this applies to state governments, though I'd guess that it does.)

    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday March 11 2006, @09:52PM (#14900574)
      After the incident was publicized, the Ontario Ministry of Education was investigated and two teachers were suspended.

      That is a very misleading statement. Very much indicative of your entire posts's dittohead spin. There was one teacher suspended and the teacher was suspended before the investigation in other words, the school's administration was doing its job - not promoting "islamic hate" as you claim.

      Here's the press blurb [newswire.ca] the government issued that summarized the investigation.

      It took me less time to debunk your post with google than it took you to write it in the first place. Next time, could you at least try to do a little background research before parroting the limbaugh "orthodoxy?"