Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

CDN Supreme Court Upholds 'Net Free Speech 272

Posted by timothy from the complaints-department dept.
Gryphon writes: "The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a citizen has the right to express dissatifaction with the products or services of a company; in this case, an insurance company. This raises some interesting questions: does this extend to posting benchmarks of computer applications? Dissatisfaction with application security holes? Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CDN Supreme Court Upholds 'Net Free Speech More

CDN Supreme Court Upholds 'Net Free Speech

Comments Filter:
  • does this apply to www.companynamesucks.com? Will they start allowing these again? It's just an online opinion isn't it? To bad I can't locate the older /. article on this...

  • But (Score:3, Funny)

    by anti-snot ( 555305 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @04:43PM (#3047188)
    But... its Canada. The American legal system won't have a clue what you are talking aboot.
    • Why not, eh?

    • Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dixie_Flatline ( 5077 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <hog.naj.tnecniv>> on Thursday February 21, 2002 @04:48PM (#3047244) Homepage
      Where the devil did that 'aboot' thing come from, anyway? In all my years here in Canada, I've never heard anyone ever say 'aboot'. 'Eh', on the other hand, is a completely different matter.

      • Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RollingThunder ( 88952 )
        It's a difference in how we pronounce the ou. Americans stress it differently, and to their ear, it sounds like we're saying "oo". It's nowhere near as pronounced as comedians make it seem, but it is there.

        It's also stronger the further east you go.

        • Re:But (Score:3, Informative)

          by freeweed ( 309734 )
          Actually, I think the whole thing is a load of crap, but it's quite hilarious to see the South Park joke when they do it. What most americans don't realize is that the 'american english accent' or whatever you want to call it, that's portrayed in movies, tv, you name it (and of course excluding heavily accented speech like New Yorkers or Bostonians), is actually very much like Canadian English.

          2 things here: one, hollywood has a TON of Canadians in the business - tell me you've ever heard Micheal J. Fox say 'aboot' and I'll eat my hat.

          Secondly, most of what americans think is the 'Canadian' accent is actually only spoken in the Atlantic provinces. Newfoundlanders have a very distinct dialect and pronunciation from anyone else in Canada, for example. There's also a milder form of this which is prevalent in Toronto, and of course that's where the majority of Canadian/american contact happens.

          I'll tell you one thing though - I've lived in Canada my entire life, and we sound a lot closer to american TV and movie personalities than almost anyone from the US (ever been to North Dakota?).

          • I have a friend from Nova Scotia, and he definately has an accent when saying "about" but it is more like a subtle "aboat" than "aboot".

            He recognizes that it is there, and he originally pointed out to me that it sounds like "aboat".

            So that reinforces the "further east you go" thing.

        • "Aboot" is also heard in some parts of B.C. It probably descends from 18th century pronunciations which at the time were perfectly ordinary.

          Much as the stereotypical U.S. "Southern accent" is descended from Shakespearean English.

          And I have Canadian friends (in the Toronto area) who say "Eh?" about every 3rd word, and taught me to preserve the lives of the baby U's which American English murders most dishonourably. :)

      • In all my years here in Canada, I've never heard anyone ever say 'aboot'.

        It's precisely because you've lived for so long in Canada, and don't think it sounds odd. As for myself, after living near the border for close to nine years now and occasionally talking with plenty of Canadians, I can definitely hear the "aboot"s.

        On the other hand, it took me a few years after leaving the NYC area to realize that people from da city (and lawnguyland) really do tawk funny!

      • Americans say "Eh" too though! I see it on TV all the time, thought they don't use it as much as us. Its certainly hard for us to catch too, because it doesn't sound out of place, but its there. You just gotta pay attention for it.
      • It came from a misunderstanding of the way Canadians pronounce the "ou" diphthong. It is in fact different from the American pronunciation, but it's not a phoneme we have in American English, so it's been printed "oo," leading people to make fun of it as being pronounced like a long "u." Canadians for the most part actually pronounce it halfway between "oh" and "ow," and you can definitely tell a Canadian from that pronunciation vestige. Even Peter Jennings has a little bit of it.

        Plus, it's really funny. You Canadians are weird. :)
  • Nowadays, everyone is trying to sue Microsoft in order to get a few pennies. Now, any consumer can play, saying that Windows crashes and doesn't give him satifsaction. What a progress.

  • Perhaps you could explain to us again what this article is all..... ABOUT?
  • Would slashdot have us believe that this is not the case in the USA? I think its pretty clear that many people are expressing dissatisfaction with products and actually getting away with it. Check epinions [epinions.com] as an example.

  • huh? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Lord Omlette ( 124579 )
    "The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a citizen with the products or services of a company; in this case, an insurance company."

    That isn't even a complete sentence! Couldn't this guy at least have linked to an article so we know what he's going on about?
    • Try a new browser, smokey. Looks fine here. Here is the correct quote:

      > The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a citizen has the right to express dissatifaction [theglobeandmail.com] with the products or services of a company; in this case, an insurance company.
      • Well, it's still not a complete sentence; and... the page I got has an empty A tag in the source where your [theglobeandmail.com] is. It's not a browser problem.
  • This is already protected in the US. Good to see others following suit.

    • Re:Copycat? (Score:2, Informative)

      by dadragon ( 177695 )
      They are protected in our constitution too, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case is pretty much shooting down an unconstitutional bylaw of a city in Quebec.

      This is not precident to establish free speech in Canada, it's just reaffirming it.

  • Outrageous! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well I am outraged and I won't stop donating to the Republican Party til this heinous and egregious attack of free trade is made a felony in the United States punishable by death!

  • It's offline free speech, actually. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Frater 219 ( 1455 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @04:47PM (#3047229) Journal
    From the article:
    A furious Quebec consumer had the constitutional right to erect a sign denouncing an insurance company that he felt had done him wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday.
    ...
    The appellant, Roger Guignard, was charged under a City of Saint-Hyacinthe bylaw after he put up a sign complaining that his claim for damage to a building he owned had not been settled.

    The bylaw in question was a restriction on billboard advertising, incidentally. This case doesn't have terribly much to do with online freedom of criticism, which has usually been a matter of copyright or libel law -- not municipal "visual pollution" regulations.

    • This case doesn't have terribly much to do with online freedom of criticism

      People here seem to have terrible problems with actually reading the articles before posting. Quoth the article:

      The court said that consumers not only have a right to express their dissatisfaction with products or services -- including on Internet sites -- but also to read what others have to say.

      Is that clear enough?
    • I must admit, I support efforts to limit visual pollution. There is a point at which billboards and signs begin to seriously detract from the quality of life in an area.

      The only thing I find interesting in this case is that a city tried to use the visual pollution laws to censor the building owner.

      There are laws to deal with visual pollution from political campaigns. You have to take down all of your election posters, etc.. This case simply highlights how the powers that be can try to manipulate any law to silence opposition.

    • Re:It's offline free speech, actually. (Score:5, Informative)

      by bareminimum ( 456719 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @05:47PM (#3047701)
      It doesn't really matter. This decision clearly states that by enforcing laws the government cannot prevent people from demonstrating their dissatisfaction towards a company's services (or lack thereof).

      Here is the link [umontreal.ca] to the full decision. There is a convenient short version in the first few pages. Have a read.
  • and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)
    The DMCA aims to prevent people from pirating proprietary information. Why this person thinks criticism of a company relates to that is a mystery to me. In the United States, the First Amendment allows us the freedom of the press, meaning we can say what we want about things, as long as it doesn't distort information (i.e. libel and slander, which spreads _false_ information).

    The DMCA goes about preventing piracy in a very intrusive way, and I donate frequently to the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org], but it has no provisions that I know of preventing criticism of a product or service.
    • The DCMA does not directly prevent criticism, but it makes the shrink-wrapped licenses that gag you enforceable. So it's a difference of no significance.

      As for your First Amendment argument - your Constitutional protections apply <b>only</b> when dealing with the government. Pre-civil war, only when dealing with the Federal government, although it's now interpreted as applying to state and local governments and even organizations that either operate as a government (e.g., your HOA) or a business acting on behalf of a government (e.g., a private jail holding state prisonsers).

      It's completely legal for a company to require you to submit anything that refers to their product's functionality prior to publication. It even has a legitimate purpose - to make sure you don't slam the product because of an easily fixed misconfiguration, etc., - although most of us still hate these clauses because of the potential for abuse.

  • DMCA is coming here too (Score:5, Informative)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <[slashdot] [at] [keirstead.org]> on Thursday February 21, 2002 @04:48PM (#3047236)

    ...or at least the equivalent of it. See the copyright reform process [ic.gc.ca] at Heretige Canada website for more details, although the deadline for comments has already expired. (700 were posted!)

  • it's a bit different when expressing your opinions about /.

  • So if I read this correctly... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ChaseTec ( 447725 ) <chase@osdev.org> on Thursday February 21, 2002 @04:50PM (#3047254) Homepage
    The court said that consumers not only have a right to express their dissatisfaction with products or services -- including on Internet sites -- but also to read what others have to say.

    They're letting those Canadian people write and read now? What is the world coming to?-)
    • Funny ting-tat ain't it, eh?

      Yeah, we enjoy flavours and colours of all sorts. We sit out at night and enjoy a good chat with a neighbour. Occasionally we watch movies about people in the military and honour.

      But the funny thing is this. Canada has fewer people in a space larger than all states COMBINED than USCA. Hahahahahha. I think I will stretch my arms and smell some fresh air.

      Tom
  • "Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)"

    Interesting... maybe Bnetd [slashdot.org] should host their site and project on Canadian servers. Would that exclude them from the DMCA perhaps? It sure would make Blizzard work harder to get them shutdown =)
  • Recently large numbers of sterile American males have been released in Canada in hopes of decimating the Canadian population thus opening up endless stretches of moose pasture to American colonization.

  • Not for Me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @04:54PM (#3047290) Homepage
    I expressed my displeasure with Bellsouth on a message board (from home) that they were selling email addresses (first day I had like 4 or 5 spam messags on an almost-random username) and since I worked for them, they fired me. No trade-secrets or anything given away. I just explained my situation, and bam.
  • and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)
    I know this was meant as humor, but I feel obligated to point out that all members of the WTO will be held under the DMCA, since signing countries agree to up hold the laws of other countries.

  • This supreme court ruling was (as far as I can see) a resolution of a conflict between a municipal bylaw and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Not much of a contest, if you ask me...)

    Since on-line postings probably don't fall under municipal law (anybody know for sure?), I rather doubt this would apply in those cases.

    • Time, Manner, Place (Score:5, Informative)

      by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @05:19PM (#3047475)
      In the US, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech but most jurisdictions have restrictions based on "time, manner and place" without conflict. As long as meaningful speech is still permitted, these restrictions are usually upheld.

      Two examples: Boulder, Colorado bans large outdoor billboards. (It also bans new construction taller than a "mature cottonwood tree" - 55 ft - and has other non-speech related restrictions.) The purpose is to protect the mountain view. It's been challenged, e.g., by the "National Debt Clock," but since smaller signs are still legal and legible at normal city highway speeds, the ban was upheld.

      Second example: after people picked an abortion doctor's home residence in unincorporated Littleton, Colorado (IIRC) for years, the county agreed to restrictions at the request of neighbors. Pickets are still permitted, but the total area of the signs must be modest (under 3 square feet?) and they must walk at least 100 years before turning around. This was challenged, but since picketing was still permitted and the restrictions served a legitimate need (the pickets had become traffic hazards by clustering with large signs) the restrictions were upheld.
    • This supreme court ruling was (as far as I can see) a resolution of a conflict between a municipal bylaw and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
      If you took the time to read the judgment, you'd know that the insurance company obtained an injunction against the billboard poster.
  • In defence of its bylaw, lawyers for the municipality contended that their prohibition on advertising was intended to reduce visual pollution and distractions to drivers.

    I can understand that the municipality might want to get involved if the guy is putting obnoxious sign without respect to zoning regulation, like in the middle of the road or something. But if he put up the sign according to city regulation (which the article didn't mention whether that is the case or not, so I'm assuming he didn't violate the rule), why is the city going after him?

    You would think that the insurance company would go after him, but the city? What the hell is going on? Is the city also bought by the insurance company?

    If this guy's dissatisfaction sign is a visual pollution, what about other advertisements? They are all over the place now (even in Saint-Hyacinthe, which I had visited before). And they are sure are a sore to my eyes.

  • Similar to US case, about local regulations (Score:5, Informative)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @05:07PM (#3047395) Homepage Journal
    This sounds very similar to the 1994 US Supreme Court ruling:

    City Of Ladue et al. v. Gilleo [cornell.edu]

    An ordinance of petitioner City of Ladue bans all residential signs but those falling within one of ten exemptions, for the principal purpose of minimizing the visual clutter associated with such signs. Respondent Gilleo filed this action, alleging that the ordinance violated her right to free speech by prohibiting her from displaying a sign stating, "For Peace in the Gulf," from her home. The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ordinance was a "content based" regulation, and that Ladue's substantial interests in enacting it were not sufficiently compelling to support such a restriction.

    Held: The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech. Pp. 4-16.

    But I doubt it'll help with the DMCA ...

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • The point here isn't whether you have the right to criticize something, but how that right trumps the government's rights to censor it - even if they use "neutral" means.

    In this case the government was trying to keep drivers safe (or property values up...) by forbidding signs. But the Canadian courts said the guy's right to criticize, and the right of others to have access to it, trumped those laws. This might not extend too much into computer issues, but for a lot of folks out there who don't get all their news on-line it makes a big difference.

    In the US, political speech is the most protected kind of speech (obscenity/porn being least protected). BUTT, there are still many places that forbid you from posting flyers up on telephone poles, postering, etc.

    Those laws make it hard for shallow-pocketed grassroots groups to get the word out. If the only legal way to put out your perspective is on a billboard, how many perspectives will we get?

    We can make fun of Canada all we want, and I'll be the first to, but this ruling, in its own little way, is a victory for the little guy.

  • Canada and the DMCA (Score:4, Informative)

    by schon ( 31600 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @05:15PM (#3047447)
    Canada's copyright board is still "discussing" DMCA-like legislation here.

    In the month of March and April, there are going to be public forums held in some Canadian cities, to discuss the papers submitted to the copyright board on this topic.

    To quote the email I received:

    These full day consultation sessions will be

    held in the following cities on the following dates:

    * Halifax on March 8, 2002;
    * Vancouver on March 15, 2002;
    * Montreal on March 21, 2002;
    * Toronto on March 26, 2002;
    * Ottawa on April 11, 2002.


    As I'm a good 20 hour drive from the closest of these, I probably won't be able to attend - but I urge any /.er in the vicinity to make plans for it. They haven't sent me any information on exactly where the forums will take place (they said they will be sending a formal invitation soon) but as soon as I do, I'll try to post it here for interested parties.

  • Silence in the name of business.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dr_Marvin_Monroe ( 550052 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @05:21PM (#3047501)
    Two years ago, I would never have even imagined that businesses would be able to silence critics like they are today......remember the stories on television depicting the guy with the "lemon" car and the sign on it out in front of the dealership where he bought it? How about a good old fashoned picket line? And don't forget the ever popular "face-to-face" method of spreading complaints against a company! The way things are going now, Procter and Gamble will be able to read everyone's e-mail and sue those who disstribute the myth about the moon and stars in their logo.....Ford will be allowed to moderate/censor discussion groups online that discuss "weak points" in any Ford's design. Cisco will simply make routers that also scan for their name and destroy those packets. All in the protection of the glorious "Intellectual Property."

    All businesses now seem to think that the DMCA, copyright and other "PRO-BUSINESS" laws give them the legal sanction to silence all dissent, squash any consumer that even uses the name "Ford" in their complaint. Are they implying that I may only use the word "Ford" in public, out loud, if I'm saying something positive about the company. Are they also implying that I would somehow be breaking copyright law by using the word "Ford" and attaching a complaint to the end of the sentence? I'm totally fed up with their "Intellectual Property" and the whatnot.....and it's only getting worse. I just read where Disney is back in Washington with their old buddy Sen. Hollings, moving forward on built-in copyright protection again. I'm absolutely discusted!

    I will respect their "IP" when they respect mine! That means no trading of my "consumer profile" without my expressed written consent (click through agreements don't count!). That means NO SPAM OR TELEMARKETERS....and no trading of my telephone number (since that's a semi-encrypted means of identifying and potentially locating me). That also means no tracking my habits without clearly publishing that fact BEFORE installation of the offending program....Microsoft, are you listening? WMA tracking?....tell people FIRST! Get it?

    It seems like business has made a major assault in the last month too, I've just seen so many instances of the DMCA being used recently. For instance Nintendo yesterday, Microsoft with the X-box and Sony with the Aibo. Not a day goes by that somebody isn't getting sued by the entertainment industry, perhaps that's why the Supreme Court as expressed interest in the Sonny Bono copyright extension act.

    I'm starting a 3 month entertainment "fast"....nothing but Slashdot, free TV and NPR......no purchases of music or movies or video games of any kind.....I encourage all readers to also boycott the entertainment industry as well, burn as much as you want, but don't by a single thing.....perhaps a 3 month dip in sales will get their attention.

    Don't just stand there and take it....fight back!
  • Oh,yeah. To avoid the DCMA I'm going to move to a country with rules like those about "Canadian Content," which govern what I can see and hear.
  • They have to make sure to provide a french translation of their dissatisfaction.

  • The full text of the decision (Score:5, Informative)

    by darkonc ( 47285 ) <stephen_samuel AT bcgreen DOT com> on Thursday February 21, 2002 @05:48PM (#3047714) Homepage Journal
    The Supreme Court of Canada home page has the full text in the Recent decisions section [umontreal.ca] under the name R. v. Guignard (html, [umontreal.ca] text and [umontreal.ca] WordPerfect6.1 [umontreal.ca] formats). (It's also, of course, available in French [umontreal.ca])

    In a few months or so, it'll be moved into their by-volume section [umontreal.ca]..

    • Btw: the internet is only mentioned in one place [umontreal.ca] in the whole 48K text..

      FYI: 48K is relatively small for an SCC decision. In this case, I think it is both concise and broad. It makes it clear that, even though the restriction on advertising is only a side-effect of an otherwise well-meaning law, it's effects on effective free speech are unacceptable.

      I think that, among other things, it serves notice that a DMCA-type law would not be accepted in Canada (unless the government were to invoke the dreaded notwithstanding clause [bcgreen.com]).

      • The Infamous Notwithstanding Clause (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AgTiger ( 458268 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @07:11PM (#3048213) Homepage
        I was in Canada at the time the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was (finally) passed. The Notwithstanding Clause was a terrible disappointment to every non-politician I knew.

        It was a compromise in the truest definition of the word. In other words, it compromised the rest of the document, rendering it mutable at the whim of any governmental body that wanted to pass a law that violated the provisions therein.

        For those that don't know, the Canadian Federal Government, the Provincial, Territorial and the Municipal Governments can all make laws in contravention to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All they need to do is start the law with the wording, "Notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..." and they can trample any provision within. The only requirement is that the law in question be reviewed and approved once every five years by the legislature that passed it.

        Right after it was passed, the provision was used by the Quebec Provincial Government. I believe it was bill 106 that prohibited businesses in Quebec from using English on their signs on the outside of their buildings, or that faced outward such as a sign in the window.

        That's right... Quebec outlawed one of the two official languages of Canada, notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of course. And there wasn't a damned thing anyone could do in the judicial challenge and review process, because the Notwithstanding Clause was built right into the Charter itself and had constitutional authority.

        I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that whole debacle, even years later.

        • The horrid thing about the notwithstanding clause is that the only thing that is required of a government that wishes to breach and trample the most valued civil rights nominally entrenched in The Constitution is for them to explicitly acknowledge that they are doing so.

          The problem with this is that, generally speaking, the kind of government which would be most willing to do something like that is also precisely the kind of government against which the people would be most likely to need the protection of the charter.

          And if we ever get into a worst-case scenario with the notwithstanding clause, there will be nothing that the people will be able to say or do about it because, by the time we realize what's going on, those rights and freedoms will have been among the first to fall to the notwithstanding clause.

        • The actual law in Quebec doesn't forbid signs in English, what it does say is that the sign also has to be in French, and the French has to be bigger.
          • The actual law in Quebec doesn't forbid signs in English, what it does say is that the sign also has to be in French, and the French has to be bigger.
            It also applies only to commercial signs. Individuals (that is, humans - to whom human rights apply) are allowed to post signs in whatever language they want.
        • That's right... Quebec outlawed one of the two official languages of Canada, notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of course. And there wasn't a damned thing anyone could do in the judicial challenge and review process, because the Notwithstanding Clause was built right into the Charter itself and had constitutional authority.
          According to both the 1867 and the 1982 constitutions, language is solely a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government's proclamation of two official languages in canada only binds the federal government into providing services in both french and english (never mind the 20 or so aboriginal languages in use in canada).

          For the last quarter millenium, since canada was conquered by the britshit, the invaders have worked very hard at trying to diminish the number of french people within canada. The principal means of doing so was enounced back in 1827 by judge Sewell:

          We have to bury those french people under a flood of [english]immigration.
          At the end of the 1960s, the situation was alarming: immigrants to Québec, which is above 80% french, were simply refusing to integrate into the french society, but instead went towards the english minority en masse.

          The reason was simple: in canada, the french are treated just like the blacks are treated in the USA; but unlike with race, one can change his language. So, just as no immigrant to the US would turn into a black, no immigrant turned into french when they immigrated to Québec, since the english had all the power and the money.

          So, in 1977, the National Assembly of Québec passed bill 101 which made french the sole official language of Québec (and this is fully according to the 1867 britshit north america act). Two of the most controversial provisions of the bill are aimed straight at the immigtants:

          • Commercial signs in any other language than french are illegal (except for cultural entreprises, such as bookstores, concerts ads, and the like).
            Humans are allowed to post signs in whatever language they want, it's the companies/croporations who aren't allowed to.
          • No one can send his children to english school if he did not himself attend english school in Québec.
          The idea is that the immigrants can no longer get the notion that they can live in Québec without knowing french.

          25 years after the law was passed, we have finally seen the decline of french in QUébec being reversed, which was the principal aim of bill 101.

          Of course, now that the principal weapon for eliminating the french from canada had been irremediably blunted, the english declared open season on those laws. Yet, time after time, they have been found in their essence totally conformant to the constitutional laws that had been rammed down the throat of Québec in 1867 and 1982, even though they had been nicked here and there (like the "Québec" clause for schools had been replaced by "Canada"). Another weapon against language laws is the continuous blatant disinformation that comes from the canadian mainstream media, as it is well illustrated by the totally clueless post I am answering to. The individual laments the loss of a right by a commercial entity; something that is not even remotely human cannot claim to have human rights.

          In Québec, a store cannot advertise it's wares in english anymore than one cannot put-up a 50 meter high billboard in Vermont. But a store can say whatever it wants as long as it is done in french (and within the truth in advertising laws); there is no curbing of speech anymore than by prohibiting gigantic billboards.

  • What did the article leave out? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Swaffs ( 470184 ) <swaff AT fudo DOT org> on Thursday February 21, 2002 @05:58PM (#3047772) Homepage
    I'm surprised, considering this took place in Quebec, that the article made no mention of his much more heinous crime of posting a sign in English.

  • Nothing to do with a right to criticize on the Net (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rtrifts ( 61627 ) on Thursday February 21, 2002 @07:36PM (#3048349) Homepage
    As a Canadian lawyer, I thought I would disabuse a few posters here who do not understand what this decision was about.

    This was a decision in respect of the constitutionality of a bylaw under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - as such - it was wholly concerned with the attempt of a governmental entity (a muncipality) attempting to regulate non-commercial speech.

    It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the right of a citizen to criticize a company, their software, or otherwise, vis-a-vis that citizen and the company.

    This was NOT a dispute between the insurance company and the citizen. That is an important distinction.

    To clarify - the Candian Charter applies only to the relationship of an individual with the state or its agencies. It has no application - ZERO - as between an individual and another individual. No exceptions. Nada.

    The SCC has time and time again struck down legislation that has attempted to regulate private speech that is not otherwise criminal in nature (advocates hate, criminal libel)or commercial in purpose. It has done so enthusiastically in the past, for example, by preventing municipalities from passing bylaws (without any rational restraint) against the posting of handbills on public property.

    It has done so in this case by holding that a billboard erected by a customer with an axe to grind is not an "advertisment". Advertisements, as commercial speech, are not entitled to the same degree of deference and protection under the Charter as "political" or socially motivated speech. There is a significant difference between the two under Canadian law.

    End result: You can't pass an oppressive bylaw which restricts a citizen from engaging in socially useful speech with other ctizens.

    That's it - that's all. To attempt to extract a comment made by the court with respect to the potential social utility of a complaint about a company is to elevate obiter dicta and turn it into a "ruling". That isn't what they said and to suggest otherwise is to wholly miconstrue the meaning and effect of the judgment.

    All you can determine from the judgment is a reaffirmation that an individual's complaint about a company is not "commercial speech" within Canada, and its nature does not change whether it is posted on the Net, on a handbill or on a billboard.

    Regards,

    • It has done so in this case by holding that a billboard erected by a customer with an axe to grind is not an "advertisment". Advertisements, as commercial speech, are not entitled to the same degree of deference and protection under the Charter as "political" or socially motivated speech. There is a significant difference between the two under Canadian law.
      This is why the law prohibiting non-french signs in Québec is valid, because it only applies to commercial signs.
  • This isn't exactly about Canada and the DMCA, but is slightly related, having to do with corporate repression and Canada. When exactly is the government of Québec going to sue most of Hollywood for making it illegal for them to play French movies (region 2) in Québec (region 1)? This has got to really piss off the Canadians who speak French; I know it would me (Hmm, it might still, I might take up French again and start buying DVD movies..)

    If the WTO allows corporations to sue governements (I think I remember some reference to an environmental suit brought against the Mexican gov't), then shouldn't the reverse be true? (Of course, that's assuming the world is just and fair, which it most decidedly is not)

    Come to think of it, could the EU (which is already investigating US media companies for price-fixing, anti-trust, and maybe other things), and the Australians (who seem to be concerned with DVD pricing and other things) AND Québec all band together to lauch a multinational assault on the media companies? (That would be fun to watch: real nation-states duking it out against corporate nation-states.)
  • So did this all come about after he got fined for not putting the French text of the sign higher than the English, complete with a bigger font?

    (And while I'm intending this post as a joke, there really is a law up there stating that you have to do this)

  • This has NOTHING to do with the net. It has to do with putting up a physical sign, and whether a municipality (a city) can order you to take the sign down.

    What this has to do with the net, or why it's on /., I have no idea.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close