Canadian Court Orders Site To ID Anonymous Posters 358
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian court has ordered
the owners of the FreeDominion.ca to disclose all personal information on eight anonymous posters to the chat site. The
required information includes email and IP addresses. The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy, a major blow to online free speech in Canada."
Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm behind 7 proxies
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Informative)
I think the Pirate Bay's beta service is better. They don't log. For obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy
I'm behind 7 proxies
Does anyone see something wrong with this? Courts can now redefine reality? Or will they just outlaw proxies to keep reality updated?
I sense a dejavu coming up, Matrix style.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you take explicit steps you are not anonymous online *ever*. Even when you do, you're only as anonymous to the point of making it more difficult to find you. The trail is there, however cloudy and convoluted.
An insecure wireless connection on the other hand...does wonders for anonymnity(sp?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well then the court orders them to KEEP logs next time. Which will just as effectively cripple free speech as going directly after the posters in the first place.
Oh and of course, not obeying a court order is spiked with a jail sentence. And they order you to not disclose the new logging ordinance to the visitors or you'll also go to jail.
The only thing you can do is take down the site and protect the first group of posters. If you setup another site, they'll dock you for not having logs on the first incide
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
If you need to post anonymously, you didn't have free speech in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If I did, would that prove that my statement was true?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kind of like asking a white South African about their views on racial equality.
I'm a white 23 yo Hungarian programmer. No matter where I am, I'm discriminated against. If you don't believe me, try to get a job in Hungary. Seriously.
I moved to the UK in august, because 1. it's in the EU, 2. I speak the language, 3. the minimal wage here is roughly 3 times that of the one back home. (Really. My last job back home was 570 HUF/hour before taxes (less than £1.50). Now, I make £6 with a fucking cleaning job, and it will at least double as soon as I get the proper language skills
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need to post anonymously, you didn't have free speech in the first place.
You may have freedom from the government, but you can never be free from judgement by your peers. Posting anonymously has long been the best way to spread uncomfortable truths without facing the public backlash that inevitably leads to self-censorship. Someone with your sig ought to know, unless you're just a poser.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You may have freedom from the government, but you can never be free from judgement by your peers. Posting anonymously has long been the best way to spread uncomfortable truths without facing the public backlash that inevitably leads to self-censorship.
Yeah, there's a name for speaking up in the face of inevitable judgment by your peers. It's called "having the courage of your convictions."
Free speech guarantees should prevent interference by the government in public discourse. (Even those guarantees aren't absolute, but that's another matter.) They should not (and indeed cannot) shield you from having your words judged or reacted to by other speakers.
If you have serious cause to believe that the state is going to jail and/or kill you for what you sa
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, there's a name for speaking up in the face of inevitable judgment by your peers. It's called "having the courage of your convictions."
Out of interest, is Baron Hethor Samedi your real nameor a pseudonym?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Out of interest, is Baron Hethor Samedi your real nameor a pseudonym?
Ha! A very fair question. My real name is Ethan Rampton. E-mail is now set to public. Feel free to contact me, but if you elect to do so, please do me the courtesy of introducing yourself.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is cowardly to use anonymous comment to avoid having a brick (or bricks) thrown through your window well then it seems a pretty reasonable sort of cowardliness.
There is also a huge range of penalties that can be brought to bear along the way from "people might not like you" to "the state is going to jail/kill you" and those penalties are non-trivial. Losing a job (and then the dominoes start to fall) for example. Being anonymously discriminated against for another. Having your rights simply ignored because you've said the wrong things.
State persecution aside, unless you've had the mob turn it's attention on you then you probably have no idea just how important anonymity can be to your safety and well-being.
There is also the idea of ad hominem attacks in discourse. These are decried for good reason and an ad hominem attack based solely on someone being anonymous is no better. It is foolish and wrong headed to devalue what someone is saying simply because they are saying it anonymously.
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even worse that that. In our brave new world where everything you've ever said online is indexed and recorded by google et al; and corporate judgements of our personality - and employability - can be made based upon some 10 year old blog posting, it's crucial that anonymous speech be defended.
Voting is anonymous for a reason; people can be pressured into voting a certain way by businesses, threatened to be fired if they don't vote as instructed and hand over their ballot receipt as proof. With no voter receipt, and privacy in the voting booth, this protects voters from unfair co-oercion by the powerful.
These days, instead of that private conversation by the watercooler or in the pub where people express their opinions - and gripes - beyond the ears of their manager, instead, it's on the likes of twitter, facebook and slashdot.
How can we have freedom of speech in our names, on our own time, when we fear for our very livelihoods because every word we ever utter will be pored over by some bored manager or HR guy, regardless of whether it's any way related to or the business of the company?
Anonymous and pseudonymous speech allows us to carve out a little bit of our lives and keep them for ourselves and our friends, and not be constantly looking over our shoulders in fear at government or company in case we're perceived to be less than an ideal citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, he should have said "cripple anonymous speech," which is a critical component of "free speech."
Re: (Score:2)
Or else you're posting something you know you shouldn't be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> Well then the court orders them to KEEP logs next time. Which will just as effectively cripple free speech as going directly after the posters in the first place.
If sites are ordered to keep logs "next time" then this time we're ok. Perhaps they'll like to specify where the logs are kept, for how long, whether they need to be encrypted (for the visitors security) - oh, and if the passwords go missing by accident, presumably no charges will follow. Perhaps the forum info can be stored in the US, to ta
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Informative)
personal information can be collected about you only as long as it is:
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I do the same when playing counter-strike.
I still haven't figured out why my ping is so bad though..
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Funny)
No problem, they can still find out who you are by looking at the email you must provide to use the service.
Once they know that your email is: anon@ymo.us, all they need to do is contact the domain owner of ymo.us to tell you who you are.
Assuming that the necessary cross border agreements are in place to issue a court order to the domain named: ymo.us and assuming that you were 100% truthful (why wouldn't you be?), they can force the domain owner to tell the courts that anon@ymo.us belongs to "Monkey Dance" at "1 Microsoft Way". Police can take care of the rest.
So you see, your 7 proxies are no match for this well thought out law. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh oh, the meme police are here!
Thankfully, I'm behind 7 proxies.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yo dawg, I herd you like memes...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Improper meme application technique?
It's more likely than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You see, examples are like cars. A car is an example, but the only example is not the car.
Blech, I mean to write "... demanded emails from the White House." My point being that my post's parent was implying a double standard that makes no sense. It wasn't an example, unless it was an example of that AC not understanding jurisdiction. If an American court had demanded information, or if the Canadian government had "lost" those emails, it'd be different.
But trying to say Canadian courts have a double standard because they didn't smack down the White House is pretty stupid.
Here you go: (Score:4, Funny)
127.0.0.1
Cheers
A. Coward.
Oh dear. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I see, this *IS* a raid...
Damn anonymous cowards... (Score:5, Funny)
They should be ashamed of themselves, posting anonymously.
Re:Damn anonymous cowards... (Score:4, Funny)
Anonymous Cowards Anonymous.
Now Thursdays eight p.m. at an undisclosed location!
Re:MS Anonymous (Score:2)
Anyone know the names of the Devs MS fired? No? 'Cause they're
Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
Come on, Give them jobs people!
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, Give them jobs people!
Or give them Balmer and watch his blood flow like a river!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the next one.
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out they're all called John Doe.
Rock and hard place. (Score:5, Interesting)
Canada has always been stuck between a rock and a hard place (US & UK). We are kind of like the retarded step-brother, very polite but not taken seriously on our own (we have a nasty habit of tagging along to our 'Big Brothers'.)
I often wondered how long it would take the insanity of US & UK to reach us. I wonder if there are any jobs in the Netherlands for an english-speaking computer-geek Canuck. They look like the only safe haven from insanity that is infecting this planet.
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, don't worry, the Netherlands' government is much like the UK/Canada: always trying to follow the US government especially when it comes to tahrarhism and privacy. As far as the RIAA goes, they have their hands over there as well under the name BREIN (from Wikipedia):
BREIN is perhaps best known for shutting down Dutch eDonkey 2000 link giant ShareConnector.com in December 2004. Due to controversy over the legality of links to illegal content, and a lack of quality in the evidence provided by BREIN, the case has not been put to trial yet. After being offline for two years, ShareConnector reopened in December 2006 but after barely one year; on November 12, 2007, Shareconnector went offline again.
On October 23, 2007 BREIN, together with IFPI, BPI, Dutch police, and other organizations shut down prominent Bittorrent tracker Oink's Pink Palace.
On November 19, 2007, TorrentFreak announced on its website that BREIN copy-and-pasted a sentence of text from TorrentFreak's website onto its own website without attributing TorrentFreak, as per TorrentFreak's copyright license. TorrentFreak stated that they intended to seek legal action and damages of almost $1,000,000 for the alleged intellectual property violation.
According to their own website (anti-piracy.nl) the organization has as members not only the local (legalized) copyright organization but also the MPAA to 'represent the American movie industry'. According to them 35% of new and 16% of ALL media in circulation in the Netherlands is 'illegal'.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if there are any jobs in the Netherlands for an english-speaking computer-geek Canuck. They look like the only safe haven from insanity that is infecting this planet.
And if Netherlands gets corrupted, I heard you could go to outer-space, or the high seas where there are no laws. But better keep a few ninjas by to protect you from pirates.
And a little more serious, it seems like countries already enforce some laws on our seas (because they DO fight back against pirates, hard). So maybe space is the last alternative, find a distant planet far far far away.
Re: (Score:2)
or the high seas where there are no laws.
Some people [seasteading.org] are looking into the living on the seas idea. They've got some good ideas and plans but they're quite expensive ideas. If it pans out I will join them as soon as it becomes reasonable for me to do so, based on whether I think I can earn a living out there.
Not me! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:4, Insightful)
I often wondered how long it would take the insanity of US & UK to reach us.
Really? Because I often wonder why it happens every goddamn time we elect the Conservatives, and why nobody remembers this the next time.
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:5, Interesting)
REACH us? Buddy, we've pioneered so many forms of insanity that the yanks would have to rewrite their constitution in order to catch up to us.
We have no separation of church and state. We have no right to free speech. We can be prosecuted for thought crimes and "hate speech" in courts which do not follow any traditional legal structures, where you are presumed guilty until proven otherwise, and where truth is no defense. We have no right to defend our homes. We have no right to own and employ firearms in self defense. We don't even have the equivalent of the fifth amendment, let alone the Posse Comitatus!
If you think the US is bad, you haven't been paying much attention to what's going on at home.
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:4, Interesting)
To add to c6gunner's list there is this: the Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accused is entitled to a defense, but not necessarily the best defence that could be mounted if the court allowed it. The reason given in that particular case was that it might discourage people similar to the purported victim from making complaints about other people similar to the accused (but not proven guilty) if the accused in this case were allowed the most effective defense available and he was therefore denied access to information that might have exonerated him.
In other words, "it's ok if we falsely convict you, and do it despite it being preventable, because it furthers the interests of a group whose members we like better than you."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In practical terms the Church plays no significant role in Canadian politics, which is the exact opposite of what is going on with all the religious wackiness (complete with war on teaching of the evolution theory in schools) down in the US. None of this is going on here .... well maybe amongst some really far-gone "Conservatives".
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called an anonymous informant and a journalist.
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, except for the fact that one ruling concerning anonymous posters will affect ALL anonymous posters everywhere within Canada.
The Internet is all-or-nothing in this case. If you can prosecute one case of slander and libel, you can prosecute all cases, including "statement critical of the Führer and The Party", which is the scary part of it.
Combine all the efforts underway and you'll see where this is heading. Censorship because of the children, where they lock you up in prison for making the banlist public. Somehow, these banlists always include certain political opponents, but that's just a coincidence. Either way, lock everyone up who questions the Child Porn Ban List, because Children are holy.
Then ID'ing anonymous posters, next forcing webmasters to present ID when setting up a public servers and then we're very very very close to the requirement of having each and all typewriters registered with the Stalinist Party.
This ain't a slippery slope fallacy, because we're already sliding down as we speak, and we're sliding fast. They're already railing up against "unsensible" and "provocating" comments which include pro-catholic, anti-catholic and of course anti-muslim opinions. We have that in Denmark, The Netherlands and the UK already, but it's still only a handful of cases. But as I said, we're having quite a ride on the slippery slope which people have foreseen years ago and were dismissed with Godwin's Law. Well, pessimism can be true sometimes.
Someones going to jail... (Score:2)
Man, sounds like they're gonna have a hell of a time finding this Anonymous Coward person if they ever look here...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Charlie didn't ask for ID when I fought at La Choy, and Chun King. I saw my best friend's head explode at Margaret Cho.
Something interseting (Score:5, Insightful)
I noticed the blogger doesn't mention anything about the case itself. I wonder how knowing the particulars of the case might effect the response of slashdot posters.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot response is invariant of the particulars of the case. They are also ignorant of the fact that the right of free speech does not protect you from the consequences of exercising it, never has and (hopefully) never will.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I beg to differ. Slashdot response is highly dependent on whether the particulars are something they agree with or not.
Ex: Copyright enforcement is good when used to protect GNU and Linux, but is bad when applied to movies and music.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you have me there... :)
Re: (Score:2)
A hammer is a hammer even if it's used to murder. Doesn't stop it being a hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how knowing the particulars of the case might effect the response of slashdot posters.
You mean slashdot posters can be affected by the actual facts of the case?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Shame (Score:5, Interesting)
Shame on any site that accepts 'anonymous' comments and then tracks email and IP.
And shame on the government for this ruling.
Re:Shame (Score:4, Interesting)
Shame on any site that accepts 'anonymous' comments and then tracks email and IP.
And shame on the government for this ruling.
If a post violate a local law (e.g. child porn, bomb threats...) and the site owner failed to provide evidence that it was sent by outsider, it's very high chance the prosecutor would put a charge on the site owner.
Therefore, unless you live in a place where no law is in place to regulate Internet content, otherwise you'd better keep some tracks for your defense.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of blogs allow posters to choose their name and then requires them to put in an e-mail address. The e-mail address isn't displayed publicly, but is used, in part, to drive other features of the blog (like e-mailing replies to comments). The IP addresses could be "tracked" by the site's log files. Never assume that you are 100% anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of blogs allow posters to choose their name and then requires them to put in an e-mail address. The e-mail address isn't displayed publicly, but is used, in part, to drive other features of the blog (like e-mailing replies to comments).
There's no saying that an e-mail address needs to be easily traceable to a particular person.
The e-mail address that I usually use to sign up for things is a free webmail address, and when i signed up for it, I used a different webmail address when it asked. And so on thru half a dozen different webmail addresses, until eventually we get to an address that was issued by an ancient ISP, which went bankrupt about 8 years ago.
I didn't set up all these addresses specifically to hide behind (mostly, I was
Re: (Score:2)
It would be possible to erase the IP addresses and e-mail addresses with a simple manual SQL query; but that would take a deliberate effort, and remove those users'
PDF of the motion, high lulz-to-content ratio (Score:5, Informative)
Worth a read, especially moments like request for "Any and all documents relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the website, freedominion.ca, by the Fournier Defendants, such as, but not limited to, hosting agreements, billing information, and website registrant name(s)."
Now, if the purpose of the motion is to acquire documents that will help to establish the identities of the posters - how the hell is the hosting agreement/billing details/etc relevant? Or is this a case of "let's collect all the paperwork we can, relevant or not, and then see what we can make of it"?
"Well, we see that you've established the site in 1991, and have been paying $ 39.99/month for hosting. CLEARLY, this proves... um... actually, I'm not sure WHAT it proves... Hang on."
Re: (Score:2)
Demanding non-relevant documents is a legal method of harassment. It wastes both the time and money of the defendant.
Legal Harassment (Score:2)
Demanding non-relevant documents is a legal method of harassment. It wastes both the time and money of the defendant.
From a quick look at the pleadings.pdf above, this appears to be a civil matter. IANAL, and especially IANACanadianL, but in most civil actions, you get to charge for the documents requested/subpoenaed in this sort of deal. Most organizations of any size have a written policy about how much is charged per page for documents. Ours is $1.00 per page. Often, the plaintiff finds it easier and cheaper to hire a mobile copy service to go in and do it. We put the requested documents in a bare room with a func
Re: (Score:2)
And it's also quite effective in aiding the defendants lawyers to get the case thrown out or successfully fight the verdict in a higher court.
Why not simply don't do it and wait for the answer? I want to see higher courts upholding a decision to punish defendants for not supplying clearly irrelevant documents.
Which, when it happens, calls for the Ammo Box anyway.
silly court decision, no free speach in Canada (Score:5, Informative)
Well put (Score:2)
Dictionary Time? (Score:2, Informative)
anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy
anonymous
Function:
adjective
Date:
1631
1 : not named or identified
2 : of unknown authorship or origin
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]
Free Speech vs Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a bit fuzzy on the difference between free speech and the right to stay anonymous.
It would seem to me that anonymity is not a requirement for free speech, online or otherwise.
What's to stop the internet-equivalent of standing up and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater?
Anonymity, IMHO, is actually detrimental to civil discourse - it gives individuals the idea that there are no consequences to what is said in a public forum. What we say in public life always has consequences - why should the internet be different?
Visiting most online discussions is like watching the monkeys at the zoo, and the risk of being hit with a lump of flying feces is just as high.
Re:Free Speech vs Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, the right to privacy and anonymity is one of the base requirements for the existence of free speech. Without a guarantee of privacy, much speech which dissents from the mainstream, identifies graft and corruption, or identifies wrong-doers would be stifled if there were consequences for the speaker. Whether it's a bully stealing lunch money, a contractor putting beach sand in concrete for a building, a tip line for identifying/finding criminals, or a Governor selling a senate seat - the implications of telling the truth which is detrimental to a powerful individual can be a personal risk which is just not tenable.
Yes, privacy can be used for evil; however it is critical that is be available.
What does /. do with the IPs of Anonymous Cowards? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were to post this anonymously, would /. keep a record that I used my /. account to post it, even though outwardly it's anonymous? Do they also keep a record of the IP I used to post?
I looked briefly at the privacy T&Cs linked at the bottom of the page and it makes various noises about keeping non-identifiable aggregate information for stats, but it's not clear what is done with the data or what would happen if they received a legal requirement to reveal all data held about an anonymous poster.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No doubt. Try moderating and then posting as anonymous. Your mods will be reverted.
Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
I know it makes for a sensational headline but it's inaccurate.
Web service data retention policies (Score:4, Insightful)
What this says to me is that anyone running a service, anonymous or not, needs to be thoughtful about their own data retention policies.
For instance, I might want to keep finer-grained detail for a short while, to assist in troubleshooting or incident handling.
Otherwise, it's probably just fine to keep more terse logs for a longer period of time. My understanding is that you can't be forced to divulge information you simply don't keep, if regular log rotation is part of your usual business process. The point is, it should probably be part of your usual business process, as it's too late to delete once the lawyers are involved.
Change the Laws (Score:2)
Anonymity, not free speech, is the issue here (Score:2, Insightful)
No reasonable expectation? (Score:2)
Canadian Loss of Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like Canada must be married to Australia with this nonsense court ruling. Must we all now go to a public library or internet cafe in order to be able to post anonymously? Somebody should act up and get rude and loud until governments get the message. Freedom of communications is not in the hands of governments to regulate. This freedom belongs only to individuals not to states.
Deflamation and IP Violation (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm reading the case correctly, it appears that a jury decided that the anonymous poster:
1) posted deflamatory remarks, and
2) posted IP-protected material (copyright violation, whatever)
And now at the jury has decided this, they're summoning the website to hand over the logs so they can procecute.
I'm not sure what I see wrong with that. When someone breaks the law, they broke the law.
A different issue is whether the website should be keeping those logs, but that's not what this is aboot, eh?
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Anonymous expression has always been a cornerstone of free speech/expression. The only way you can say it's not is to ignore the centuries of western commentary on exactly this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not Sparticus.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I must disagree:
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech
Western governments have routinely subverted the teachings of western political philosophy, but that has little bearing on what I said.
however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
Actually you can probably find more rulings against "free speech" than you can "anonymous expression".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
American political philosophy is not the same as Western political philosophy. While they do have a lot of common points, at times they differ wildly.
Just compare "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in U.S. to "peace, order and good government" [wikipedia.org] in Canada to see what I mean.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I must disagree: western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech; however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
You are wrong.
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).
The Supreme Court found that a law that prohibited anonymous handbills was void. Anonymous speech was specifically cited as having a role in free societies.
Not so (Score:2)
Historically, anonymous speech HAS been protected in the U.S., and SCOTUS has actually given it special protection. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Common Sense [wikipedia.org] would indicate otherwise.
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:4, Informative)
Canada does have free speech, according to Section 2(b) of the Constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982):
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#libertes
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right that the headline is not accurate, since Canada doesn't have free speech.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"
Mr. Steacy is wrong. Free speech is in our Constitution — specifically section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, there is the somewhat controversial "limitation clause", but to say that free speech is "an American concept" is just flat out wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Due to the fact that rights tend to overlap, rights always have limitations. The old saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" comes to mind.
Free speech, therefore, has limitations. This is even true in the United States. For example: slander.
We do have a constitutional right to free speech within the legal limitations, just as the Americans have a constitutional right to free speech within their legal limitations. Yes, we have more limitations than the Americans do, and yes I believe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We don't have a constitution. Please turn in your passport...
Uh, yes we do. Please attend a Canadian History class. Or at least do some trivial research [lmgtfy.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to state your opinion without fear of reprisal is a necessary condition for free speech.
It is not a sufficient condition.
Banning anonymous speech is certainly NOT a necessary condition for free speech either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy
I wonder what then the court considers to be a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Sorry, here or anywhere else, when I click the "post anonymously" button I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now what they happen to log etc I can understand, but there's an expectation of at least a measure of privacy. If Joe Troll emails /. asking for my IP I expect them to say get lost. But if they get a subpoena I expect them to get the IP. That's where "reasonable" lies in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it does.
In some places wearing a mask would be illegal -- precisely because people are not supposed to expect privacy there.
Re:Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is one of the foundations of freedom of speech and democracy, allowing citizens to voice their concerns and opinions without fear of prosecution or ridicule.
It reminds us to place principles before personalities, allowing logic to take precedent over emotions.
P.S. It's a bit ironic to hear an admonition to "be brave for once and say what you want in the open" - from an Anonymous Coward. LOL. Good job. Alanis Morrisette would be proud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is "Free Republic" any less so?