A Bigger Issue at Stake
In a previous post on the Warman affair, I took a simplistic, perhaps vindictive, approach to the libel suit that now faces Kate, Kathy and Ezra Levant. I leave out any mention of the National Post’s Jonathan Kay who is also part of this mess but who is not a blogger, should have known better and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. There is more at stake in this case than merely some “hotheads” shooting off their mouths and getting sued.
In that vein, I owe Kate of Small Dead Animals an apology for some of the remarks I made in the previous thread on the topic. Those who know me around here and from my own blog in the “old days”, Heart of the Matter, will be able to attest to the fact that I have never been a fan of Kate’s or many of the regular commentors on her site. We don’t agree on much and probably never will. Thanks to a thoughtful comment from Stageleft and some consideration from OC, I have reconsidered my position on the Warman libel suit.
Please allow me to explain. As far as Ezra and Kathy go, I think they have both been straddling the line of libelous commentary for some time. I don’t have any sympathy for them in the least. I stand by the assertion that we each have a responsibility legally and perhaps morally to avoid character assassination; to refrain from making comments that we cannot prove about another person. In this life we each have a surname that stands for more than just who our father was. It characterizes who we are, how we are perceived and what we have done in our time here. When another person makes derogatory claims against your name they have an obligation to get it right or pay the price.
But Kate didn’t say the words for which she is being sued. The Warman libel suit targets her differently than the the other three defendants. She is being sued for allowing a post by Kathy to stand on her site, for comments made by others and for linking to a post deemed defamatory by the defendant. While I believe that she owns some responsibility for poor choices in the first two items, holding every blogger who links to a potentially defamatory post liable for defamation has the potential to set a precedent that could shut down blogging as we know it. If Warman’s claim against Kate succeeds, we all lose and so too does the exchange of ideas on the Internet in Canada. Each of us in the blogosphere who either comment on posts written by bloggers or people who write posts on someone else’s blog may not enjoy that luxury in the future.
If Warman wins, who in their right mind would allow unmoderated comments or a group blog format if they are potentially liable for every word uttered on their site? Who would dare link to another blogger that they may agree or disagree with if that link could lead to legal trouble?
I hope that we can all put our differences aside and support Kate in this law suit.
She is being sued for allowing a post by Kathy to stand on her site, for comments made by others
So what. Newspapers are held responsible for what their writers write. So should Kate.
I hope that we can all put our differences aside and support Kate in this law suit.
Fuck that. If Kate doesn’t want to get sued she should delete the libelous comments from her blog and issue an apology to Warman. Otherwise she deserves to be skewered along with the rest of the libelers.
“So what. Newspapers are held responsible for what their writers write. So should Kate.”
Now don’t go all Kinsella on me Robert and use selective quotes. You of all people know what that is like. I go on to note that she bears responsibility for that poor choice.
There is a lot at stake here beyond personal grievances. I would hate to see the blogosphere stifled by lawyers. This case is headed in that direction.
The blogosphere won’t be stifled by lawyers just as newspapers haven’t been stifled by lawyers. And what’s really at stake here is the right to defend yourself against defamation of character.
At this point, I don’t share your optimism. The allegations against Kate, if established by precedent, will send a chill through the blogosphere. Comments, links, and guest bloggers could become a huge liability for the owner of every blog in this country.
“And what’s really at stake here is the right to defend yourself against defamation of character.”
That is certainly a big part of this and as I have noted in two posts, Shaidle and Levant are rightly being subjected to that test.
coming from one of the net’s gentler and more subtle spaces, i will be watching the circus unfold over the next while. the trollosphere is dashing madly back and forth crying doom and we are hearing the little whispers of ‘you’re gonna get it because on account of swears and being mean’. in a sense this is a test case that might serve to set some parameters for the blogosphere that could, in the long run, be productive in seeing blogs taken more seriously.
the thing is, that if kate’s case gets tossed then precedent is set. i’ve gone through comments at major news outlets, ctv the globe etc, and seen sda quality comment threads, including some base and potentially actionable stuff. if kate gets walloped, there’s a certain sense that she had it coming from a purely combative and ideological perspective. that said it would contribute to a chilling effect on the blogs. many of us would need to reconsider our approaches.
the thing is that her whole schtick seems to be to set up a scenario and allow her commenteriat to do the dirty work. an extensive examination of the comments at sda would likely offer a trove of delights for the litigiously inclined. but just about any “controversial” site could be playing unwitting host to a time bomb in the comments. hell, the kinder and gentler sites could be sitting on that sort of bomb without sufficient attention being paid.
as for supporting kate, i’ll pass. she has more than enough support from her minions and fellow travelers, she can play the martyr and clutch the pearls and i’ll follow the case from the sidelines. neither will i support warman as regards sda and kate. he would appear to have a more substantial case against the others named. but the whole damn business from the outset is just icky and i don’t care for any of the players.
I hope that we can all put our differences aside and support Kate in this law suit.
Maybe she can pay me to support her?
PSA,
That was a really insightful comment and I know exactly what you mean.
When I had my blog several years ago, I had a standing order that I would never link to her site. I found and still find much of the commentary there the work of a skillful demagogue feeding the mob with predictable results.
In this case, I had to think about this a lot. I really wrestled with this one but the issues at stake are larger than the personalities involved. I really believe that there is much to lose. While I despise much of the commentary on SDA, I think we should fight for her right and ours to be able to continue to express her and our point of view without having to consult legal counsel on a regular basis.
I have to respectfully disagree here TH. I just think that as blog owners we have to take some responsibility for what we allow others to post and comment and what we link too. For too long bloggers have been in some sort of quasi-legal category where no laws or rules seem to apply. As others have mentioned, newspapers and magazines manage to run just fine and so will blogs.
I think it’s pretty simple. If someone makes a slanderous statement in your comments section challenge them on it and if they can’t prove it, pull it. If you allow others to post on your blog and they put something slanderous on it, pull it and don’t allow them to post anymore. And for goodness sake, don’t link to a post that’s slanderous. I don’t think it’s that hard.
Hey, I’m all for free speech, but slander and libel aren’t covered. As someone here said, we need to be responsible as blog owners with our freedom. And I agree.
While I despise much of the commentary on SDA, I think we should fight for her right and ours to be able to continue to express her and our point of view without having to consult legal counsel on a regular basis.
But this isn’t about expressing our points of view TH, it’s about making false allegations about someone, in short, lying. There is a huge difference between the two in my opinion.
“Hey, I’m all for free speech, but slander and libel aren’t covered. As someone here said, we need to be responsible as blog owners with our freedom. And I agree.”
Well that might have been me. I agree with that statement, but recognize now that it isn’t that simple.
For example, you own blog ABC. Some lunatic posts a horrendously libelous comment on your blog while you are asleep, away from the computer, on holidays or at work for the day. The person libeled reads it before you do. They sue. Some of the damage is done.
Apply the same case to a group blog where a another poster writes something that someone finds objectionable well before you can catch it.
Finally, it is the link angle here that really scares me. You link to a post that has a sentence in it that someone finds defamatory. So too do 100 other bloggers. All 100 get sued as well as all of the blog rolls like Progressives, Liblogs and so on.
Those questions and more are on the table. I wish it were as simple as a you said this, I sue you kind of situation. It isn’t.
For example, you own blog ABC. Some lunatic posts a horrendously libelous comment on your blog while you are asleep, away from the computer, on holidays or at work for the day. The person libeled reads it before you do. They sue. Some of the damage is done.
If you go away for a period of time, disable comments.
Apply the same case to a group blog where a another poster writes something that someone finds objectionable well before you can catch it.
Again, I don’t think it’s about writing something objectionable, but something illegal. And in reality, what is the longest that most of us go between checking our blogs? An hour? Given, there may be some instances where you can’t check it for longer, but I would hope that you’d done your due diligence and were smart enough to find bloggers to blog with who wouldn’t post unsupported lies.
Finally, it is the link angle here that really scares me. You link to a post that has a sentence in it that someone finds defamatory. So too do 100 other bloggers. All 100 get sued as well as all of the blog rolls like Progressives, Liblogs and so on.
I agree that the whole blog roll thing is troublesome, but not direct links. If you are actively linking to a post without reading it all and ensuring it’s safe for publication well then, too bad.
Again, I think it is simple. We are not talking about people who disagree with each other’s political positions, but a fabricated statement that was made over and over without any proof and a statement which one of the defendants was counseled not to publish because it could be considered slander.
Do we have to be more careful? Sure. But I think it makes the blogosphere a more honest and perhaps, accepted medium.
Peter,
In at least Kate’s example this is a ground breaking case. It is most certainly about libel but it is attempting to draw the lines around defamation on the Internet. I think it goes too far. If Warman wins, we lose. That’s my theory.
PSA above thinks that might be a good thing. I am not sure yet.
“Again, I don’t think it’s about writing something objectionable, but something illegal”
You are confusing criminal law with civil. This isn’t about what is legal, it’s about what is actionable.
“Do we have to be more careful? Sure. But I think it makes the blogosphere a more honest and perhaps, accepted medium.”
I hope you and PSA are right. I am more cynical and have a feeling that it will only lead to more bloggers getting sued, more leaving the “trade” and the rest of us shifting to starting new ones on knitting, sewing and other “un-suable” past-times. That would be a shame.
You are confusing criminal law with civil. This isn’t about what is legal, it’s about what is actionable.
Good point and thanks for the correction. Is my non-lawyer underwear showing?
I hope you and PSA are right. I am more cynical and have a feeling that it will only lead to more bloggers getting sued, more leaving the “trade” and the rest of us shifting to starting new ones on knitting, sewing and other “un-suable” past-times. That would be a shame.
We could stand to lose a few of the crappy one’s who bring the rest of us down :) No, no just kidding. I really think in the long run it cleans the place up. It’s about time that there was some accountability for some of the stuff said in the blogosphere.
TH,
In at least Kate’s example this is a ground breaking case. It is most certainly about libel but it is attempting to draw the lines around defamation on the Internet. I think it goes too far. If Warman wins, we lose. That’s my theory.
It certainly will set a precedent but again, I think it’s a good one. Clean up your own back yard and make sure you know who you’re getting into bed with. If you take your time and do your homework, promote reasonable and civil debate, and make sure your commentators know the rules, you should be fine.
Comments, links, and guest bloggers could become a huge liability for the owner of every blog in this country.
Well if the owner of every blog in this country is stupid enough to allow libelous comments to appear on their blog and then dig in their heels like an idiot when called on it I would agree with you. But since that’s not the case, I don’t share your pessimism or find it the slightest bit warranted.
I’m no fan of Kate, but the facts of this case appear to be these: she went to the US for a dog-show, leaving Kathy Shaidle to mind her apartment. Kathy libelled someone and then retracted, before Kate even returned.
Hard cases make bad law. I don’t like the case against Kate much in this instance. If she’s found liable when she may have been unaware of the whole thing, then we are all a little less safe in our bloggy dens.
It’s a bit like lending someone your car, and that person commits a hit-and-run. Are you liable? Well, yes, if you know the person is a danger behind the wheel, or has been drinking, or has no licence, etc., you might well share in the liability. But if it’s simply a matter of lending the car, then I can’t see it, myself.
Of course, this is merely an analogy, and I don’t know the jurisprudence on internet defamation. But this is one time, perhaps the only time, that I would tend to lean towards Kate’s defence. She’ll have to roll on Shaidle, though, as they say on Law and Order.
Hey Stage-Lefties,
Buckets of Grewal has been doing some amazing research on the now infamous Ann Cools post. I don’t think many people have seen it, and I’m pretty sure nobody has linked to it.
It’s painstaking work he’s done, and his conclusions are that the Ann Cools post could have been done by anybody.
“At this point, I don’t share your optimism. The allegations against Kate, if established by precedent, will send a chill through the blogosphere. Comments, links, and guest bloggers could become a huge liability for the owner of every blog in this country.”
There is already a precedent. Warman has had nothing to do with establishing it. You host libelous material on your site, you can be held responsible for it (even if its in the comments).
Also, I have commented on Buckets work and linked to it and even maybe helped him a little bit with it. I have a summa this morning, with a picture of a scantily clad woman. Check it out.
BCL and fellow visitors:
You are right that this is not a precdent setting case. One aspect of this which has been thoroughly overlooked is the issue of malice.
It will probably be claimed by the defendants that their comments are “fair comment” because the free speech debate is a public concern. And if the comments about Warman had been limited to that debate, then there would be no grounds for the suit.
The problem is however that when arguing for “fair-comment” as a defence you must also satisfy the court that you did not comment in a malicious fashion.
Even if the comments could be proven to be true by the Speechies… it’s going to be a lot harder for them to prove that they are not engaged in malice when months of posts and comments have been made to destroy this man and his reputation.
Truth is NOT an ultimate defence in Canadian libel suits. As for everybody peeing their pants over this… well, sorry, you aren’t getting it.
What the Speechies want is the right to libel anybody they want and destroy people and their livliehoods with impunity. That’s malice.
If you are a blogger with a com-box and you do not engage in malicious posting and indeed do not allow malicious posting, you are probably very safe from a lawsuit.
Reading some of these comments, you’d think there is no context whatsoever for these suits beyond some allegedly libellous comments. Interesting.
In a civil court of law will that context be relevant or even significantly material?
“Interesting.”
Oh, I know. The ironies abound. The notion, for instance, that Kathy Shaidle is weeping and playing St. Sebastian because a former CHRC employee got sick of being accused of posting racial insults tamer than most of Kathy Shaidle writes every day…hilarious.
Re Context –Go here…
http://somenamedia.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-warman-will-probably-win.html
The overall context of the comments alleged to be libel by Warman is that they are part of the general discussion surrounding free-speech in Canada and the efficacy or even existence of Section 13 and the HRC.
But if you read the Fromm decision, you will note that the Judge in that case did not find the free-speech issue to be applicable as a defence with respect to fair comment. No judge in Canada would do so. Judges in Canada are expected to uphold existing laws, and whether one likes Section 13 and the HRC, or not — Justice Metivier ruled
“I find Mr. Fromm’s dominant motive was to attack Mr. Warman personally in retaliation for Mr. Warman’s use of legal processes to restrain illegal speech. The motive of malice is seen throughout the evidence, including the context of the publications, the flavours and tone of the intemperate and unnecessarily inflammatory language used,”
So all the brou-haha about the HRC and Free Speech will unlikely be a sound attempt to defend the comments about Warman, as much as Ezra and others are trying to claim that this is the lynchpin of the case.
That’s exactly it MW. This is not a free speech issue it is one about defamation.
I have ruffled a few feathers with this post, I know, but my intent is not to suggest that I support libelous commentary. I think both Kathy and Ezra are in deep by their blind refusal to recognize that their recent rants confuse this as an issue of free speech. They should know better.
My intent is also not to justify Kate’s role in this only to suggest that the precedents that could come as a result of her losing would be significant to the blogosphere. I have no affection for Kate or SDA. I do for this little place we call Stageleft.
Kate is the publisher, from what I can tell. She allowed Shaidle to publish to SDA’s extensive audience. Kate seems to have some liability, if libel is found by a judge, though how vicarious it is is unclear to me.
Kate’s situation is not novel, and I wouldn’t worry about it.
As for liability for linking to external sites, there we have a problem. I’m being sued for libel for that. I ran a wiki featuring candidates for internal elections for the Green Party of Canada. Any candidate who had their on website got a link to their site from the wiki. One candidate had a link to another site which a GPC member named Wayne Crookes had a problem with. Though I was in now way promoting that third site, I got sued for the distant linking.
Now, if you are promoting a link, and are citing the contents on the other side as being fair and accurate, then you are taking some responsibility for it. This is no different than circulating any form of written material with an endorsement. If the material happens to be libelous, then you are in trouble. That’s old law.
So in deciding whether the Warman suit is a risk to us, one does need to establish whether the linking is endorsed or not first. If a judge were to find that the material is libelous, and that sites linking to it were actively promoting and supporting the libelous material, then I don’t see that as a threat to the Internet.
Thanks Mark. I only found out about your predicament yesterday. Quite a story indeed. I appreciate your input on this thread and hope it all works out for you.
Hey Mark,
I was going to toss Kate McMillan a few bucks, just for a laugh. But I think it would be better to spend it on your case. Do you have a paypal or amazon tip jar? I just went to your site and couldn’t see it.
If the enemies of freedom succeed and I believe some of them are posting here, you will all be wishing you had set aside your petty political bias and stood up for Kate and others who are working to keep us free.
Freedoms are lost one at a time and little by little. You people here may see those gradual losses as victories for your side. I tell you now, you will regret being so narrow minded about what freedom actually means and how important every bit of it is to ‘true human rights’ and the democratic system. It is indeed a flawed system, but so far appears to be the best one available for the average schmuck. Thinking people will take human freedoms over human rights any day. Remember this … “A handful of might is worth a bagful of right”. Government who give you your rights will think nothing of taking them away on a whim. Freedom is another matter.
People who live in countries that are farther down the road to where Canada is heading are either, continually in revolt or they are drinking heavily. You cannot imagine what a completely controlled state is until you have lived it.
Slagging Kate and Kathy and dumping on Ezra is a very big mistake. It is Warman who would have us living in a police state. Kate and the others want a state where you occasionally may be insulted and have your feelings hurt.
Big difference.
If you really don’t see this, you are beyond help and I pity you and everyone else, if you should manage to have your way.
You should all just be grateful that Shaidle,Levant the Fourniers and Kate are shouldering the load. But as always your lot chooses to revel in spiteful bitchiness. It reflects who you really are so well.
A very brave post, for someone on the port side of the equation, as Dawg would have it.
And the usual suspects seem to have shown up and produced nothing but snark and prejudice. That such adolescent pissing is balanced by some good commentary does shows that there is at least some hope for true dialogue.
As for the technical view, I’m sure at least Levant and the Post will be able to afford the very best experts. As I’ve said before, this could very well be a “not proveable” case, which means a loss for the defendants. If it is true anyone could have made the Cools post, the ONLY way to be sure would be to produce an HRC file, if it ever existed, and if it still exists.
The fact is, it is preposterous that a quasi-judicial commission would enable its agents to post on websites without ANY sort of record of who used what names, on what sites and when. No oversight, no supervision, nothing.
If the transcripts of the recent Lemire hearing in Ottawa are correct, for instance, there are at least four HRC employees who had official access. How would they know? Just a guess, maybe? Common knowledge in the office? Or does a record exist?
Oh Good God,
Don’t you two (John V and BCF) have something better to do than to troll left-wing blogs scolding people for not doing what you want?
Grateful to Kate? For what? Her spreading lies about me neglecting or abusing my children? Her claiming my children don’t know how to speak properly. Her accusing me of stealing from an employer. Her claim that I shouled be Locked up because I am an Aboriginal activist?
Oh yeah… I should really be grateful for Kate McMillan.
I should forget about all the obnoxious defamation she has engaged in with me and suck it up because she picked a fight with somebody who knows a hell of a lot more about libel law in Canada than she does.
“shouldering the load”?
ROFL… Nobody asked any of these bozos to provoke a fight (with months of nasty libelous commentary) with a hyper-litigious anti-racist lawyer.
They have made their bed . Let them sleep in it.
What if you link a post at another site that is totally clean when you link, but later develops potentially defamatory comments?
As soon as you become aware of the issue - pull the link down, issue an apology explaining the retraction. If you’ve been contacted by somebody who was defamed by something you linked to, and they give you wording for the “regret the error” - unless it’s not outrageous, use the wording supplied.
If something went to court after this, then you could show proof that you were not intending malice towards the individual involved because you had no intent to harm them when you made the link (the site was clean). Intent is important in so far as viable defence.
The real libel chill is not coming from Warman, it’s coming from Canada’s archaic libel laws. The fact that these laws are for once used (by Warman) AGAINST prominent conservatives is an interesting development that I’ll continue to follow.
Yes, what we are seeing is Web 2.0 running smack into 20th and 19th Century laws.
As for taking down the link, good luck. The Post took down their post and issued an apology, and was still sued.
Not to mention that nothing really ever disappears on the Web…
The issues in this matter are simple:
1. Will a precedent be established that legitimizes SLAPPs to silence discussions on the internet about subjects deemed “too offensive” to someone who has the means and the will to sue his detractors into oblivion?
2. How does an individual protect himself from a cyber lynch-mob of the type that can be found in the dark corners of the internet?
3. Who do you want holding the hammer that squelches speech that is deemed “too offensive” for public consumption?
I agree, but the argument’s pretty pointless right now. Left/right have drawn their lines in the sand, and that’s how it’s going to stay.
But you’re right. If I see a guy who’s written a damn good piece on baseball, or poker, or great English beer, I might link to him to give my friends a look. Little do I know that somewhere in his archive from 2006, he might have been grinding an axe against an enemy.
Next thing I know, I’m up on libel suit for spreading it? Uncool.
The fact that many people don’t see this as self evident is really beyond me. But again, that’s why I say the argument is pointless. People are toeing their party lines and probably always will.
The linking issue is much deeper than you might imagine. If the linking matter is upheld as a culpability then the entire world of distributed information is at risk. Consider: online (or not) bibliographies for articles, libraries and other bibliographic devices.
It is not possible for a blog owner to police all of the potential links that may flow from a post. It is patently unreasonable to expect a blogger, or any writer to do so.
But an even deeper question, still not fully resolved: Where is the line between comments on a blog being a written document as in a article, op-ed, or letter to the editor, or a conversation? Comments made in a conversation, shouted out at a public rally, in a public park amongst participants and non-participants, how are these different from comments on a blog? At what point do you define a “conversation” as only being about “spoken” words…? Think carefully before you answer this. Think about where technology is going in communication and what has been enabled as “conversation” by technology. Think carefully about what happens in terms of where you draw the line.
Libel law in Canada does not require injury to occur, which is a serious shortcoming. It is not required to prove injury to win a libel suit in Canada (Canada’s libel laws are very different than in the US), only to be open to the possibility to be injured.
Kathy Shaidle. “Hatred Working to Keep Us Free”. Uh huh.
RJ: Nice reframing of the issue. There is that little, tiny matter of whether or not libel was committed.
“If the enemies of freedom succeed and I believe some of them are posting here, you will all be wishing you had set aside your petty political bias and stood up for Kate and others who are working to keep us free.
Freedoms are lost one at a time and little by little. You people here may see those gradual losses as victories for your side. I tell you now, you will regret being so narrow minded about what freedom actually means and how important every bit of it is to ‘true human rights’ and the democratic system.”
so many pearls, so much clutching. wipe those earnest tears from your downy cheek john and take slow deep breaths, it’ll be okay. you don’t want to be sued, don’t defame people. the “freedom” to drag someone’s name through the mud for, in your own words, petty political bias is what our troglodyte friends are fighting for. i’m worried about considerably more important losses of freedom. conservative canada’s desire to snuggle up against the bosom of america, handing over rights of privacy and free transit in the false name of security. biometric sharing, hell the collection of biometric data strikes me as an affront to freedom.
the entire last seven years of american rule has been a parade of freedom in decline, sacrificed on the unholy altar of security and canada is edging closer to that mindset all the time. but go ahead, throw yourself to the floor and bawl like a babe denied sweets because some loathsome toads are being scolded in the courts for skating to close to the lines of fair comment. in the mean time freedoms and rights that actually matter are being bartered off to corporate lobbyists and pressure groups. bill c-10, christers writing legislation to put their own moral stamp on what films qualify for tax breaks? that’s not a freedom of speech issue? data packet shaping by isps and trunk providers, deciding what kind of files and transfer protocols you can use online? where are the brave protectors of freedom? ssshh, they sleeping in the foetal position, exhausted from crying over the fate of their favourite bullies. the eagerly awaited copyright reform that is likely to mimic the failed dmca, crimping your right to fair dealing and opening the door to the hyper litigious media industries to pry into your use of digital media and information.
you want a chill, go look up the thousands of suits filed against moms, dads and children and the ruin of lives that has resulted. grow the fuck up, you whining goober. kate and kathy and ezra are where they are because they thought they had something to prove and the impunity to slag warman, now the courts will afford them the opportunity to prove something. the laws aren’t new, it isn’t abut freedom of speech and it isn’t about the hrc. it is about libel. did they libel the man? the court will rule and that is how the system works, that old rule of law thing that conservatives only like when it isn’t pointed at themselves.
Thanks, PSA, and well put. The issue is simple. There’s an offense called libel that may or may not have been committed. The court will now figure it out.
This has nothing to do with Kathy Shaidle bragging at Mike Brock’s site how proud she is of running her “hate blog” (her term), or bemoaning the lack of smallpox infected blankets to murder Indians, or applauding Right Girl’s attack on “daughter-fucking Indians”. She has every right to publish that crap, and while she sickens me (sometimes literally), I defend that right.
But this is about libel. Pure and simple. Let’s try to remember that when the Martyr Brigade begins shrieking “Help, Help, I’m Being Repressed! Please Send Money!”
Two amusing sidebar points occur:
- When the focus of the Martyr Brigade was on the HRCs, a common theme was “Why do we need a human rights commission? If someone’s REALLY being attacked, we have libel laws to protect them! Why are they too chickenshit to use THOSE? Huh? Huh??” Heh. Well, now someone is.
- In private correspondence with a Blogging Tory (whose anonymity I shall respect) about a month ago, I was told that certain parties were tired of being libeled by a certain lefty blogger (not anyone from the Bunker), and that counsel had been retained. That suit never materialized: but that self-same Blogging Tory has, of course, now jumped on the “How DARE THEY use Libel Suits To Silence The Truth” Bandwagon.
I hope he/she reads this and remembers that exchange.
After a visit to Occam’s, where we’re having a good old jaw about this very same topic (with great civility - moronosphere, take note, it CAN be done, you know), I’m noting the emergence of another one of those delightful “When WE Do It/When THEY Do It” leitmotifs.
The train of thought seems to go something like this: Richard Warman is a disgusting hatemonger, so determining whether or not he’s being libeled isn’t relevant. However, it doesn’t matter that Kathy Shaidle is a disgusting hatemonger too: in her case, you must put aside your personal views and defend her right to attribute malfeasance to Warman, because he’s a disgusting hatemonger.
Is it just me, or is there something weird about that train of thought?
The idea of linking this to free speech is so stupid that words cannot really describe it. I have yet to see, among the literally hundreds of posts and comments that I have read on this subject, a reasonable link to free speech issues and those who are [quite pathetically] trying to do so so either [a] have no idea what free speech is or means, and/or [b] know that a law may have been broken and are seeking to deflect discussion away from that inconvenient concept.
Gosh, you figure?
This argument is “about” framing the legal action against Shaildle, Ezra et al. in a context that presents them as “victims”, yet another layer of hilarity when one considers their fondness for deriding folks who think that splattered Iraqi civilians or suicidal rez school survivors are “victims”. Hell, no, let’s save that label for Ezra.
Laugh? Weep? Puke? Can’t decide.
Nice hair splitting. Reminds me of reading of Stalin’s show trials, and how even up to the end, the ‘victims’ were defending the Soviet ideals. You know, if Stalin only knew, this is a mistake, I’m loyal, ect….
And, now it’s come for you.
Enjoy.
Funny you should raise that, Paul; just last week I was rereading Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, and thinking how well it captures the spirit of Guantanamo.
These days I don’t think Americans have much in the way of good advice for Canadians when it comes to the loss of civil liberty.
These days I don’t think Americans have much in the way of good advice for Canadians when it comes to the loss of civil liberty.
Off the top of my head:
1. Free speech zones;
2. Compromised journalists publishing government propaganda;
3. Military intelligence infiltrating public discussion on the web;
4. FoxNews;
5. Iraq intelligence failures;
6. Jose Padilla…
…I’m sure there are more. But of course, Ezra’s “state interrogation” was Stalinist and intolerable.
I guess this why I don’t listen to the arguments of the free speech absolutists anymore. They seem irrelevant and kind of quaint, when you think about it.
[...] STAGE LEFT: “A Bigger Issue at Stake” Unrepentant Old Hippie also weighs in with a new tone [...]
Oh. I get it now. Canadians aren’t actually _nice_.
You’re all just bullied by bureaucrats into a eunuch-like blandness.
Exactly. Plus we have most of the nuance and sensitivity pummelled out of us by the glaciers that crush our cities every winter. It’s a tough life, but global warming should help.
I wouldn’t say our blandness is eunuch-like. I think that quality a bit too exotic.
Anyway, no one should complain; if weren’t for Canadians, how would the Americans and the British know they’re so interesting? Seriously, without Canada, what would North Dakota do?
That, neighbor, is ’cause you just don’t know where to look –
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” — Thomas Paine
“You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can be free only if I am free.” — Clarence Darrow
“What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long.” — Thomas Sowell
“A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” — Robert Frost
Hmmm let’s see what else
Violations of Posse Comitatus
Massive Surveillance and Wiretapping of Citizens
Wholesale destruction of Habeus Corpus
Asset Forfeiture To Prosecute the Drug War
Greater percentage of population in Prison than any country in the last Century
You were saying about the Freedoms of the United States… what again?
Well, y’know…freeing people from 300 years of chattel slavery does give you a certain claim to understanding the true essence of freedom. Learning from history however, imprisons the mind, obviously.
warman wuz in a mud slinging contest, and got sum on hisself
now he has run home to muma to complain
No he *wuzzent* and no he’s not.
From Richard Warman to America Bashing - what a surprise on a “progressive” thread.
I will leave you to wallow in your hatred and contempt, children.
Have a nice day
My husband is an American you ridiculous tool Bryan. He has even more stinging rebuke for what is happening to his country than I do.
And criticism of the violations of the Constitution is “NOT” unpatriotic. In fact it’s very patriotic to demand that the Constitution be upheld.
to America Bashing
Poor thing. Tissue?
>bill c-10, christers writing legislation to put their own moral stamp on what films qualify for tax breaks?
What is a “christer”? Is that a pejorative intended to convey contempt?
balbulican is correct; if Warman has been libelled then let the courts sort it out. There is enough factual and philosophical ammunition to shred the conduct of the HRCs and their cargo-cult imitation of justice without resorting to personal attacks on any of the people involved.
The problem isn’t Warman; he is just an observable sign. The disease is the tools available, the potential for misuse, and the actual misuse. We don’t bend rules of procedure and evidence to deal with real criminals responsible for thousands of real human tragedies every year due to violence, narcotics, gambling, prostitution, and every other casual and organized activity in which they indulge; I see no compelling reason to permit sloppy people and processes to pursue the handful of nutters on the fringe.
Hey - i need no tissue, Ti-Guy.
Your a complete stranger who sneers in ASCII.
I have no emotional ties to America whatsoever - fill yer boots.
Try reading your own words sometime though. They are mostly ugly and rarely productive or optimistic. I just find it a shame you have the rest of your lives to live filled with such rage.
Live and let live, you know…?
Get some sunlight maybe - play some frisbee
SMILE :)
“I will leave you to wallow in your hatred and contempt, children.” –
Promises, promises.
Tsk tsk tsk.