Pretty hard to disagree with that sentiment.
Abolish Section 13 Now!
Showing posts with label CHRC shenanigans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHRC shenanigans. Show all posts
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Montreal Gazette on the CHRCs
The Montreal Gazette takes Jennifer Lynch and her CHRC to task for their inability to learn from past mistakes, and their desire to restrict our liberties. The Gazette even seems to be starting to lean towards removing all restrictions on freedom of speech. At least that is what I am reading into this paragraph.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
CHRC wants to arbitrate what is funny
A more detailed report from the Globe&Mail goes into more details on the CHRC/government intrusion into free speech that I first talked about here.
Ms. Blight argued against a recommendation by Mr. Lemire that jokes and emotional expressions which are a spontaneous reaction to material already posted should be exempted from prosecution as a human rights violation.
“The jokes for which the exemption is sought are not, in my submission, funny,” Ms. Blight said. “There is no free pass for jokes, either.”
Does this mean stand-up comedians have even a bigger target on their backs?
I as a blogger should not be held accountable for what people post in response to my stories. Period, end of discussion. To even entertain otherwise is an affront to free speech and the rule of (what should be common) law.
I am not a lawyer, I am not an advocate of human rights, or a participant in a sham industry to designed to profit serial "victims". So wow am I to judge when a comment crosses the line between legit political discourse, and the normal cut and thrust of online debate into the fuzzy area an expression of “calumny or detestation” toward a minority?
What will happen if a someone posts a comment French on my blog that is a strong expression of “calumny or detestation” toward a minority? While I can muddle through some written French I doubt I can properly decipher a full paragraph filled with hateful ramblings, and would also likely be filled with slang.
Where will this end?
Free Speech Advocates:
You know "Blazing Cat Fur" seems to imply harm to felines, perhaps a CHRC investigation is in order. /sarcasm
Ms. Blight argued against a recommendation by Mr. Lemire that jokes and emotional expressions which are a spontaneous reaction to material already posted should be exempted from prosecution as a human rights violation.
“The jokes for which the exemption is sought are not, in my submission, funny,” Ms. Blight said. “There is no free pass for jokes, either.”
Does this mean stand-up comedians have even a bigger target on their backs?
I as a blogger should not be held accountable for what people post in response to my stories. Period, end of discussion. To even entertain otherwise is an affront to free speech and the rule of (what should be common) law.
I am not a lawyer, I am not an advocate of human rights, or a participant in a sham industry to designed to profit serial "victims". So wow am I to judge when a comment crosses the line between legit political discourse, and the normal cut and thrust of online debate into the fuzzy area an expression of “calumny or detestation” toward a minority?
What will happen if a someone posts a comment French on my blog that is a strong expression of “calumny or detestation” toward a minority? While I can muddle through some written French I doubt I can properly decipher a full paragraph filled with hateful ramblings, and would also likely be filled with slang.
Where will this end?
Free Speech Advocates:
You know "Blazing Cat Fur" seems to imply harm to felines, perhaps a CHRC investigation is in order. /sarcasm
Monday, September 15, 2008
CHRC to hold bloggers accountable for comments posted!
In disturbing news at the National Post, the CHRC are arguing that anyone running a site or a blog are 100% responsible for any comments that are posted there.
Anyone who runs an online message board, from the lowliest vanity blogger to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, can be charged under federal human rights law if visitors to their site post hateful comments, according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In final submissions this morning at the hate speech hearing of Marc Lemire, operator of the far-right freedomsite.org and a prominent figure in Canada's "white rights" movement, CHRC lawyer Margot Blight said there is no "free pass" for the website owners.
"If a message board owner can't manage to ensure the content of the message board is complying with Canadian law, then the message board should not be operating," she said.
This has absolutely gone too far. We bloggers cannot and should not be held responsible for comments that may subject some visible group to hatred or contempt.
This is a slippery slope. What is next, attacking the ISPs for allowing hate messages to be transmitted via their networks?
We bloggers need to stand up and let our voices be heard that this sort of facism will not be tolerated. Regardless of freedom of speech arguments, this is tantamount to censorship. The only way to enforce this is for every single blogger to moderate every single comment. This will stifle free speech in ways that I cannot even imagine.
This will result in message boards being taken down across the nation as even the MSM will not want to run the risk on this as even postings that appear briefly before being taken down can be used to persecute the operator of the message board.
Even the person hearing the case on behalf of the CHRC has serious doubts about this:
Athanasios Hadjis, who is hearing the case on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, questioned whether this applies even to messages that appear briefly, and without the owners knowledge or consent. He used the example of the CBC, which operates several chat forums for readers to discuss news stories, and asked what would happen if a hateful message somehow got past automatic filters and live editors.
He alluded to allegations that CHRC investigators themselves have even posted controversial comments to gain the trust of the operators of target websites.
"Suppose it's a fine line, and the operator has a nice disclaimer at the beginning... and then someone goes and crosses that line, and that someone may be who knows who. Is that fair to the message board operator?" Mr. Hadjis said.
Without commenting on the CBC directly, Ms. Blight [CHRC lawyer] said there is no "free pass" for anyone.
Let us hope this doesn't come to fruition.
Anyone who runs an online message board, from the lowliest vanity blogger to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, can be charged under federal human rights law if visitors to their site post hateful comments, according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In final submissions this morning at the hate speech hearing of Marc Lemire, operator of the far-right freedomsite.org and a prominent figure in Canada's "white rights" movement, CHRC lawyer Margot Blight said there is no "free pass" for the website owners.
"If a message board owner can't manage to ensure the content of the message board is complying with Canadian law, then the message board should not be operating," she said.
This has absolutely gone too far. We bloggers cannot and should not be held responsible for comments that may subject some visible group to hatred or contempt.
This is a slippery slope. What is next, attacking the ISPs for allowing hate messages to be transmitted via their networks?
We bloggers need to stand up and let our voices be heard that this sort of facism will not be tolerated. Regardless of freedom of speech arguments, this is tantamount to censorship. The only way to enforce this is for every single blogger to moderate every single comment. This will stifle free speech in ways that I cannot even imagine.
This will result in message boards being taken down across the nation as even the MSM will not want to run the risk on this as even postings that appear briefly before being taken down can be used to persecute the operator of the message board.
Even the person hearing the case on behalf of the CHRC has serious doubts about this:
Athanasios Hadjis, who is hearing the case on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, questioned whether this applies even to messages that appear briefly, and without the owners knowledge or consent. He used the example of the CBC, which operates several chat forums for readers to discuss news stories, and asked what would happen if a hateful message somehow got past automatic filters and live editors.
He alluded to allegations that CHRC investigators themselves have even posted controversial comments to gain the trust of the operators of target websites.
"Suppose it's a fine line, and the operator has a nice disclaimer at the beginning... and then someone goes and crosses that line, and that someone may be who knows who. Is that fair to the message board operator?" Mr. Hadjis said.
Without commenting on the CBC directly, Ms. Blight [CHRC lawyer] said there is no "free pass" for anyone.
Let us hope this doesn't come to fruition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)