Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Remote censorship?

By GreenCrackBaby in MLP
Tue Feb 27, 2001 at 01:21:14 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

Here's another MLP from those wacky Canadians. The gist of the story is that some Canadian Jewish groups are trying to shut down the web site of a former Canadian nutso who is one of those "the holocaust never happened" people.


The interesting part of this story, I found, is the fact that the web site in question is actually hosted from California. The argument that is being used though is that ...the[Canadian] tribunal has jurisdiction because the Web site has been accessed in Canada.

Do you think it's possible (however unlikely) that the Canadian government could rule against such a site and actually get it taken down? For those of you living in the US, how would you like being censored by your neighbors to the north?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Here's
o Also by GreenCrackBaby


Display: Sort:
Remote censorship? | 40 comments (29 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
Hmm. I'm not Sure About This. (2.00 / 5) (#1)
by greyrat on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 04:26:01 PM EST

No, it's gotta be a hoax...or actually a United States site. It's way too preposterous...
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

Oops! (2.50 / 2) (#2)
by greyrat on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 04:27:58 PM EST

Must finish reading before posting. Bizzare legal precedent if you ask me though.
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

[ Parent ]
LOL (2.00 / 2) (#5)
by retinaburn on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 04:44:50 PM EST

Either a) Preposterous or b) American ...hahahaha

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
Typical Juris-my dick-tion Crap (3.50 / 6) (#3)
by General_Corto on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 04:32:17 PM EST

(apologies to The Matrix for the subject)

It never ceases to amaze me that governments think that 'because our people can get at information from a foreign source over the net, we can stop it.' Because the major ISPs are global entities, those governments or courts can sometimes even enforce this blinkered approach to the world.

A real-world equivalent, which I've never heard done, would be, for example:

Italian newspaper writes something about a foreigner, who lives in another country, which would be considered libelous in the foreigners country, but not Italy (please note that I have nothing against Italians, they're lovely people). Newspaper is distributed globally (as many are), and some copies are sent to the foreign country. Foreigner gets all hot and bothered about the article, and sues the paper for libel in his country, rather than in Italy.

Intelligent? Nope. Jurisdiction? Highly unlikely. Yet, for some reason, the net gets special, bad treatment for things like this.

Note: I'm Canadian; I don't agree with Revisionists; I don't agree with the way in which this is being done though.


I'm spying on... you!
Well... (3.33 / 3) (#9)
by Mr. Excitement on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 05:08:39 PM EST

He can sue the branch of the corporation that distributes the paper in his country. No problem there.

1 141900 Mr. Excitement-Bar-Hum-Mal-Cha died in The Gnomish Mines on level 10 [max 12]. Killed by a bolt of lightning - [129]
[ Parent ]
sure, let them (3.25 / 8) (#6)
by Seumas on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 04:52:44 PM EST

Why not let the Canadian government rule 'against the website'? I'm sure the American Government might have a few things to say about them sending Canadian law-enforcement into America to enforce it (and, if they don't send someone into America to physically remove the site, it's obviously not going to be taken down, since the webhost would obviously just laugh).

On a slightly different subject -- it's funny that holocaust groups get so offended when a few radicals suggest that the holocaust never happened and that it is just a "Jewish Cover-up". I mean, if they're trying to cover-up contradictory views, that lends (a little) credence to the radical argument. Granted, the only people it could lend credence to are those who are already prone to believe such a thing, but honestly -- they don't need any encouragement to further their lame views . . .
--
I just read K5 for the articles.

Sigh (2.50 / 2) (#24)
by Anonymous 7324 on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 08:08:12 PM EST

what they really don't realize is that they're only directing more traffic to the site, _and_ it won't get taken down, of course.

I doubt the US will just let Canada tell it what to do.

The entire thing is just silly -- by getting this news coverage, they only add to hits to said site. If they didn't, people would just regard this extremeist as another wacko and move on.

[ Parent ]
indeed they would (none / 0) (#28)
by streetlawyer on Tue Feb 27, 2001 at 07:18:58 AM EST

I'm sure the American Government might have a few things to say about them sending Canadian law-enforcement into America to enforce it

Indeed they would. They'd say "Hey, Pierre, spare yourself the trouble! Since we, like almost every other industrialised nation, agree to enforce legitimate judgements made in the courts of other countries, we'll enforce it for you! Unless this Californian ISP decides to contest in an American court whether Canadian law applies to the website of a Canadian citizen living in Canada, which somehow I don't think he's gonna do!"

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Canada... (3.14 / 7) (#7)
by Anonymous 6522 on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 04:56:21 PM EST

Canada could claim that they have jurisdiction, but they best they could hope for is to block all access to it from their country, and I doubt that they would want to go down that road.

To actually take the site down, rather than block it, Canada would have to invade the US and actually win. Otherwise, as far as the US is concerned, their jurisdiction ends at the border.

Hmmmmmmmm..... (4.22 / 9) (#10)
by aerogems on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 05:10:32 PM EST

Maybe.... Just maybe, this could be useful.

Sure, if they win, then I can launch a lawsuit against The Vatican, and say that because the site can be, and is, accessed from the US, it falls under US jurisdiction.

After that, we can get some people from maybe a largely Muslim nation to go after the Southern Baptists, and shut them down too.

Eventually, we have the perfect utopian society. No one can possibly say or write anything that would offend anyone else, because all means of communication would be illegal. Even sign language would be out, since some of the signs might be considered obscene.
If you're motivated enough to go to the store to buy a motivation book, aren't you motivated enough to do that? So you don't need the book! Put it back, tell the clerk, "Fuck you, I'm motivated, I'm going home!" -- Geroge Carlin

Two words (1.00 / 5) (#17)
by ODiV on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 05:48:16 PM EST

Jack Chick


--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
Yeah, you better watch out (3.33 / 3) (#14)
by spacejack on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 05:32:31 PM EST

Our mounties are gonna come down there and kick some Yankee ass!! LOL.

Sigh. There are far worse revisionist/nazi sites out there that are plenty accessible from Canada. I guess B'nai Brith is really steamed at him or something.. too bad too, it's a pretty liberal church (there's one just around the corner from me).. a couple of my friends used to tell me how hip of a church it is. This posturing seems silly. That's the biggest problem with the guy too -- all the protesters. You never would have heard of the guy either. Furthermore, the protesters really go overboard with this guy -- throwing bricks through his windows, vandalizing his house, etc. And now this.

Anyhow sorry you guys State-side inherited this guy's presence. I see he's still sporting that retarded hard-hat look. Somebody tell him it's not working for him.

church? (none / 0) (#32)
by cpt kangarooski on Tue Feb 27, 2001 at 05:53:31 PM EST

it's not a church.

partially this is because it's a jewish organization and churches are primarily a christian concept. if that's what you had meant, you would've been more accurate to say 'synagogue' or just 'temple.'

but mostly because it's a service organization, roughly like, oh i dunno... the knights of columbus. b'nai b'rith is not an actual religious sect or anything.

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]
Didn't Aim High Enough (2.14 / 7) (#18)
by the Epopt on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 05:48:30 PM EST

And to think that we were content with "54°40' or Fight" -- we should have gone for "Arctic Circle or Fight!"
-- 
Most people who need to be shot need to be shot soon and a lot.
Very few people need to be shot later or just a little.

K5_Arguing_HOWTO
I'm not the President, but I play one on Kuro5hin (3.00 / 1) (#30)
by PresJPolk on Tue Feb 27, 2001 at 07:48:33 AM EST

hear hear!

[ Parent ]
hah (2.11 / 9) (#19)
by rebelcool on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 05:52:49 PM EST

americans just laugh at this kind of thing.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

Probably not (3.00 / 2) (#21)
by enterfornone on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 05:58:42 PM EST

An Australian court ruled on a similar issue. Basically they claimed that since the webmaster was an Australian residing in Australia he had to comply with Australian laws, regardless of where he hosts the site. (I guess it's gone to appeal, because the site in question is still up - it's currently hosted in Australia anyway).

All the Canadian count has to do is threaten to jail the guy for contempt if he doesn't pull it down. However in this case the defendant is no longer a Canadian citizen and is living in the US, so either a US court would have to agree to pull the site, or the US court would have to extradite him back to Canada.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.

what you say??? (2.14 / 7) (#22)
by xriso on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 06:35:27 PM EST

The US government can censor its people quite fine. It doesn't need our help for that.
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
NOT a court of law (4.40 / 5) (#26)
by bigbird on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 10:54:55 PM EST

This is a Human Rights Tribunal operated as part of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Here is the legislation which empowers the tribunal. A choice selection, which actually lets them do this under Canadian law.

No complaints to be considered in certain cases

(5) No complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice may be dealt with by the Commission under this Part unless the act or omission that constitutes the practice

(a) occurred in Canada and the victim of the practice was at the time of the act or omission either lawfully present in Canada or, if temporarily absent from Canada, entitled to return to Canada;
(b) occurred in Canada and was a discriminatory practice within the meaning of section 5, 8, 10, 12 or 13 in respect of which no particular individual is identifiable as the victim; or
(c) occurred outside Canada and the victim of the practice was at the time of the act or omission a Canadian citizen or an individual lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence.

The Canadian media has been full of Human Rights Tribunal crap for the past few years. These people are a bunch of politically correct flunkies who would happily restrict all personal freedoms just to avoid taking the risk that someones feelings might be hurt.

My favourite involved a mayor in BC who refused to sign a proclaimation as worded by a particular group. He could not sign it as originally written for personal reasons, and a proclaimation is viewed as an endorsement by many. He did not personally support the group, as is his personal right and freedom.

I belive that significant legal fees were spent to defend him. Note that the above example is under slightly different legislation (provincial, rather than federal law). If you scroll to the end, you will see the options available - some appointed hack can order a duly elected mayor to issue proclaimations, pay monetary fines, and, most frighteningly, force him to attend the Big Brotherish Educational session. That last option does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling, although it was not required in this case. Here is the entire sorry list of the year 2000 BC decisions. I am sure that some of them are legitimate, but I would rather they were heard before a real judge, with a well understood and legitimate appeal process.

I am not even certain whether you can appeal these decisions - the entire infrastructure of these commissions is akin to a formalized witch hunt.

bigbird

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom 1:16

Is this the same Human rights tribuna that.... (none / 0) (#34)
by douper on Wed Feb 28, 2001 at 06:05:58 PM EST

Is this the same Human rights tribuna that decided Canada can't extradite people if they *posibly* will face death, or are facing death in another country? So anyone acused of something that is punishable by death... hop on a plane to Canada! apparently, we'll take you.

there are so many things wrong with this I won't even get started.

[ Parent ]

Nope (offtopic) (none / 0) (#35)
by bigbird on Wed Feb 28, 2001 at 11:14:45 PM EST

That particular incident was the handiwork of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Judicial activism leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as well. Time to draw the line at the Saskatchewan (or Manitoba) border.

bigbird

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom 1:16
[ Parent ]

Re Nope (offtopic++) (none / 0) (#36)
by douper on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:12:25 AM EST

Well....

I'm not in the western part of the country... but that doesn't mean I (or most of the people I've heard from around here) agree with it. This particular issue has nothing to do with east of Manitoba.

[ Parent ]

Probability (none / 0) (#37)
by bigbird on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 12:32:22 AM EST

The likelihood of making an effective change is somewhat higher out west. Take a look at the last three federal elections, and you may notice that the party that garnered most of the popular vote in each western province is not overly impressed with an activist Supreme Court. That same party is not favoured by eastern voters. People's opinions, values, and views differ across such a huge country, apparently.

Somehow, the sentiment for western separatism always seems to surprise people from east of Sask. Funny, that. There was a /. sig I saw once that went something like "A computer without windows is like a dog without a load of bricks tied to it's head."Western Canada without the east is like a dog without a load of bricks tied to it's head. Taken a look at net transfers over the past 20 years or so?

bigbird

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom 1:16
[ Parent ]

This topic has nothing to do with the election... (none / 0) (#38)
by douper on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 01:55:43 AM EST

This ruling would have came down no matter who was in power so it is unfair to claim that this is the doing of the Liberals (who I didn't vote for anyways). Again: this has nothing to do with west vs east. Almost everone I've talked to has disagreed with this ruling.

And no, I havn't seen those numbers care to share a link or two? I would also be interested in any webpages/books/publications you could point me towards about western seperation as well, since I'd like to learn more about it.

[ Parent ]

Okay (none / 0) (#39)
by bigbird on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 04:05:40 PM EST

2000 Election results (pdf) - look at the BC and Alberta ridings by percent for each party. The term landslide comes to mind.

1997 Election results - note BC and Alberta Reform numbers. Again, landslide. To get over 50% of the popular vote in a multiparty system is rather difficult. To get 55% in Alberta could be called "sending a message".

Western Canada Concept - an old political movement promoting separation
Links from Western Canada Concept
One Ten West - draw the line at 110th meridian, (where it should have been in the first place).
Alberta Independance Party
Report Magazine - a western point of view.

That ought to be enough to get you going. The last thing I want to hear after an election is a federal cabinet minister telling us that if we want to be represented, we have to send liberals to Ottawa. A comment like that displays an ignorance of how our political system is supposed to work, and demonstrates how corrupt it is at present. Any MP should be able to represent me effectively in government, regardless of party. I do not need to be told how to vote by a Liberal politician who lacks the ability to stand up to the PM and vote against a policy which will harm his riding or province.

I will die long before I would ever consider voting liberal federally. The Rhinos were a better alternative.

bigbird

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom 1:16
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 0) (#40)
by douper on Tue Mar 06, 2001 at 01:24:43 PM EST

Thanks for the info.

Although I do have to disagree with the reasoning that because there was a majority out west for the CA, that this is a good reason for seperation, last time I checked the CA wasn't about seperation.

Anyways, The fact still remains that the Supreme cour t decision about extradition has nothing to do with seperation, as it was a national issue, which MANY MANY people did not agree with, along wiith MANY people in Ontario East.

I will agree with many of the points on the webpage though, although I do disagree that seperation is the answer.

The fact that Canada has 2 groups rallying for seperation should be enough of a sign that something should be done.

Simply put: I am for change, I am not for seperation.

[ Parent ]

A defense of Bnai Brith's actions. (4.00 / 5) (#27)
by Apuleius on Mon Feb 26, 2001 at 10:56:49 PM EST

(The only defense, in my view.) Zundel likes to claim that he is a victim of censorship, but he actually is a successful advocate of censorship. See here, where he advocates banning Schindler's List. Also, see here, for another incident. Now, why do I say successful? The only place where these cranks get serious attention, is the Arab world. And in the Arab World, Schindler's List is indeed banned.

I do not regard this defense to be sufficient, but it should be said, for the record.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
Zundel on censorship (none / 0) (#33)
by kataklyst on Wed Feb 28, 2001 at 03:03:15 PM EST

I have to laugh at the mental image of someone saying people should be censored for saying people should be censored. I imagine practically everyone in favor of censoring Zundel base their position solely on what he says about the Holocaust.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that Zundel was actually advocating censorship. It seems likely that he was just trying to show the absurdity of the laws being used against him. He doesn't just say we should ban Shindler's List; he argues that the film could incite the same kind of hate he is accused of inciting. Perhaps he hopes that when readers try to explain to themselves why we should not ban Shindler's List they will also realize why we should not censor him.

I'm not sure what reasons specific Arab nations give for banning the film, but I doubt their rationale has much in common with the "arguments" Zundel sets forth. In fact, one interesting Arab perspective on the issue of censorship accuses the West of hypocricy for claiming to support free speech while cracking down on anyone that questions conventional wisdom on the Holocaust.

[ Parent ]

Anyone remember iCraveTV? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by x0dus on Tue Feb 27, 2001 at 02:35:35 PM EST

Remember iCraveTV.com? It was a small Canadian company that streamed television broadcasts taken from the airwaves over the Internet. This process is perfectly legal in Canada and the company took steps to verify that all the viewers were within Canada. Naturally the Motion Picture Association of America didn't like this very much, so they sued the site. Their lawsuit, filed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, sought out an injunction to halt the streaming of television programs from their servers in Canada. The ruling, from an American judge, was that the site, despite being hosted in Canada, must halt all operations.

This draws sharp parallels to the current situation, but this time it was those 'wacky Canadians' who were forced to shutdown. So when the author asks "how would you like being censored by your neighbors to the north?" I must reply: probably the same way as I feel being censored by my neighbors to the south.

Remote censorship? | 40 comments (29 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!