Caving in to leftist censorship
Looks like Stephen Taylor, co-founder of the Blogging "Nanny" Tories, has some serious explaining to do with regards to his decision to moderate free speech on his site:
Just a moderator's note: Please do not repost material from FreeDominion that is the subject of the CHRC complaint. Doing so exposes us, and this warning serves as clear notice that we will pursue civil action against anyone that in turn exposes us to CHRC action related to this complaint against FreeDominion.Funny, because I can remember a time when the BT site stood behind solid tory and libertarian principles [like free speech]. I guess those days are over.
Translation: here's a warning that says if you get us in trouble with the CHRC for material we've warned you not to post, we will do what we can to recover our damages (from you) because this warning also indicates that as moderators and site owners, that we don't want to have anything to do with the material that lands a person (rightly or wrongly -- which is another debate) with a human rights complaint.
We think that a country is freer with true free speech and the Canadian laws are not ideal. Regardless, imperfect as they are, we must comply with them and we'd ask that you do the same. Also, please do not post the name of the complainant or any information about her as there are specific laws against harassment that we must be aware of as well.
(Hat tip Paul Tuns, Let Freedom Reign and Kathy Shaidle)
Update
Good news for all those who believe in free speech, the Canadian Human Rights Commision have dropped their complaint against Free Dominion. (HT: anon in the comments sections)
16 Comments:
Easy to say when you don't have to worry about going to court. But I can think of a few comments I could post here that would have you deleting them:)
Not like I haven't heard it all from you before. ;-) For the record, I believe the suit was dropped.
Didn't need just this to be turned off from the blogging tories.
Gentes/CHRC withdraw complaint against Free Dominion
Moments ago, we received another letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, dated August 1, 2007, informing us that Marie-Line Gentes has withdrawn her complaint against Free Dominion and requested that the CRHC take no further action against us.
I would like to thank Ms. Gentes for making this move and will assume her motives for doing so were honourable.
The meat of the letter reads:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Complaint
1. The issue in this complaint is whether the respondent communicated or caused to be communicated, by way of the Internet, material that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion, race, national or ethnic origin and sexual orientation.
Background to Complaint
2. The complainant alleges that the respondent has communticated or caused to be communicated discriminatory material on www.freedominion.ca Free Dominion is a Canadian website that was inspired by Free Republic in the United States. It is described as a Canadian conservative news forum for the discussion of conservative philosophy and activism. The founders of the site are Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins.
Request to Withdraw Complaint
3. On July 17th and 23rd 2007, the complainant contacted the Commission advising that she wanted to withdraw her complaint.
Recommendation
4. It is recommeded, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that the Commission take no further proceedings in the complaint because the complainant has asked to withdraw the complaint.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Also included was a cover letter asking us to take note of the fact that Investigative branch of the CHRC will be recommending that the Commission not proceed with this case.
It is said that the best victory is in the battle you don't have to fight. This show of strength by people from across Canada - and from beyond our borders - has stopped this battle before it had to be fought. Because all things with the CHRC are political, either Ms. Gentes or the Commission, or both, have decided that an attack at this time on Free Dominion is a political bridge too far.
We have all won an important battle here today and we should take what we can from the lessons we have learned.
These above-the-law organizations are not omnipotent.
The glaring light of public exposure is toxic to these groups.
The internet gives people a means of defense because it can be used as a source of light.
There are many more lessons that could be listed, and I look forward to reading some of them while I pop a cold one.
Congratulations to all!
I've heard rumours that the more well-read bloggers are starting to get threatened with lawsuits, which is, I suspect, why someone like Taylor would have to worry - the Blogging Tories aggregator makes him responsible for the words of a lot more people than the average blogger.
It's worth noting that not allowing certain things on your website is not the same as curtailing freedom of speech - everyone is free to blog independently of any aggregator to say anything they want and take responsibility for it.
At any rate, anyone who thinks that there is free speech allowed in the Conservative Party of Canada has drunk the blue kool-aid.
ellen: quite possible.
janet: Good point. Although, you and I both know, that in Canada, a conservative government (be it provincial or federal) needs to emphasize a significant amount of discipline with their caucus & message in order to govern successfully. However, that doesn't necessarily require veering away from the core principles that got you there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
nbt:
Oh definitely. Politically speaking, you can't have your members or your Members talking about some of the things we know they'd all love to talk about while they're representing the party. (Whether or not that justifies writing off everything anyone outside of an inner circle has to say is up for debate.)
However, to me that's just more defence for Taylor. Blogging Tories is, after all, a political site, and a tool for Conservative Party members. It's no secret that Blogging Tories has support from the party, even though they're not affiliated, and I'm sure Taylor benefits from that - who are BT members to force him to give up the sources and connections that make his blog and his site so successful?
Likewise, who are we to let him get sued or charged for something we've put on our blogs without some sort of compensation for him? That's all he seemed to be worried about, far as I can tell.
Everytime I think about putting a full name to my blog, something like that happens. There are downsides to having a lot of anonymous or quasi-anonymous names out there blogging whatever but I certainly understand why people do. Who wants the Free Speech police cracking down?
Good point, spinks. During our little inside baseball conversation a few days ago, I believe you made that very point.
You're definitely right, janet. Although, as the title of this blog post explains, caving into the pressure of law suits (on the basis of the charter) from the left should not be an option.
It's a fight, plain and simple, and those who capitulate too quickly to attacks from the left expose their weakness (and leave themselves open to more attacks).
I guess I've never been one to back down to petty lawsuits. If I was, I would never have started throwing flames in the first place. However, I understand Taylor's point as he is still an underfunded neophyte who can't afford these kinds of hits financially.
Anonymity is no defense against lawsuits. It would take five minutes to find an identity, I seem to recall the guy who had a blog about the gas pipeline and Irving talking about how he got a letter in the mail from Irvings telling him to stop showing their logo, and his site was anonymous as well.
Lawsuits are different from court challenges. A complaint about remarks that may be 'hate speech' is different from a group seeking civil challenges. From what I read, the individual withdrew their complaint, so it doesn't sound like much of a 'battle'.
From what I've read though, he leaves himself open to a lawsuit, that's the catch 22. It's like the guy who owns a cottage near a cliff where kids jump into the water. If a kid is hurt then the cottage owner has an out, but when he puts up a sign saying 'beware' then he opens himself up to lawsuits if somebody is hurt because he's implicitly acknowledged that he knows its a safety hazard (true story).
So by saying he "won't tolerate remarks" then he is implicitly stating that ANY that remain, he has no problem with. That likewise goes for blogs, and that's why I don't screen comments (also because I don't get any). If a blog owner says YOU are responsible for your commments and I'll have no part in censorship, then that gives at least a measure of protection. As soon as you say 'such and such kind of comments won't be allowed' then you are on the hook for any that do show up.
However, most NB blogs are still pretty small so its doubtful that they'd get any notice for lawsuits. Hell, if Charles can keep going with no lawsuits from Irvings then I think most are safe. However, corporations are by far the biggest worry when it comes to lawsuits, which is why virtually no bloggers ever mention any.
However, it seems VERY strange to read comments about 'free speech' at blogs and how this is a big issue and at the same time acknowledge 'well, its just common sense that you DON"T allow your caucus that free speech'. That's some skewered logic.
And I don't even think its necessary. The political damage of telling members to shut up and tossing them out is far worse than the occasional gaff made by a member. Most voters know full well that the opinions of their local rep count about as much as theirs does. That seems more like an 'after the fact defense' of the action.
Obviously you have no hands on experience with the Liberal media in Ottawa when it comes to national elections. (I do)
Oh yeah, I forgot, you [Mike Archibald] are a master municipal campaigner. You should write a book and tell everyone your great secrets. I think I would title it, "How to win a vote every four months". (and your mother doesn't count)
My, aren't we testy. I didn't say anything about campaigning, and that's a pretty pertinent question as to which the 'liberal media' in Ottawa (which doesn't vote tory anyway)go to town on more, gagging and expelling members, or comments from nobody MP's.
I said it was interesting to see this guys blog taken to task for coming down on free speech yet in politics 'its OK because its campaign strategy'. So its ok to have no free speech in governing parties, but its not ok to do so on political blogs?
Of course readers might take your claim a little more seriously if we actually knew who you were, but of course an anonymous poster and blogger could say they are Stephen Harper or, hell, Dalton Camp's ghost.
Does Ward 4 ring a bell?
My, we ARE getting testy. It was Ward 4 last year and Ward 3 the election before that. That sounds like its supposed to be a snide little comeback, but I"ve blogged and talked about that extensively so if you think for some reason I'm ashamed of actually getting off my ass and putting my money and time where my mouth is you are quite mistaken. And actually, it was a quite a success given that I didn't actually campaign at all.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the topic here, but I'm not fussy on content.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home