🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EMHL97.KA.0.bloor@torfree.net> of groups 
torfree.general,van.general,bc.general,bc.politics, Jason Arron Black 
writes:

> Now, this is where it gets really Orwellian

Then blame the Government who would be all to happy to arrest the VCN 
guys for allowing others to post their "hate". The VCN is just 
protecting it's own ass (the wimps).

> should VCN or any freenet for that matter be able to create new rules
> and use them against you for things that were done or said
> before the rule was created?

Retroactive rules are hardley, if ever, justifiable. You were screwed by 
the VCN. Get over it.

In article <34B577C3.68B1@capcollege.bc.ca>,
Theseus, Duke of Athens <NOSPAMjcarlisl@capcollege.bc.ca> wrote:

>Free speech must be an absolute right....

I don't see how Jason's rights have been violated. The VCN did not
stop him from saying what the wanted to say; they simply stopped
him from saying it using their resources. Or do you now support
some sort of law to force those with publishing ability to finance
the publishing of others' views?

>Thats why the 1st ammendment to the U.S. constitution is
>so important. It is a safeguard against tyranny.  Too bad we don't have
>the same rights here.

Ah, another completely clueless one. Perhaps you should read this
ammendment before you start spouting off about it. You'll note that
it starts, `Congress shall pass no law....' The first ammendment
applies *only* to the government, and would have no bearing on this
case.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson    cjs@portal.ca	   Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc.	   Through infinite mist, software reverberates
Vancouver, BC  (604) 257-9400	   In code possess'd of invisible folly.

Well, You must look at who's part of the vancouver freenet Board.. and 
old friend of many of the TFN Board mambers, Mr. Ed. Carrier.. He's done 
the say thing to a couple of friends of mine, and my sister's account.. 
He's the one that more or else putting Hate crap on about TFN.. 

Jason Arron Black (cj224@torfree.net) wrote: 

: The Vancouver community Net cut my account for posts I made to usenet :
I posted some articles that the VCN claimed was "Hate" : but since they
didn't have a rule against posting "hate" : they had a quicky meeting then
added a new rule to their user : aggreement addressing so called hate
speech. 

: Now, this is where it gets really Orwellian

: After the new rule was added, I stopped using my VCN account
: and put my email on forwarding, no more posts were made to usenet
: nor did I send any email...nothing at all

: Just a couple of days ago, I attemtpted to log onto my VCN account
: and was met with a message stating that my account was cut for 
: posting articles that are agianst the VCN user agreement rules.

: The problem is, the articles in question were posted *BEFORE*
: the new rule was added, and the VCN has decided to use it agianst me
: regardless of the fact that I heeded their warning that If I continued
: to post any questionable articles after the new rule was added
: I would have my account cut.


: should VCN or any freenet for that matter be able to create new rules
: and use them against you for things that were done or said
: before the rule was created?
: \

: For example:

: Someone posts his/her phone number on usenet asking for people to call 
: them for whatever reason.

: Then the Freenet decides that they no longer want people to use the system
: to post phone numbers to usenet.

: the Freenet issues a warning to the user that they don't want people
: doing that, even though there is nothing in the user agreement 
: saying no posting of phone numbers allowed.

: The user responds by telling the freenet that unless it's in the rules
: they will continue to post their phone number if they wish.

: The Freenet responds by having a board meeting to discuss it
: then comes up with a new rule stating that the freenet users are now
: no longer allowed to post phone numbers.
: and sends out a mass mailing to all users stating the new rule.


: The user hwo posted their phone number reads the new rule and stops
: posting any more phone numbers, thus obeying the freenet rules.


: Then the user after a few weeks attempts to log onto the freenet
: only to find that their account was cut, because they posted their phone 
: number in the past...evn though the rule against it never existed.

: Is the Freenet right or was the users account wrongfully terminated?





-- 
Jordan Blanchard
Web Site: Http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Boardwalk/1172/
Email Addresses: cy328@torfree.net 
		 SYSOP@TheLair.com

Theseus, Duke of Athens (NOSPAMjcarlisl@capcollege.bc.ca) wrote:
: Jason Arron Black wrote:
: > 
: > The Vancouver community Net cut my account for posts I made to usenet
: > I posted some articles that the VCN claimed was "Hate"

: Free speech must be an absolute right, of there is no "free" speech at
: all.  Libel laws provide suficient protection to us all.  Hate laws are
: just a way of furthering the political agenda of those in power. 

	ummm.  pardon me?
	libel laws respect only those who have the wherewithal to sue 
against those with the wherewithal to be sued.
	ie.  those without funds are exempt, and thus the reason for 
criminal law in this matter.

: Unfortunately for the framers of so-called hate laws, they may not be in
: power forever. Thats why the 1st ammendment to the U.S. constitution is
: so important. It is a safeguard against tyranny.  Too bad we don't have
: the same rights here.

	ummm. excuse me.  but promoting social hatred usually results in 
the (target) social groups being censored in some manner - if not 
intentionally, unconsciously by the (target) audience.

	lets precede mention of the first amendment with recognition of 
one of a prime precepts of the constitution, ie, all men (ummm, maybe 
should be people) are born equal.

	if you abuse your right to free speech, you are denying the 
precept that all are born equal.
	it took u.s. courts what, 1.5+ centuries to recognise this point.  
and greater u.s. society appears still hesitant to embrace it (and for the 
most part, apparently due to greed or avarice).

	now, if you feel you are entitled to curtail the free speech of a 
part of society you deny all respect for, i feel sorry for you.  cultural 
and social isolation has its costs both socially and genetically (gee, 
how else would one explain the high incidence of hemophilia in the royal 
families of greater europe - not to mention other genetic disorders).

	not to mention the stagnation of society as a whole when entire 
segments are denied participation.

	denying others the right to accumulate wealth within the law by 
acting outside the law does not appear in the best interest of our 
greater society.

	i really believe you should re-examine your rationale here.
-- 

Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote:
	(hack, snip, buzz)

: Hi

: Absolutely right.  

: Private companies can take whatever actions they wish and impose terms
: retroactively should they so wish subject to criminal sanctions, civil
: liability or consumer protection legislation.  Most likely the original
: subscription agreement allowed such action as most ISP agreements allow
: for termination at the complete discretion of the ISP without the need
: for cause.

	ummm.  this would appear a non-sequitur.  vcn stands for 
vancouver community net(work).
	as such, it is not an isp.  it does not levy fees per say.  it 
solicits donations (although, i believe in this case a mandatory donation 
is required for membership).
	under such circumstances, it is possible the shareholders (read: 
the membership) may have demanded the suspension or deletion of the 
account in question.
	my feeling on the matter is this would appear a knee-jerk 
reaction and the complainant should have been left open to the (social) 
consequence of their actions (there surely were counter - arguments 
posted to the hate messages - if not, the greater community would appear 
more closed than one would normally expect).
	if vcn is to maintain common carrier status, this will indeed 
hurt their case in future.  and likewise others who act on content alone.

	(snip)
-- 

: >Free speech must be an absolute right....

If it were an absolute right, then, for example, slander and libel would no 
longer be criminal offenses. 

What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the freedom 
to do people harm by speech. 


-- 

cjs@cynic.portal.ca (Curt Sampson) wrote:

>In article <34B577C3.68B1@capcollege.bc.ca>,
>Theseus, Duke of Athens <NOSPAMjcarlisl@capcollege.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>>Free speech must be an absolute right....
>
>I don't see how Jason's rights have been violated. The VCN did not
>stop him from saying what the wanted to say; they simply stopped
>him from saying it using their resources. Or do you now support
>some sort of law to force those with publishing ability to finance
>the publishing of others' views?
>
>>Thats why the 1st ammendment to the U.S. constitution is
>>so important. It is a safeguard against tyranny.  Too bad we don't have
>>the same rights here.
>
>Ah, another completely clueless one. Perhaps you should read this
>ammendment before you start spouting off about it. You'll note that
>it starts, `Congress shall pass no law....' The first ammendment
>applies *only* to the government, and would have no bearing on this
>case.

His rights were not abridged by VCN cutting him.  Obviously, because
he's here now.  What worries me is that someone said that an ISP is a
party to a libel suit at the moment.  If ISP's are responsible for the
content of Usenet, then we have a more insidious threat to free speech
than simple "We don't want to associate with Jason Black" (freedom of
association for VCN).  If an ISP is required to do more than identify
a userid to authoritied searching for a libel defendant then I worry
for free speech.  In my opinion, freedom of association means that VCN
can cut someone they don't like, but a legal liability for ISP's is a
real threat to free speech. 

Greg Goss wrote:
> 
> cjs@cynic.portal.ca (Curt Sampson) wrote:
> 
> >In article <34B577C3.68B1@capcollege.bc.ca>,
> >Theseus, Duke of Athens <NOSPAMjcarlisl@capcollege.bc.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>Free speech must be an absolute right....
> >
> >I don't see how Jason's rights have been violated. The VCN did not
> >stop him from saying what the wanted to say; they simply stopped
> >him from saying it using their resources. Or do you now support
> >some sort of law to force those with publishing ability to finance
> >the publishing of others' views?
> >
> >>Thats why the 1st ammendment to the U.S. constitution is
> >>so important. It is a safeguard against tyranny.  Too bad we don't have
> >>the same rights here.
> >
> >Ah, another completely clueless one. Perhaps you should read this
> >ammendment before you start spouting off about it. You'll note that
> >it starts, `Congress shall pass no law....' The first ammendment
> >applies *only* to the government, and would have no bearing on this
> >case.
> 
> His rights were not abridged by VCN cutting him.  Obviously, because
> he's here now.  What worries me is that someone said that an ISP is a
> party to a libel suit at the moment.  If ISP's are responsible for the
> content of Usenet, then we have a more insidious threat to free speech
> than simple "We don't want to associate with Jason Black" (freedom of
> association for VCN).  If an ISP is required to do more than identify
> a userid to authoritied searching for a libel defendant then I worry
> for free speech.  In my opinion, freedom of association means that VCN
> can cut someone they don't like, but a legal liability for ISP's is a
> real threat to free speech.

Hi Greg

Your observation that freedom of speech is not at issue here is spot
on.  The law suit to which you refer is quite interesting.  I first
heard of it several months back when one of the principals in a
Toronto-based(?) ISP posted to the can.legal newsgroup indicating that
the ISP was being sued for publishing a libel.

The case will likely revolve around the issue of whether an ISP is akin
to a newspaper, TV or radio station which can be liable for publishing
libelous or defamatory statements (of course subject to various defences
such as fair comment, etc.) or whether the ISP is like a telephone
company which is not liable for the content in messages by subscribers. 
An ISP may fall in between the two so that there may be circumstances
where liability might attach.  For example an ISP has rules against
propagating hate propaganda and after receiving complaints about a
subscriber, chooses to do nothing then it is possible that they may be
fixed with some liability.

In the VCN case after reviewing the postings of Black, the ISP made the
decision to cut off the acccount.  In the circumstances a prudent action
to take to limit or mitigate potential liablity and in no way an
infringement of his constitutionally protected freedom of speech. 

While one must be careful not to import the entire case law from the US
regarding "First Amendment Rights", the portion quoted above has
application to this set of circumstances.  The "Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms" (being "Schedule B" to the "Constitution Act,1982"
provides under Section 2 - "Fundamental Freedoms":

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b)freedom of thought belief, opinion and expression, including freedom
of the press and other media of expression;

This is subject to Section 1 which provides:

1. The "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" guarantees the rights
and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.

While the US does not have such a specific limiting provision in its
"Bill of Rights" the US Supreme Court has adopted virtually the same
test in balancing interests and section 1 of the Charter tracks such
language. In one well-known observation (I believe by Justice Holmes of
the US Supreme Court) it is noted that one's freedom of speech does not
extend to shouting fire in a crowded theatre.  To similar effect was the
observation that a person's freedom to swing his fist is limited to
where another person's nose begins.  Thus in the US as in Canada freedom
of speech is not an absolute but subject to various criminal and civil
restrictions. 

While the US "Bill of Rights" states that Congress may not pass laws to
abrogate freedom of speech (extended by a later amendment to include
state legislatures), the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"  at
section 32 provides that it applies 

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters
within the authorityof Parliament including all matters relating to the
Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b)to the legislature and governement of each province in respect of all
matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. 

THe Charter does not apply to non-governemntal agencies or actions. 
Thus VCN not being a federal or provincial legislature or government nor
a creature of same is not subject to Charter provisions.  

It is open to any person to set up their own media outlets or ISP's and
publish whatever they wish. However the publications may contravene
criminal statutes or create a civil liability and lead to liability or
bans on such publication.  Simply because you post something on a
newsgroup or publish it to a web page does not insulate the writer or
the web page from criminal or civil liablity.  In the latter case since
a web page is in fact "published" under the auspices of a person or
company, the laws regarding publication of libel which catches other
publishers would most likely apply as well.  Whether or not such
liability would extend to an ISP that is simply a carrier is the
interesting question.  


Randy Wittchen

Theseus, Duke of Athens (NOSPAMjcarlisl@capcollege.bc.ca) wrote:
: 
: Free speech must be an absolute right, of there is no "free" speech at
: all.  Libel laws provide suficient protection to us all.  Hate laws are
: just a way of furthering the political agenda of those in power. 
: Unfortunately for the framers of so-called hate laws, they may not be in
: power forever. Thats why the 1st ammendment to the U.S. constitution is
: so important. It is a safeguard against tyranny.  Too bad we don't have
: the same rights here.

And you've just prooved that use of free speech should not be a
restriction on being foolish and self contradictory.  That's why I won't
get my knickers in a not over your statement here.  If freedom of speech
must be an "absolute" right, then libel laws (which you go on to support)
are a restriction of that absolute right.  You yourself have conceded that
there must be limits on rights.  Hate laws are no more a restriction on
free speech than libel laws.

As for the American First Amendment, we _do_ have the right to free speech
here.  Just because we have different names for things up here in Canada
doesn't mean we don't have them.  

BTW, the Americans also have anti-hate legislation.

Sean

***********************************************
Proofread carefully to see if you any words out
***********************************************

Arlo Smith wrote:
> 
> : >Free speech must be an absolute right....
> 
> If it were an absolute right, then, for example, slander and libel would no
> longer be criminal offenses.
> 
> What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the freedom
> to do people harm by speech.
> 
	As with all kinds of freedoms, there are boundaries. Otherwise, might will
really be right. Slander and libel is based on the same principle as personal
assault. You simply cannot, in a civilized society, go about with all shoulders
and elbows, hurting people by any means.

	The legal basis for slander and libel are based on the content being presented
to or made available to everyone, without supporting facts, which would lower
the plaintiff's esteem, in the eyes of his/her peers. The plaintiff must prove
that the "speech" has done that kind of harm, AND has suffered financial and/or
other losses as a result. AND, a lesser proof is that the defendent KNEW that
the content of the "speech" was NOT true or not accurate but still proceeded to
make it known by the general public.

	IF the defendent genuinely believes in what he/she said as being true, with
his/her supporting "evidence", then the plaintiff does not have a case.

	In other words, it is very difficult to nail somebody with a slander or libel
suit and win. I think that's enough protection for freedom of speech.

> --

-- 

Diana aka Bootsycat
Vancouver, B.C.   
When the going gets tough the tough go shopping

Arlo Smith wrote:
> 
> : >Free speech must be an absolute right....
> 
> If it were an absolute right, then, for example, slander and libel
> would no longer be criminal offenses.

Slander and libel are not now, nor have they ever been 'criminal
offenses'.

> What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the
> freedom to do people harm by speech.

No, he isn't.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
  If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
         http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/larryp
------------------------------------------------------------

'Scuse me-just butting in here...Seems to me if you don't like the
content of the post or header,don't read or don't reply. It'll die of
natural causes. All these white supremacy posts for example make me sad
and embarrased to share their pigment. But,I simply refuse to read their
rhetoric and certainly wouldn't perpetuate more posts by replying.Dan

Sean Vanderfluit (fluidd@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
: Theseus, Duke of Athens (NOSPAMjcarlisl@capcollege.bc.ca) wrote:

	(snip)

: And you've just prooved that use of free speech should not be a
: restriction on being foolish and self contradictory.  That's why I won't
: get my knickers in a not over your statement here.  If freedom of speech
: must be an "absolute" right, then libel laws (which you go on to support)
: are a restriction of that absolute right.  You yourself have conceded that
: there must be limits on rights.  Hate laws are no more a restriction on
: free speech than libel laws.

	gee.  i guess i should stifle the hernia i'm bound to get due to the 
laughing fit you've just induced.
	it would appear you are reserving the right to be in a condition 
of terminal foot in mouth.
	repeat after me "stating falsehoods about socio-cultural groups one 
has little exposure to induces those with similar (non) experiences to
develop prejudices against that group".

: As for the American First Amendment, we _do_ have the right to free speech
: here.  Just because we have different names for things up here in Canada
: doesn't mean we don't have them.  

	so do you reserve the right to state falsehoods?

: ***********************************************
: Proofread carefully to see if you any words out
: ***********************************************

	cool.  have you tried spellchecking as well, or has 
monoculturalism taken its toll?
-- 

me (dan_newman@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: 'Scuse me-just butting in here...Seems to me if you don't like the
: content of the post or header,don't read or don't reply. It'll die of
: natural causes. All these white supremacy posts for example make me sad
: and embarrased to share their pigment. But,I simply refuse to read their
: rhetoric and certainly wouldn't perpetuate more posts by replying.Dan

	'scuse me.  but that is everything but the case.

	hatred does indeed attract more hatred.  those of lesser (collective) 
experience have great difficulty accepting other groups do indeed 
contribute to the greater community, raise young and pay taxes.

	refusing anyone due to (any) group is prejudicial.  ie.  if you 
can put them in a group in your mind, you are extending prejudice.
-- 

Larry Phillips wrote:
> 
> Arlo Smith wrote:
> >
> > : >Free speech must be an absolute right....
> >
> > If it were an absolute right, then, for example, slander and libel
> > would no longer be criminal offenses.
> 
> Slander and libel are not now, nor have they ever been 'criminal
> offenses'.
> 
> > What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the
> > freedom to do people harm by speech.
> 
> No, he isn't.
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>   If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
>          http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/larryp
> ------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Larry

Defamatory statements( i.e. libel and slander) may carry criminal
sanctions in Canada.

Libel is a criminal offense per sections 296-316 of the Criminal Code
which deal with "Blasphemous Libel", "Defamatory Libel", liability for
publication of such libel and defences to such a charge.  Similarly the
Criminal Code contains provisions concerning "Seditious Libel" at
sections 59-61.  Another category of defamation under the Criminal Code
is offences dealing with "Hate Propaganda" and "Advocating Genocide" at
sections 318-319.


Randy Wittchen

Arlo Smith wrote:
> 
> Larry Phillips (larryp@bc.rogers.wave.ca) wrote:
> : Slander and libel are not now, nor have they ever been 'criminal
> : offenses'.
> 
> I meant actionable, okay?! Actionable! Actionable. Damn, I knew somebody
> would notice and give me the business. Damn. Actionable. YOu can be sued.
> If they weren't actionable, if freedom of speech was absolute, you
> couldn't be sued. That's what I meant.
> 
> : > What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the
> : > freedom to do people harm by speech.
> 
> : No, he isn't.
> 
> I see you're quite prepared to discuss the issue at length.
> --

Hi Arlo

You were correct in your first statement.  

Defamatory statements are actionable at civil law but there are a series
of offenses under the the Criminal Code as well such as blasphemous
libel, defamatory libel, seditious libel, advocating genocide and hate
propaganda.

Jason Black started this thread by asking if it was right for his ISP
account to be cancelled due to the conntent of some of his posts.  It is
my view that the ISP took a prudent course of action to ensure that it
would not be party to an offense or possibly guilty of publishing a
libellous statement by allowing him to post through its services.

Randy Wittchen

Larry Phillips wrote:
> 
> Arlo Smith wrote:
> > I meant actionable, okay?! Actionable! Actionable. Damn, I knew
> > somebody would notice and give me the business. Damn. Actionable. YOu
> > can be sued.
> 
> That's correct.
> 
> >:> What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the
> >:> freedom to do people harm by speech.
> >
> >: No, he isn't.
> >
> > I see you're quite prepared to discuss the issue at length.
> 
> No, I'm not. I was pointing something out to you. I don't care to
> discuss anything other than that.
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>   If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
>          http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/larryp
> ------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Larry

No he was correct the first time.

Randy Wittchen

Jim Butterfield wrote:
> 
> Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote (in part):
> 
>  ....
> : The case will likely revolve around the issue of whether an ISP is akin
> : to a newspaper, TV or radio station which can be liable for publishing
> : libelous or defamatory statements (of course subject to various defences
> : such as fair comment, etc.) or whether the ISP is like a telephone
> : company which is not liable for the content in messages by subscribers.
> 
> It may be of interest to note that a group of prominent Canadian jurists
> have produced a study on how they believe Canadian law will be applied to
> "misuse" of the internet.  I recommend that interested persons read the
> study, "The Cyberspace is not a No Law Land", which may be found at URL
> http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03117e.html - I will quote a few excerpts
> below.  Note that the general thrust is this:  The ISP is not responsible
> for such usage UNTIL it is brought to their attention; after that, it is
> believed that they must take action or they will become liable.  Note
> that the study deals with civil (not criminal) liability.
> 
> Sorry that the excerpt is fairly long .. it's still a substantial chop
> from the original document, which you can read at the URL above.
> 
>                   --Jim
<SNIP>

Hi Jim

Thanks for the pointer to the URL.

When this issue was first raised on the can.legal newsgroup that was my
initial take on liability as an ISP seems to fall between a common
carrier (e.g a telco) and a media outlet which actually publishes the
defamatory material.  An ISP propagates the message out to the Usenet so
it falls between the two.  Consider however that a moderated newsgroup
may have greater liability.

Another interesting issue would be web page content.  The person or
group publishing the web page IMHO would be liable under the same civil
and criminal principles as any other publisher.  Again an ISP on the
above reasoning should only be liable once it becomes aware and then
fails to do anything. 

Randy Wittchen

Randy Wittchen wrote:

> "Blasphemous Libel", "Defamatory Libel", "Seditious Libel"
> "Hate Propaganda" and "Advocating Genocide"

Wanna stick to the subject?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
  If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
         http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/larryp
------------------------------------------------------------

Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote (in part):

 ....
: The case will likely revolve around the issue of whether an ISP is akin
: to a newspaper, TV or radio station which can be liable for publishing
: libelous or defamatory statements (of course subject to various defences
: such as fair comment, etc.) or whether the ISP is like a telephone
: company which is not liable for the content in messages by subscribers. 

It may be of interest to note that a group of prominent Canadian jurists 
have produced a study on how they believe Canadian law will be applied to 
"misuse" of the internet.  I recommend that interested persons read the 
study, "The Cyberspace is not a No Law Land", which may be found at URL
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03117e.html - I will quote a few excerpts 
below.  Note that the general thrust is this:  The ISP is not responsible 
for such usage UNTIL it is brought to their attention; after that, it is 
believed that they must take action or they will become liable.  Note 
that the study deals with civil (not criminal) liability.

Sorry that the excerpt is fairly long .. it's still a substantial chop 
from the original document, which you can read at the URL above.

		  --Jim

******** EXCERPTS FROM "THE CYBERSPACE IS NOT A NO LAW LAND ********

4.1 The Prohibited Acts
 There are six principal situations which could generate civil
 liability on the Internet:
   -defamation, libel and harm to reputation;
   -invasion of privacy;
   -misuse or failure to protect personal information;
   -communication of erroneous information;
   -violation of secrecy; and
   -unfair competition.

4.1.1 DEFAMATION

At common law, a defamation action is made up of three elements:
 -offending statements made known by someone other than their author;
  the defamation refers to the plaintiff; and
  the statements are false and discredit the plaintiff.

Once proof of publication has been made, it is presumed that the
statements are false, that they were intended to defame and that the
plaintiff suffered damages.

In addition to the other key defences (the statements were true, the
statements were fair comment, the defendant was not motivated by
malice or the defendant is protected by a privilege), the "innocent
dissemination" defence is the most important in the context of the Internet.
Three conditions must be met for this defence to be successful:
 -the defendant was innocent of any knowledge of the libel contained in
   the work he disseminated;
  there was nothing in the work or in the circumstances under which it
   came to him or was disseminated by him which ought to have lead him to
   suppose that it contained a libel; and
  work was disseminated without any negligence.

The situation is essentially the same under Qu�bec civil law although
the analysis proceeds differently.

4.1.2 INVASION OF PRIVACY

Under Canadian common law, unlike the situation in the United States,
there is no recognition as such of the right to privacy. The Supreme
Court of Canada did recognize, starting in 1982, that the right to
privacy was protected to a certain degree by the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, at least in situations in which there was a
legitimate expectation of privacy.

Four provinces have adopted Privacy Acts in Canada (Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Newfoundland and British Columbia) under which invasion of
privacy is a tort for which an action can be instituted, without proof
of damage, against any person who knowingly and wrongfully violates
the privacy of another person. In general, these statutes are
expressed in general terms and would apply to messages travelling over
the Internet, with the possible exception of the Manitoba Act which
covers only messages sent over the telephone.

In general, a publication is not an invasion of privacy under
circumstances in which (in addition to other available defences) there
is reasonable justification for believing that it contains information
which is in the public interest, that it is fair comment on a matter
of public interest or that it is privileged, in accordance with the
rules relating to defamation.

In Qu�bec, privacy is protected by the provisions of Articles 35 to 41
of the Qu�bec Civil Code which protect the right to privacy and respect
for one's reputation.

Under both the common law and civil law regimes, privacy cannot be
recognized as absolute. The limits most likely to be encountered in
the Internet context are those following from consent, freedom of
expression, freedom of the press and other means of communication,
maintenance of public order, public interest in information and the
absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since electronic
environments are made up, like physical environments, of public and
private places, the reasonable expectation of privacy could vary
depending on the context in which the user is situated. A US court has
even established that there could be no reasonable expectation of
privacy in e-mail communications made by an employee to his supervisor
over the company's e-mail system notwithstanding any assurances that
such communications would not be intercepted by management!

4.1.3 PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION


 There is a distinction between protection of the right to privacy and
protection of personal information. The right to privacy has a greater
scope thanncept of protection of personal information. This nuance is
important on the Internet especially when operators of Websites and
on-line services start assembling information, sometimes
without the knowledge of their users and subscribers, about the
behaviour of those persons accessing such sites and services. In
Canada, only the Province of Qu�bec has adopted a legal regime on the
gathering of personal information and the making of files on other
people. These are contained in Sections 37 to 41 of the Qu�bec Civil
Code and these general provisions are complemented by a specific
statute governing the gathering, management and communication of
personal information by enterprises: an Act Respecting the Protection
of Personal Information in the Private Sector. These provisions would
apply even if the Internet is used to gather such personal information.

4.1.4 COMMUNICATION OF ERRONEOUS INFORMATION

At common law and under the Qu�bec civil law, a person communicating
information must be prudent and diligent to verify that the
information provided is not erroneous especially in circumstances in
which a reasonable person would know that he/she was being trusted by
the person to whom the information is provided. In the context of the
Internet, this is especially true of the on-line service providers and
operators of data banks. Operators of services intended for the
general public, with no prior contract between the information
provider and the user, have an obligation to be prudent and diligent
when they transmit information. If the operator is negligent and
transmits erroneous information, it could be held liable for damages.

In cases where the information is provided by professional data banks,
the courts have demonstrated a tendency to be more severe in imposing
liability standards, even going so far as to impose no-faultliability.

15 VIOLATION OF SECRECY

The study does not cover the whole field of the law relating to trade
secrets and fiduciary obligations. However, it is well established,
both at common law and under the Qu�bec civil law, that violation of
secrecy, whether made with the help of the Internet or through more
traditional means, is subject to sanction.

4.1.6 UNFAIR COMPETITION


 Competition is legitimate under Canada�s economic and legal system.
However, if it becomes deceitful or otherwise ceases to be fair and
honest, it is actionable both at civil law and under common law,
regardless of whether such activities take place on the Internet or in
more traditional "locations".

4.1 Who is responsible
The person who performs the illegal act is responsible for resulting 
damages. However, the Internet context raises important questions  
concerning the liability of all those who intervene in the Internet  
transmission chain of communication. The responsibility of these
persons depends on their actual activities not on who they are. The
best way to analyse the situation is to use metaphors comparing the 
conduct of the persons involved in the Internet content transmission
chain with those of traditional activities, even if those activities
are described in reference to the name of a person (e.g. a publisher)
rather than with the action itself. There are essentially seven     
metaphors:
   -publisher;
   -broadcaster;
   -re-broadcaster;
   -librarian, bookstore or news-stand;-re-transmitter;
   -space owner; and
   -common carrier

4.2.1 PUBLISHER

 A publisher communicates information to third parties knowing that
the information will be read, seen or heard. Voluntary publication
assumes knowledge of the content of the information transmitted. In
the Internet context, publication can result from the transmission of
files, from electronic discussions or from making available
information in files. In all these situations, the decision to publish
belongs to the publisher. From such controlling power follows
liability for the transmission of harmful information. Thus, if a
non-line service provider exercises a degree of control over the
information, it is reputed to be acting as a publisher. It may be that
where control is not of an editorial nature but of a technical nature,
or in order to prevent a discussion group from overflowing out of the
theme it is assigned, the site operator would then not be
automatically considered to be a publisher since it would exercise no
editorial control per se.

2 BROADCASTER

When they are free to broadcast, broadcasters are generally
considered to be the publishers of the statements they transmit and
thus have the same standards of liability as a publisher. Broadcaster
liability can also result from harmful statements made by members of
the public acting in their own names. An exception to this occurs if
the statements are made "live" unless the broadcaster endorses them or
the statements are made with the broadcaster�s prior knowledge or if
the broadcaster was shown to be negligent.

4.2.3 RE-BROADCASTER

 A re-broadcaster circulates material published by others. In
principle, a re-broadcaster is liable to the same extent as it would
have been if it had itself published the material in the first place.
Its liability, however, will be determined by its capability to verify
the content of the information broadcast.

4.2.4 LIBRARIAN

 Librarians, book sellers and operators of newsstands are distributors
 of information. Contrary to a re-broadcaster which repeats the
6information, these participants in the information distribution chain
only deliver or provide the information. Distributors do not control
content of the information they transmit. They are, therefore, not
liable if it is harmful. However, when made aware of the harmful
nature of the information, distributors have the duty to withdraw it.
Failing to do so, they can be held liable.

The same holds true on the Internet. An operator of an on-line
service, a Web site, a BBS, if it is not moderated, could be in the
same situation. It has no control over the information circulating on
the system and thus cannot know or have reason to know of the harmful
nature of the messages. For these reasons, it is usually not liable.

However, once made aware of the harmful nature of the information,
there is an obligation to take all necessary measures to prevent
circulation of the harmful content or to have it withdrawn.

4.2.5 RE-TRANSMITTER

Programming distributed by cable television distribution systems,
direct satellite to home broadcasting and the like do not originate
with these operators which do not modify the content of the programs
in any of the distributed signals. In these situations,
re-transmitters are not liable for the content they re-transmit.

4.2.6 SPACE OWNER

 In general, under Canadian law, space owners are not liable for the
activities of their tenants or guests unless they are aware of the
illegal activities of these people. However, once an owner is informed
of these illegal activities, it has an obligation to act. Likewise,
Internet site operators may not be initially liable for the content
posted or transmitted by their users, but they have an obligation to
withdraw the information once made aware that the information is
illegal.The true debate for "librarians", " re-transmitters" and "space
owners" is to determine at what point the obligation to withdraw
illegal material arises: is it when they are informed by a private
complainant or an authority (including police forces) or only after a
court decision pronounces that the material is illegal. We submit that
this will depend on the circumstances of every case but that the
liability of any intermediary would be lower if it can be demonstrated
that it acted with due diligence in the circumstances.

4.2.7 COMMON CARRIER

 Contrary to publishers and distributors, common carriers have the
obligation to carry any message and may not discriminate against the
content of the message nor against the person who sends it. Since they
act only as a conduit for transporting information from one site to
another, common carriers have in principle been freed of liability for
the content provided by their users and subscribers. It is generally
believed that when acting as common carriers, both the
telecommunications carriers and the Internet access providers would
enjoy the same level of immunity on the Internet. This depends, of
course, on the activity actually conducted by the carrier and access
provider.

In both cases, however, once made aware that information continuing to
reside on the network is harmful, the telecommunications common
carrier and the access provider would have the same obligation as
other operators to withdraw such information (if they have the legal
power to do so).

4.3 Relations between liability and control of information

 An access provider, a system operator or any other actor in the
Internet content transmission chain can, depending on circumstances,
have different degrees of control over information. Depending on the
degree of control effectively exercised, their liability would be
lesser or greater. If such a distributor has physical control over the
material published, it has the duty to make reasonable inquiries into
the accuracy of statements alleging that such material may be
potentially harmful. If such inquiries lead to the conclusion that the
material would indeed be harmful, it has the obligation to withdraw it
from circulation.  If it fails to do so, it may be held liable.

The longevity of the information also has a direct influence on the
possibility of exercising control. Liability will not be evaluated in
the same way for information that is stable than for information which
varies continuously. It is, in many cases, virtually impossible to
revise the content of variable information or, once transmitted, to
stop its circulation before damage is suffered. The liability of an
operator will therefore be greater with respect to stable information
than with continuously variable information.

Larry Phillips (larryp@bc.rogers.wave.ca) wrote:
: Slander and libel are not now, nor have they ever been 'criminal
: offenses'.

I meant actionable, okay?! Actionable! Actionable. Damn, I knew somebody 
would notice and give me the business. Damn. Actionable. YOu can be sued. 
If they weren't actionable, if freedom of speech was absolute, you 
couldn't be sued. That's what I meant. 

: > What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the
: > freedom to do people harm by speech.

: No, he isn't.

I see you're quite prepared to discuss the issue at length.
-- 

Arlo Smith wrote:
> I meant actionable, okay?! Actionable! Actionable. Damn, I knew
> somebody would notice and give me the business. Damn. Actionable. YOu
> can be sued.

That's correct.

>:> What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the
>:> freedom to do people harm by speech.
> 
>: No, he isn't.
> 
> I see you're quite prepared to discuss the issue at length.

No, I'm not. I was pointing something out to you. I don't care to
discuss anything other than that.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
  If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
         http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/larryp
------------------------------------------------------------

cj224@torfree.net (Jason Arron Black) wrote:
JB>
JB> should VCN or any freenet for that matter be able to create new rules
JB> and use them against you for things that were done or said
JB> before the rule was created?

VCN and all other "Freenets" are private entities; they're not elected parties
or part of any level of government.  Thus they have no responsibility to you or
I.  If you don't like the way they operate their business, stay away from them
altogether... it's that simple!

JB> Then the user after a few weeks attempts to log onto the freenet
JB> only to find that their account was cut, because they posted their phone
JB> number in the past...evn though the rule against it never existed.
JB>
JB> Is the Freenet right or was the users account wrongfully terminated?

VCN can terminate accounts for any reason at all that doesn't conflict with
existing laws.  In your case, their termination of your account WAS in itself
an attempt to comply with one of our nation's laws that YOU had been breaking.
Be happy you're not in jail.  So you lost your free internet account... awww...
pity.  Go get one elsewhere, for money, and make sure you keep your contract
(once you're a paid-up member with a contract in-hand, then you have recourse
if you feel your rights have been subjugated.)

Your servant,

<+]::-)
"Cyberpope", servant to Y'shua the King!
*NEW* e-mail: "gapope@vcn.bc.ca"


-- 
Your servant,
<+]::-)
(Cyberpope, servant to Y'shua the King!)

On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:19:00 -0800, Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote:

: Another interesting issue would be web page content.  The person or
: group publishing the web page IMHO would be liable under the same civil
: and criminal principles as any other publisher.  Again an ISP on the
: above reasoning should only be liable once it becomes aware and then
: fails to do anything. 

In the case of web pages (and perhaps newsgroups), an ISP is in an
analogous position to a commercial printer who just puts on to paper the
material a publisher has provided. 

What is the printer's liability in such a case?

I have had a printer reject material in a publication I edited, but
that, in my experience, is a rare exception.

-- 
	Chris F.A. Johnson                bq933@torfree.net
	***  Executive Director, Toronto Free-Net Inc.  ***
	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	http://www.interlog.com/~cfaj     cfaj@interlog.com

Larry Phillips wrote:
> 
> Randy Wittchen wrote:
> 
> > "Blasphemous Libel", "Defamatory Libel", "Seditious Libel"
> > "Hate Propaganda" and "Advocating Genocide"
> 
> Wanna stick to the subject?

Hi Larry

I believe I was sticking to the subject.  

It was incorrectly asserted that libel and slander were not criminal
offenses when someone (Arlo I believe) referred to them as offenses. 
This arose in the context of whether or not the ISP should have
cancelled an account when the content of certain postings was brought to
its attention.  The question asked by Jason Black was whether or not it
was right for the ISP to cancel his account based upon his past posts
which the ISP apprehended to be potential grounds for liability on its
part.

Defamatory statements may be oral (the tort of slander) or written (the
tort of libel) at common law and civil liability flows also from
publishing (i.e. repeating orally or in writing) such defamatory
statements.  The Criminal Code takes the common law in this area and
codifies it into offenses which can result in prosecution.  The Criminal
Code sections which I quoted are examples of defamatory statements,
publication and defenses which have taken the common law in this area
and affixed criminal sanctions often adopting the words from cases at
common law to define the offense.  This is not uncommon as a similar
process occurred with the common law torts of assault and battery.

Additionally a more generic species of defamation was made an offense
aimed at groups referrred to as hate propaganda and advocating
genocide.  At common law liability for defamatory statements was aimed
at protecting the reputation of the individual.  This was carried into
the Criminal Code via the offenses of blasphemous libel and defamatory
libel which are often referred to by the courts as criminal libel to
distinguish them from the common law torts.  Parliament believed that it
was not sufficient to prevent only defamation of individuals so the hate
propaganda and advocating or promoting genocide provisions were enacted.
In these offenses the target of the defamation is not an individual but
an "indentifiable group" defined as "any section of the public
distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin".  

BTW proceedings under the genocide and hate propaganda sections can only
be instituted with the consent of the Attorney-General. Under the other
Criminal Code sections dealing with defamatory statements, anyone may
lay a criminal information without the need for the consent of the A-G
and thus one of the complainants could very well have sworn out an
information naming Black and the ISP under the Criminal Code provisions
regarding criminal libel or filed a civil suit against both.  Assuming
that the ISP did not advocate the positions that Black was taking,
disassocoating itself from him is the intelligent thing to do in the
circumstances given the uncertain state of the law in this area.      

Once the ISP became aware of the content of Black's posts which I
understand came as a result of complaints, the ISP was faced with a
decision.  The ISP might potentially be held liable at both criminal and
common law for the content of a subscriber's postings.  Whether or not
in the end result the ISP would have been liable or prosecuted is an
open question. This matter is currently before the courts in another
case where a Toronto ISP has been sued for the postings of a
subscriber.  The ISP being a private (i.e non-governemental)
organization then had to decide if it wished to expose itself to
possible liablity or to ameliorate or mitigate its potential liablity by
revoking the account.  It adopted what I beleive to be a prudent course
given the current state of the law and cancelled the account.  Private
organizations and individuals generally act in their own economic
self-interests and there is no requirement that an ISP act
altruistically as if it were a member of the fourth estate espousing
freedom of expression.


Randy Wittchen

Brian Allardice wrote:
> 
> In article <34B96F84.2C7F@direct.ca>, Randy Wittchen <wittchen@direct.ca> says:
> 
> >Another interesting issue would be web page content.  The person or
> >group publishing the web page IMHO would be liable under the same civil
> >and criminal principles as any other publisher.  Again an ISP on the
> >above reasoning should only be liable once it becomes aware and then
> >fails to do anything.
> 
> But, as noted in the previous post, what constitutes "becoming aware"?
> 
> A nut case complaint?  Police acting on their own authority (Hello, hello
> hello, what's this indecent/blasphemous/seditious stuff then)?
> Or a court order.  I suspect the court order would be preferred by most,
> preserving both "the law" yet defending against arbitrary action by the
> authorities, let alone removing everything someone complains about.....
> 
> Cheers,
> dba

Brian Allardice wrote:
> 
> In article <34B96F84.2C7F@direct.ca>, Randy Wittchen <wittchen@direct.ca> says:
> 
> >Another interesting issue would be web page content.  The person or
> >group publishing the web page IMHO would be liable under the same civil
> >and criminal principles as any other publisher.  Again an ISP on the
> >above reasoning should only be liable once it becomes aware and then
> >fails to do anything.
> 
> But, as noted in the previous post, what constitutes "becoming aware"?
> 
> A nut case complaint?  Police acting on their own authority (Hello, hello
> hello, what's this indecent/blasphemous/seditious stuff then)?
> Or a court order.  I suspect the court order would be preferred by most,
> preserving both "the law" yet defending against arbitrary action by the
> authorities, let alone removing everything someone complains about.....
> 
> Cheers,
> dba

Hi Brian

OOPS!!!! hit the send button prematurely ("premature propagation"??).


"Becoming aware" will likely be defined by the courts as the trier of
fact in any particular case.  I suspect that this would be a fact driven
inquiry and based upon the particular circumstances.  However if several
complaints have been lodged with an ISP regarding the content of certain
posts and the potential illegality or civil liability is pointed out and
the ISP were to take no action, a court may well hold that the ISP
became aware.  This concept is only theoretical at this point although a
recent post by Jim Butterfield on this thread indicated that some recent
legal analysis adopts such a test for liability of the ISP.

Police always act on their own authority to investigate potential
criminal offenses with a view to laying charges.  In B.C. we have a
"charge approval" process whereby Crown Counsel reviews the charges
before they are laid and approves those supported by admissible evidence
which will result in a substantial likelihood of conviction.  In other
jurisdictions the police lay charges without such a process which often
leads to over-charging and increases the likelihood of a person
plea-bargaining to an offense which would not likely be proven at trial
because some of the weak charges have a potentially long sentence.  The
police will only investigate criminal libel and the hate propaganda and
genocide offenses. These latter offenses  may only be laid with the
consent of the Attorney General and apply to the laying of charges by
both police and any citizen.

Any person, including a "nut case" may swear out an information before a
Justice of the Peace alleging an indictable offense such as defamatory
libel or publishing the same has been committed.  This does not require
the approval of anyone.  Similarly any person could bring a civil suit
for libel or slander and publication and so name the ISP as well as the
poster.  It may be possible to have the charges dismissed or be
acquitted or have the suit dismissed or be found not liable, but you
will have expended time and money to do this.  As an ISP, why would you
take the chance of conviction or finding of liability and incur the
expense?

It is a basic tenet of our legal system that the courts are not in the
business of issuing orders defining the law until such time as the
matter has been brought before them by charge or suit.  The courts tell
us what the law is and affix liability and punishment only after a
trial.  This would be cold comfort to an ISP which was found liable or
convicted.  In such circumstances the ISP may well escape liability or
conviction or have any damages reduced to a nominal amount or punishment
suspended where the ISP can demonstrate that itn took action to
disassociate itself as soon as it became aware of the potential
liability.  (Note there are provisions for reference cases to provincial
Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada but these are only
rarely used and for strictly legal questions of overwhelming national
import such  as the recent reference to the SCC on Quebec's right to
secede).

Randy Wittchen

Arthur D. Mira wrote:
> 
> x-no-archive: yes
> 
> In bc.general, Randy Wittchen <wittchen@direct.ca> wrote:
> 
> =>Jason Black started this thread by asking if it was right for his
> =>ISP account to be cancelled due to the conntent of some of his
> =>posts.  It is my view that the ISP took a prudent course of action
> =>to ensure that it would not be party to an offense or possibly
> =>guilty of publishing a libellous statement by allowing him to post
> =>through its services.
> 
> There's at least a dozen CCof C established *defenses* dealing
> with defamatory libel to set the framework of who is a 'party to the
> offence' and who isn't.
> 
> What they did had more to do with expediency rather than prudence.
> On the up side, if there ever comes a case where one of their clients
> is charged, they're going to have a hell of a time establishing that
> they were unaware of that clients actions given this precedence.
> 
> In setting forth an AUP or TOS it's made quite clear that there is
> no 'right'  to service, much less human or civil rights. If there was,
> then Jason Black would be better advised to pursue it in a legal
> action, than spewing in usenet.
> 
> The part is that irks is that when a 'public' organization's members
> begin to act as judge, jury, and executioner using the *excuse*
> that someone *may* commit a civil or criminal offence. It's a
> mentality of expediency that has no place when dealing with
> legal matters for which they have a fiduciary responsibility.
> 
> They should have let sleeping dogs lie. The Toronto freenet
> did it also, and one of these days that sleeping dog is going to
> wake up and bite a freenet executive right in the butt.

Hi Arthur

One person's expediency may be another's prudence - it depends upon your
point of view.  I deem it prudent to try to avoid the risk that one
could be liable civilly or criminally for the actions of another.  While
there are defences likely open to the ISP, why incur the potential for
liability and considerable expense, be it upon a finding of liability or
simply defending one's position?  Court proceedings are expensive.  

The issue most alive (nad that which carries liability) for an ISP would
be the question of publication of a defamatory statement and iot is upon
this point that the law is most unclear.  Most private organizations and
individuals would not enjoy being the "test case" in this area.  However
there is nothing preventing Mr. Black from setting up his own ISP and
take the risk upon himself should he so wish.

ISP agreements and terms of service are nothing more than contracts
between private organizations and subscribers.  If a subscriber believes
that his/her rights under the contract have been breached, then the
civil courts are open.  I suspect that there would be little if any
damages awarded, even if liability was fixed upon the ISP in such
circumstances which IMHO is extremely unlikely. 

An ISP is a private, not a public, organization and it remains private
whether or not it is a "for profit" enterprise or non-profit society. 
The distinction is important as public (i.e government) organizations
are subject to the Charter.  

An ISP does not in any way stand in a fiduciary relationship to its
subscribers any more than a company to its shareholders.  Although
directors stand in a fiduciary relationship to the company (or the ISP
in this case) IMHO to establish a breach of fiduciary duty where the
directors are acting in good faith to protect the company (ISP) from
potential liability would be impossible.  Of course there is nothing to
prevent the election of directors who would act differently but then
they may be open to question for failure to protect the ISP should
liability subsequently be affixed.  

It is open for a private organization such as an ISP to take whatever
actions it deems advisable to protect its own interests subject to
criminal sanctions and civil liability.  It is the way of the world that
people watch out for their own interests.

There is nothing to prevent an ISP from establishing itself and decide
that it will take all subscribers and not have any rules regarding
subscriber postings.  In that case the ISP has made the conscious
decision that it will accept potential liability for whatever reasons
that it deems appropriate such a promotion of total freedom of
expression.  However any other ISP may decide that it does not ascribe
to such beliefs.


Randy Wittchen

In article <34BA773B.59FA@direct.ca>, Randy Wittchen <wittchen@direct.ca> says:


>Police always act on their own authority to investigate potential
>criminal offenses with a view to laying charges.  

I have no problems with investigations, I am more concerned about the
potential liability of an ISP leaving them vulnerable to police pressure.
The incident last year when police wandered into a library and tried to 
seize an allegedly pornographic book, only to be told to hop it by the 
librarian, comes to mind.  An ISP worried about liability/guilt would
be unlikely to act in such a way

>...

>Similarly any person could bring a civil suit
>for libel or slander and publication and so name the ISP as well as the
>poster....
>... As an ISP, why would you
>take the chance of conviction or finding of liability and incur the
>expense?

Nothing could induce me to face such a risk.  Which is why, as the law 
evolves, I believe it important that legislation should extend the 
immunities of a common carrier to the ISP's, leaving the poster to
face any repercussions caused by his actions without otherwise damaging
the free exchange on the internet.

>... where the ISP can demonstrate that it took action to
>disassociate itself as soon as it became aware of the potential
>liability.

Which is very much the situation I would think it best to avoid.
Potential liabilities (or criminal charges) can lurk anywhere.  At
any time I could inform an ISP that I find post "X" or site "Y" to 
be extremely offensive, damaging to me as an individual or as a 
member of an identifiable group, and most probably criminal.  What
is an ISP to do.  Nothing?  Shut it down on my say so?  Call in a 
lawyer for an expensive opinion?  In my view an ISP is in no position,
and should have no duty, to make any determination, and should by 
federal statute be held unaware, of such matters. 

It is in this respect that I find AUP's that go beyond "Thou shall not
spam" a bit tricky from an ISP's point of view.  Are they creating a duty
for themselves where none should exist?  How are they to judge if 
something is offensive/indecent/pornographic/libellous/blasphemous/
seditious.  They would have to hire every lawyer in the country.

Should I or anyone else have a problem with a post or site let the poster
beware.  Attacks on ISPs rather than offending individuals are motivated
solely by the desire to limit free speech.

Cheers,
dba

In article <34B96F84.2C7F@direct.ca>, Randy Wittchen <wittchen@direct.ca> says:


>Another interesting issue would be web page content.  The person or
>group publishing the web page IMHO would be liable under the same civil
>and criminal principles as any other publisher.  Again an ISP on the
>above reasoning should only be liable once it becomes aware and then
>fails to do anything. 

But, as noted in the previous post, what constitutes "becoming aware"?

A nut case complaint?  Police acting on their own authority (Hello, hello
hello, what's this indecent/blasphemous/seditious stuff then)?  
Or a court order.  I suspect the court order would be preferred by most,
preserving both "the law" yet defending against arbitrary action by the
authorities, let alone removing everything someone complains about.....

Cheers,
dba

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:19:00 -0800, Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote:
> 
> : Another interesting issue would be web page content.  The person or
> : group publishing the web page IMHO would be liable under the same civil
> : and criminal principles as any other publisher.  Again an ISP on the
> : above reasoning should only be liable once it becomes aware and then
> : fails to do anything.
> 
> In the case of web pages (and perhaps newsgroups), an ISP is in an
> analogous position to a commercial printer who just puts on to paper the
> material a publisher has provided.
> 
> What is the printer's liability in such a case?
> 
> I have had a printer reject material in a publication I edited, but
> that, in my experience, is a rare exception.
> 
> --
>         Chris F.A. Johnson                bq933@torfree.net
>         ***  Executive Director, Toronto Free-Net Inc.  ***
>         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>         http://www.interlog.com/~cfaj     cfaj@interlog.com

Hi Chris

I can envisage situations where a printer might be liable particularly
as it may relate to hate propaganda.

Depending upon the content and whether or not we are speaking of
criminal or civil liability, different results may obtain.  Jim
Butterfield earlier in this thread posted the URL for a study of civil
and criminal liability on the Internet.  The study is called "The
Cyberspace is not a No Law Land" at
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03117e.html.

The sections on criminal and civil liablity attempt to analyse liability
in light of current law and practise.  It is extremely well-written and
should be required reading for all ISP's.  

As well the writers make the point which is often overlooked that
individuals who post defamatory statements to a newsgroup are as liable
for those statements as if they were made by any other mode of
transmission.

Randy Wittchen

Arthur D. Mira (admiral@ilos.net) wrote:
: x-no-archive: yes

	(snip)

: The part is that irks is that when a 'public' organization's members
: begin to act as judge, jury, and executioner using the *excuse*
: that someone *may* commit a civil or criminal offence. It's a
: mentality of expediency that has no place when dealing with
: legal matters for which they have a fiduciary responsibility.

: They should have let sleeping dogs lie. The Toronto freenet
: did it also, and one of these days that sleeping dog is going to
: wake up and bite a freenet executive right in the butt.

	excuse me.  ab330 was reinstated shortly after the '96 agm.
	and later (4 months?) deleted at the account holder's request.

	the deletion request was hand delivered by the account holder to 
the registrar with the bod and sundry members in witness.

	if you have a consideration, it is in the breadth of what 
consitutes a "security threat" to such an organisation.  

	considering the tfn is VERY reliant on a very FEW organisations 
for resources (and the membership appears yet reluctant to shoulder more 
of the REAL operational cost - despite ongoing service enhancements and 
educational programs aimed at this), addressing the concerns of donor 
organisations would appear prudent.

	it certainly beats having one's plug pulled in the middle of the 
night (hmmm, maybe that is context sensitive). 
-- 

On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 16:16:32 -0800, "D.Hu" <dhu@smartt.com> wrote:

>Arlo Smith wrote:
>> 
>> : >Free speech must be an absolute right....
>> 
>> If it were an absolute right, then, for example, slander and libel would no
>> longer be criminal offenses.
>> 
>> What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the freedom
>> to do people harm by speech.
>> 
>	As with all kinds of freedoms, there are boundaries. Otherwise, might will
>really be right. Slander and libel is based on the same principle as personal
>assault. You simply cannot, in a civilized society, go about with all shoulders
>and elbows, hurting people by any means.
>
>	The legal basis for slander and libel are based on the content being presented
>to or made available to everyone, without supporting facts, which would lower
>the plaintiff's esteem, in the eyes of his/her peers. The plaintiff must prove
>that the "speech" has done that kind of harm, AND has suffered financial and/or
>other losses as a result. AND, a lesser proof is that the defendent KNEW that
>the content of the "speech" was NOT true or not accurate but still proceeded to
>make it known by the general public.
>
>	IF the defendent genuinely believes in what he/she said as being true, with
>his/her supporting "evidence", then the plaintiff does not have a case.
>
>	In other words, it is very difficult to nail somebody with a slander or libel
>suit and win. I think that's enough protection for freedom of speech.
>
>> --
  There are several issues here. I must first make the disclaimer that
I am utterly opposed to racism , gender stereotyping (sexism) or
anything that hinders people in reaching their potential
 In any society we can only go by the rules as laid out by that
society.Or not and suffer the penalties. To my mind Jason was probably
wronged and these actions promulgate the very thing that the VFN was
opposing. Retroactive penalties are certainly undemocratic.
 Another issue is the one that has focused so many defenders of the
I-net. Is the carrier guilty of the same offense as the perpetrator ?
 By that logic a mailman or the postal service could find themselves
liable to prosecution for a letter-bomb or tracts mailed as conspiracy
This sort of control is presently being used by oppressive regimes the
world over e.g. China and Indonesia . It is the thin edge of
repression and IMHO must be opposed. 
Web pages are a different animal and the carrier should be responsable
after proper notification.
  The other issue is what you have addressed above and I agree with
your presentation except it doesn't take into account that in the
practical world the wealthy can use it to suppress things they don't
like under threat of the costs of litigation, as in the Reichman
biography case. Ontario especially has wealth friendly libel and
slander laws which can discourage the faint hearted 
   The VFN board was likely well-meaning but they were WRONG, WRONG,
WRONG, if not simply gutless like Compuserve in Germany, if the facts
as presented were true.

ciao   larry

  

"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of
 predjudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of 18."
...Albert Einstein 

Jason Arron Black wrote:

> Is the Freenet right or was the users account wrongfully terminated?

The VCN (formerly called "FreeNet") was most assuredly wrong when
it terminated the users account!

General Cabot

-- 
CAPE BRETON LIBERATION ARMY
Western Division
mailto:gencabot@hotmail.com

Barbara Amero wrote:
> 
> General Cabot Trail wrote:
> >
> > Jason Arron Black wrote:
> >
> > > Is the Freenet right or was the users account wrongfully terminated?
> >
> > The VCN (formerly called "FreeNet") was most assuredly wrong when
> > it terminated the users account!
> > General Cabot
> > CAPE BRETON LIBERATION ARMY
> > Western Division
> > mailto:gencabot@hotmail.com
> 
> What's VCN?
> 
> Chebucto Community Net (a "FreeNet"), whose Mission

VCN is a Vancouver based freenet that pulled the account of Jason Black
for posting what they felt were hate messages. This was done with
minimal intervention from other Usenet users (unlike in your case) and
was, in fact, based on a new rule introduced that was applied
retroactively to his account.

As to whether either termination was fair, I don't know. Each instance
stinks (IMHO) for different reasons despite my strong feelings of
distaste for the posts of either person but it does raise the question
of whether or not a company (or a freenet) can moderate the content of
their subscribers posts. Still waiting for a court case to decide.

-- 
Gord, Sue & Countess McKenzie
"Anyone with brains knows not to take anything
posted here too seriously, it's a sandbox for adults."

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:22:06 -0800, Gordon McKenzie <me@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Barbara Amero wrote:
>> 
>> General Cabot Trail wrote:
>> >
>> > Jason Arron Black wrote:

>> 
>> What's VCN?
>> 
>> Chebucto Community Net (a "FreeNet"), whose Mission
>
>VCN is a Vancouver based freenet that pulled the account of Jason Black
>for posting what they felt were hate messages. This was done with
>minimal intervention from other Usenet users (unlike in your case) and
>was, in fact, based on a new rule introduced that was applied
>retroactively to his account.
>
>As to whether either termination was fair, I don't know. Each instance
>stinks (IMHO) for different reasons despite my strong feelings of
>distaste for the posts of either person but it does raise the question
>of whether or not a company (or a freenet) can moderate the content of
>their subscribers posts. Still waiting for a court case to decide.

This is exactly WHY the campaign started in ns.general was ill advised
and instigated without considering the full ramifications of their
actions. However it would appear the perpetrators aren't ever going to
get a full grasp of the situation. I really hate it when people piss
in the pool.
______
spider

Free Flames
email: w3spider@wpg.flame

Gordon McKenzie wrote:
> 
> Barbara Amero wrote:
> > General Cabot Trail wrote:
> > > Jason Arron Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is the Freenet right or was the users account wrongfully terminated?
> > >
> > > The VCN (formerly called "FreeNet") was most assuredly wrong when
> > > it terminated the users account!
> > > General Cabot

> > What's VCN?
> >
> > Chebucto Community Net (a "FreeNet"), whose Mission
> 
> VCN is a Vancouver based freenet that pulled the account of Jason Black
> for posting what they felt were hate messages. This was done with
> minimal intervention from other Usenet users (unlike in your case) and
> was, in fact, based on a new rule introduced that was applied
> retroactively to his account.

I didn't know that Jason Black's account had been terminated.
Isn't he the one who posted "another rant by a man-hating cunt"
in reference to Karen Gordon's post? Other than that I've not
seen any posts by him. I think he sent me email about my post 
in the thread Rape Proclivity Among Males - FISH IS MORE RELEVANT, 
commenting on it being controversial. The email is still in 
my CCN files.
 
> As to whether either termination was fair, I don't know. Each instance
> stinks (IMHO) for different reasons despite my strong feelings of
> distaste for the posts of either person 

You say that you have strong feelins of distaste for my
posts, but do not have any feelings of distaste for YOUR
posts in alt.tasteless.jokes in which you demean and 
degrade women!!! And seemingly do not have distaste
for YOUR posts in these newsgroups making light of rape, 
making rape a joke. So much for your taste/distaste.

> but it does raise the question
> of whether or not a company (or a freenet) can moderate the content of
> their subscribers posts. Still waiting for a court case to decide.

That doesn't apply to my case, according to CCN.
CCN stated that I did not break the rules of the
User Agreement, stated that my account was not
terminated because of "content". And some of the
CCN Board members who terminated my account now
want to make "personal" donations (money) to help
me pay for my new ISP. What do you think of that
Gordon?

Barbara A. Amero

General Cabot Trail wrote:
> 
> Jason Arron Black wrote:
> 
> > Is the Freenet right or was the users account wrongfully terminated?
> 
> The VCN (formerly called "FreeNet") was most assuredly wrong when
> it terminated the users account!
> General Cabot
> CAPE BRETON LIBERATION ARMY
> Western Division
> mailto:gencabot@hotmail.com

What's VCN?

Chebucto Community Net (a "FreeNet"), whose Mission 
Statement is to provide all members of the community 
with access to the Internet, recently wrongfully 
terminated Barbara Amero's account by breaking a 
contract for service. According to the Chair of the 
CCN Policy Committee (John van Gurp), I, Barbara Amero, 
was not in violation of this contract, the User Agreement -- 
that I did not break any rules of the User Agreement. 

Clearly my account was wrongfully terminated and I have 
the option to sue Chebucto Community Net for breaking a 
contract for service. I received a letter from the law
firm, McInnes Cooper & Robertson, signed by Hugh Wright,
lawyer and member of the CCN Board of Directors. This letter
stated that the reason for account termination was contained
in the email sent to me from John van Gurp dated Jan. 4/98.
The reason stated by John van Gurp was that CCN was no
longer willing to provide me with an Internet account
because the number of complaints about my Usenet postings
was overwhelming. John van Gurp, also, told me during a
telephone conversation that most of the complaints were
not legitimate and could be easily dismissed, but some
had to be looked at out of concern for liability. I've
not seen the complaints and CCN has not responded to
my questions about the complaints. Can  CCN be liable 
for what its users post in Usenet? Not according to some 
people, since CCN is not a publisher, is not moderating 
the posts.

Seemingly CCN held Barbara Amero responsible for people
filling CCN mailboxes with complaints which they said
CCN, a volunteer run organization, could not deal with
and terminated her account. After not posting for 3
months during the summer, I started posting again in
September. Shortly after that John Jenkins Sr. targeted
me, launched an attack on me, harassed me, and is still
harassing me. John Jenkins Sr. started many derogatory,
libelous cross-posted threads about me and almost daily 
called on the public to send MANY complaints to CCN to get 
my account terminated. John Jenkins Sr., also, called on
the public to send MANY emails to me to disable my
mailbox so that I could not send or receive email.
That is harassment and could possibly be considered
"public mischief", according to the police. CCN should 
have held John Jenkins Sr. and the people filling CCN 
mailboxes with MANY bogus complaints responsible and 
dealt with them. CCN wrongly terminated my account!

Now some members of the Board of Directors of Chebucto 
Community Net want to make "personal" donations (money)
to help Barbara Amero pay for her Internet access 
through DBIS. 

I, Barbara Amero, am offended, insulted, outraged by
the treatment I received from Chebucto Community Net,
i.e. wrongful termination of my account, and equally
offended, insulted, outraged by some members of the
Chebucto Community Net Board of Directors (mostly men)
offering "personal" donations (money) to pay for my 
Internet access. If I let these power suits, men,
economically support my access to the Internet, what
would that make me? Hmm...?

While I proudly identify myself as demimonde, that does
not mean that I am a kept woman! Nor do I want to be!!

What I want is for Chebucto Community Net to honor
the contract for service, which I negotiated late
last spring after CCN sent me email telling me that
it was time to renew my account; to acknowledge that
CCN made the wrong decision in terminating the account
of one of its users because of the preference of others,
i.e. others who wanted to silence her, to get her  
account terminated; to send a clear message to all 
that in the future Chebucto Community Net will not 
deny a member of the community access to the Internet 
simply because some people want to silence a voice 
and assault, harass Chebucto Community Net with a 
barrage of complaints. 

Barbara A. Amero

Barbara Amero (amero@dbis.ns.ca) wrote:

	(snip)

: September. Shortly after that John Jenkins Sr. targeted
: me, launched an attack on me, harassed me, and is still
: harassing me. John Jenkins Sr. started many derogatory,
: libelous cross-posted threads about me and almost daily 
: called on the public to send MANY complaints to CCN to get 
: my account terminated. John Jenkins Sr., also, called on
: the public to send MANY emails to me to disable my
: mailbox so that I could not send or receive email.
: That is harassment and could possibly be considered
: "public mischief", according to the police. CCN should 
: have held John Jenkins Sr. and the people filling CCN 
: mailboxes with MANY bogus complaints responsible and 
: dealt with them. CCN wrongly terminated my account!

	the culturally divisive nature of john jenkins sr.'s posts  should 
be of note here (he has a longstanding history of disparaging every group 
other than white european).

	it should also be noted jason arron black has expressed similar 
sentiments of recent in torfree.teens.

	that chebucto could sympathise with the likes of the above and 
respond to their demands for censorship (hmmm, haven't both parties in 
the past associated themselves with the "freedom site"?  hmmm) would seem 
indeed confounding.
-- 

w3spider@wpg.flame wrote:
[snip]

> This is exactly WHY the campaign started in ns.general was ill advised
> and instigated without considering the full ramifications of their
> actions. However it would appear the perpetrators aren't ever going to
> get a full grasp of the situation. I really hate it when people piss
> in the pool.

This is exactly WHY Maritimers have earned the
reputation of being "thick between the ears".

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Barbara Amero wrote:

::Gordon McKenzie wrote:
::> 
::> Barbara Amero wrote:
::> > General Cabot Trail wrote:
::> > > Jason Arron Black wrote:
::> > >
::> > > > Is the Freenet right or was the users account wrongfully terminated?
::> > >
::> > > The VCN (formerly called "FreeNet") was most assuredly wrong when
::> > > it terminated the users account!
::> > > General Cabot
::
::> > What's VCN?
::> >
::> > Chebucto Community Net (a "FreeNet"), whose Mission
::> 
::> VCN is a Vancouver based freenet that pulled the account of Jason Black
::> for posting what they felt were hate messages. This was done with
::> minimal intervention from other Usenet users (unlike in your case) and
::> was, in fact, based on a new rule introduced that was applied
::> retroactively to his account.
::
::I didn't know that Jason Black's account had been terminated.
::Isn't he the one who posted "another rant by a man-hating cunt"
::in reference to Karen Gordon's post? Other than that I've not
::seen any posts by him. I think he sent me email about my post 
::in the thread Rape Proclivity Among Males - FISH IS MORE RELEVANT, 
::commenting on it being controversial. The email is still in 
::my CCN files.
:: 
::> As to whether either termination was fair, I don't know. Each instance
::> stinks (IMHO) for different reasons despite my strong feelings of
::> distaste for the posts of either person 
::
::You say that you have strong feelins of distaste for my
::posts, but do not have any feelings of distaste for YOUR
::posts in alt.tasteless.jokes in which you demean and 
::degrade women!!! And seemingly do not have distaste
::for YOUR posts in these newsgroups making light of rape, 
::making rape a joke. So much for your taste/distaste.

Will you get off it? Jokes are *not* automatically demeaning and degrading.
Perhaps you use them this way, but that does not automatically mean that
your view of the world is the only one. Most people use joking as a way to
come to terms with situations or events that they have trouble dealing 
with. Humour is a healing activity for normal people. I think you are
projecting *your* usage of humour, and *your* view of things, onto the
rest of the world. Learn to expand your view.

::
::> but it does raise the question
::> of whether or not a company (or a freenet) can moderate the content of
::> their subscribers posts. Still waiting for a court case to decide.
::
::That doesn't apply to my case, according to CCN.
::CCN stated that I did not break the rules of the
::User Agreement, stated that my account was not
::terminated because of "content". And some of the
::CCN Board members who terminated my account now
::want to make "personal" donations (money) to help
::me pay for my new ISP. What do you think of that
::Gordon?
::
::Barbara A. Amero
::

Always some one else paying your way, isn't there?

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Escaping outward, through the stars, through rings of ice and fire.
To chase the comet's tail, and find: the answer to desire. - Rick Brison
		http://www.eskimo.com/~brisonr/

Locate Us of Bronze wrote:
 > On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Barbara Amero wrote:
> ::Gordon McKenzie wrote: 
> Barbara Amero wrote:

> ::You say that you have strong feelins of distaste for my
> ::posts, but do not have any feelings of distaste for YOUR
> ::posts in alt.tasteless.jokes in which you demean and
> ::degrade women!!! And seemingly do not have distaste
> ::for YOUR posts in these newsgroups making light of rape,
> ::making rape a joke. So much for your taste/distaste.
> 
> Will you get off it? Jokes are *not* automatically demeaning and degrading.

You get off it! I did not say that jokes are automatically
demaning and degrading. I said the jokes Gordon posted and
particpated in with others were demeaning and degrading to
women, including a dead Nun, soon to be Saint. And any jokes
that make light of rape, make rape a joke are demeaning and
degrading!

> Perhaps you use them this way, but that does not automatically mean that
> your view of the world is the only one. Most people use joking as a way to
> come to terms with situations or events that they have trouble dealing
> with. Humour is a healing activity for normal people. I think you are
> projecting *your* usage of humour, and *your* view of things, onto the
> rest of the world. Learn to expand your view.

See above and FUCK OFF! Men demeaning and degrading women with humor
is not a healing activity.
 
> ::> but it does raise the question
> ::> of whether or not a company (or a freenet) can moderate the content of
> ::> their subscribers posts. Still waiting for a court case to decide.
> ::
> ::That doesn't apply to my case, according to CCN.
> ::CCN stated that I did not break the rules of the
> ::User Agreement, stated that my account was not
> ::terminated because of "content". And some of the
> ::CCN Board members who terminated my account now
> ::want to make "personal" donations (money) to help
> ::me pay for my new ISP. What do you think of that
> ::Gordon?
> ::
> ::Barbara A. Amero

 > Always some one else paying your way, isn't there?

   No. I didn't accept the offer ASSHOLE.

   Chen, go jerk off in earl's garbage can.

Barbara Amero wrote:
> 
> Locate Us of Bronze wrote:
>  > On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Barbara Amero wrote:
> > ::Gordon McKenzie wrote:
> > Barbara Amero wrote:
<SNIP> 
> See above and FUCK OFF! Men demeaning and degrading women with humor
> is not a healing activity.
> 
> > ::> but it does raise the question
> > ::> of whether or not a company (or a freenet) can moderate the content of
> > ::> their subscribers posts. Still waiting for a court case to decide.
> > ::
> > ::That doesn't apply to my case, according to CCN.
> > ::CCN stated that I did not break the rules of the
> > ::User Agreement, stated that my account was not
> > ::terminated because of "content". And some of the
> > ::CCN Board members who terminated my account now
> > ::want to make "personal" donations (money) to help
> > ::me pay for my new ISP. What do you think of that
> > ::Gordon?
> > ::
> > ::Barbara A. Amero
> 
>  > Always some one else paying your way, isn't there?
> 
>    No. I didn't accept the offer ASSHOLE.
> 
>    Chen, go jerk off in earl's garbage can.


Hi Barbara

As I gather from this exchange you had your account terminated at a
previous ISP.

Your present language in your post could very well form the basis for
termination of your account at your current ISP if brought to their
attention via a complaint.  You may wish to review your ISP's account
agreement and/or Terms Of Service (TOS) as such language that you are
employing are generally grounds for termination of accounts under these
agreements.  

ISP's are becoming more concerned regarding potential civil and criminal
liablity for the posts and web pages of their subscribers.  A Toronto
ISP was recently joined to a defamation action against one of its
subscribers for publishing libel.  

There is an interesting analysis of theses issues including the
potential liablity of ISP's at
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03117e.html in a report entitled "The
Cyberspace is not a 'No Law' Land".  Persons should be aware that
posting to a Newsgroup may attract the same civil and/or criminal
liablities as any other media in regards to defamation, criminal libel,
publishing libel and hate propaganda. 


Randy

Locate Us of Bronze (brisonr@eskimo.com) wrote:

: Will you get off it? Jokes are *not* automatically demeaning and degrading.
: Perhaps you use them this way, but that does not automatically mean that
: your view of the world is the only one. Most people use joking as a way to
: come to terms with situations or events that they have trouble dealing 
: with. Humour is a healing activity for normal people. I think you are
: projecting *your* usage of humour, and *your* view of things, onto the
: rest of the world. Learn to expand your view.

	i'm sorry.  but i fail to see the humour in the following:

Thomas M. Cantine wrote:
> 
> In article <34CCDFFE.4E35@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <amero@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Locate Us of Bronze wrote:
> >  > On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Barbara Amero wrote:
> > > ::Gordon McKenzie wrote:
> > > Barbara Amero wrote:
> >
> > > ::You say that you have strong feelins of distaste for my
> > > ::posts, but do not have any feelings of distaste for YOUR
> > > ::posts in alt.tasteless.jokes in which you demean and
> > > ::degrade women!!! And seemingly do not have distaste
> > > ::for YOUR posts in these newsgroups making light of rape,
> > > ::making rape a joke. So much for your taste/distaste.
> > >
> > > Will you get off it? Jokes are *not* automatically demeaning and degrading.
> >
> > You get off it! I did not say that jokes are automatically
> > demaning and degrading. I said the jokes Gordon posted and
> > particpated in with others were demeaning and degrading to
> > women, including a dead Nun, soon to be Saint. And any jokes
> > that make light of rape, make rape a joke are demeaning and
> > degrading!
> 
>    I haven't seen the specific jokes you're referring to (and I'm not
> particularly interested in seeing them, either), so I'm only raising a
> general question here, not aimed at any particular joke.
> 
>    I'm interested to know how you'd distinguish between a joke that makes
> light of rape and a joke about rape, or do you hold them to be necessarily
> the same thing? That is, would you want to say that a joke about rape is by
> definition a joke that makes light of rape?

I said any jokes that make light of rape, make rape a joke, 
i.e. meaning to take away the seriousness of rape, which is 
no joke. I will clarify that now by saying that any, all jokes
about rape make light of rape, make rape a joke, take away the
seriousness of rape. Rape is no joke!

Barbara A. Amero

In article <34CCDFFE.4E35@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <amero@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:

> Locate Us of Bronze wrote:
>  > On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Barbara Amero wrote:
> > ::Gordon McKenzie wrote: 
> > Barbara Amero wrote:
> 
> > ::You say that you have strong feelins of distaste for my
> > ::posts, but do not have any feelings of distaste for YOUR
> > ::posts in alt.tasteless.jokes in which you demean and
> > ::degrade women!!! And seemingly do not have distaste
> > ::for YOUR posts in these newsgroups making light of rape,
> > ::making rape a joke. So much for your taste/distaste.
> > 
> > Will you get off it? Jokes are *not* automatically demeaning and degrading.
> 
> You get off it! I did not say that jokes are automatically
> demaning and degrading. I said the jokes Gordon posted and
> particpated in with others were demeaning and degrading to
> women, including a dead Nun, soon to be Saint. And any jokes
> that make light of rape, make rape a joke are demeaning and
> degrading!

   I haven't seen the specific jokes you're referring to (and I'm not
particularly interested in seeing them, either), so I'm only raising a
general question here, not aimed at any particular joke.

   I'm interested to know how you'd distinguish between a joke that makes
light of rape and a joke about rape, or do you hold them to be necessarily
the same thing? That is, would you want to say that a joke about rape is by
definition a joke that makes light of rape?

-- 
Thomas M. Cantine, Philosopher for hire
/=================================\
|     "Will Think For Food"       |
\=================================/
http://www.incentre.net/tcantine/home.html

Thomas M. Cantine wrote:
> 
> In article <34D0C9EF.40CF@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <amero@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Thomas M. Cantine wrote:
> > >    I'm interested to know how you'd distinguish between a joke that makes
> > > light of rape and a joke about rape, or do you hold them to be necessarily
> > > the same thing? That is, would you want to say that a joke about rape is by
> > > definition a joke that makes light of rape?
> >
> > I said any jokes that make light of rape, make rape a joke,
> > i.e. meaning to take away the seriousness of rape, which is
> > no joke. I will clarify that now by saying that any, all jokes
> > about rape make light of rape, make rape a joke, take away the
> > seriousness of rape. Rape is no joke!
> 
>    I certainly agree that rape is no joke, but I don't think I agree with
> the general claim that any joke about rape necessarily means to downplay
> the seriousness of rape. Humour is sometimes based on a sense of outrage,
> and not always a belittling of the topic. Remember the outrageous,
> exaggerated violence in the Monty Python sketch about Sam Peckinpah's
> "Salad Days"?

I understand your views on jokes. I remember the story
about the ear and your relatives funeral, that would be
similar to the kind of joking I've been known to engage
in with others who understand... well, I have on occasion
made similar jokes to people who don't understand. I have 
used humour based on outrage without belittling the topic.
I use humour in times of stress. One e.g. would be years ago 
while I was just hanging around waiting for a wanted pregnancy
to miscarry. I made some rather outrageous jokes about the fetus, 
which would have offended some people. The humour was a way of
coping with a difficult situation. Or I use humour when I'm
frustrated, which got me into trouble for a few hours once 
when I made a joke to one of Mr.State's minions who didn't 
understand. And my expression of humour is at times not
understood by those who know me, i.e. they don't know I'm
joking. No matter what is dished my way, heaped on my plate
or whatever, I am able to laugh about it, find humour in it,
laugh at myself, etc. Humour is a good thing, but like anything
else can be a bad thing, if people use humour, only, to express
their feelings; or use it abusively, for e.g., to silence
another with humour. And women have a history of using self-
deprecating humour, which devalues them -- that's not a good
thing.

I remember the comment you made about your son and Thanksgiving,
which I played along with and asked if you were planning to stuff 
him. I'm sure most of us would agree such was humour that was not 
harmful -- but, I would not have said it in his presence. As a
child, I was exposed to a lot of damaging humour, so such is an
issue for me.

I tell and laugh at others sexist jokes on both sides of
the fence and think we (women and men) have to be able to
laugh at ourselves. But there is always some point at which
I draw the line. And I struggle with whether or not we should
do it at all. 
 
>  Of course, with rape, it's kind of different in that rape is rather more
> common than cannibalism in this society. So the idea of someone actually
> committing rape is all too believable, and thus much harder to joke about,

Perhaps for you, but it's not hard for others to joke about.
Over the years, I've been exposed to a lot of joking about rape,
that makes light of rape.

> and  we have to introduce some element of unbelievability to allow the
> humour in. Say, for example, putting my 10 month old son in a lineup as a
> rape suspect. Something ludicrous like that. Or maybe something about that
> obnoxious purple dinosaur getting gang-raped by a pack of demented
> Care-Bears.

I don't see any humour in those examples, and suggest that
such comments do make light of rape.

>  Anyway, my point is simply that the interpretation of a joke about rape
> as necessarily making light of rape is not perfectly complete. 

I'm trying to think of jokes that would not make light of rape
and can't think of any. I used to have a quote on my homepage
about rape... that even the most die-hard femininst would have
to agree that rape is something men can do better (something
like that). Would that be considered a joke that does not make
light of rape? I don't think that's a joke, but rather sarcasm
based on truth... if we give rape the meaning of occuring only
if a male's penis has penetrated a female's vagina (which is still 
the legal definition in some states). In here, I've been accused
of making light of rape by using another meaning of rape, which
is a violation. In here I have been violated to the max -- my
genitals, most of my external body parts, my mental faculty,
to the point of death, i.e. my violent murder reported in
graphic detail. I can't think of anything that could further 
violate me in here. So I don't know why the fellas don't give
up -- if none of that silenced me, got rid of me, what more
is there that they can post with words or pictures (I've
had a picture representing my genitals posted, a picture
representing my bare butt, thighs posted). When I say that
I feel as tho' I've been raped in here and gang-raped, I
mean it. Others say that they're just words or pictures on
a screen and have no effect, that is not so. A woman posted
recently that there is no physical presence in here, that
is not so.

> If we accept
> the absurdity type of humour, then it is conceivable for a naive but
> well-intentioned person (one who sincerely is unaware of the actual
> frequency of rape, for example) to joke about rape on the assumption that
> surely no one would ACTUALLY do that, would they? Such a person's
> incredulity when you answer "Yes, people DO do that all the time," is not a
> sign of evil intent, but perhaps a desire to maintain faith in the goodness
> of one's fellow humans.

With just words here, I'm not sure what you mean. How is
saying that Yes people DO do that all the time a desire
to maintain faith in the goodness of one's fellow humans?

In several threads, I've posted Charles Jones article on 
rape in which he says that most men are still not aware
that rape is a problem.

You've not provided me with any examples of jokes about
rape that do not make light of rape. Jenkins claims that
he does not joke about rape, make light of rape, yet
starts a thread called, Rape Proclivity Among Males -
FISH IS MORE RELEVANT. That makes light of rape. The
on-going put downs and jokes directed to me IRT the
conflicting rape statistics was viewed by the men as
ridiculing me, ribbing me, teasing me or whatever and
not making light of rape. I disagree. They took a
serious discussion about rape and turned it into a
big joke, a yuk yuk. Jenkins made comments about 
testosterone levels. He made many posts calling for 
a reasonable, logical interpretation of how that many 
rapes could occurr in an hour with 16 women. Well,
obviously gang-rape is a reasonable, logical
interpretation -- one that he didn't seem to think of.
Or perhaps he considers 10 men raping one woman to
be one count of rape.

To conclude, you'll have to come up with something better
to defend your position, if you want to convince me.

Barbara A. Amero

Thomas M. Cantine (tcantine@incentre.net) wrote:
: In article <34D0C9EF.40CF@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <amero@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
<snip>
: > I said any jokes that make light of rape, make rape a joke, 
: > i.e. meaning to take away the seriousness of rape, which is 
: > no joke. I will clarify that now by saying that any, all jokes
: > about rape make light of rape, make rape a joke, take away the
: > seriousness of rape. Rape is no joke!

: last year? I said something about how we were saving my son for
: Thanksgiving, and you played along with it. Anyway, with that joke we
: certainly were not saying that cooking and eating babies is really no big
: deal. Indeed, quite the opposite; it's so absolutely horrific an idea that
: our only reasonable way to deal with it is by laughing at it.

This is an excellent point, Thomas.  It's as dangerous and inaccurate to 
stereotype styles of humour as it is to stereotype people.  And when we 
insist that humour must always be a certain way (in poor taste) then we 
run the danger of censorship in response.

One point that I don't think I've seen so far in this thread is that to
anyone who has experienced rape or sexual assault, it's a lot harder to
see a humourous side to it.  This is especially true (but not exclusively)
for women, since women often feel more vulnerable to being raped.  One of
the reasons for this is that there are more rapes against women and so
it's in the media more.  

Ironically, the publicity about rape can have the side effect of
reinforcing the image of women as weak, vulnerable, etc.  And an
aggressive, serious, no-nonsense response is usually portrayed as being
the road to empowerment, especially in the face of the denial and
discounting of the seriousness of rape that still exists (albeit in much
smaller numbers). 

So, while I don't completely agree with Barbara Amero's blanket claim
about humour and rape, I do think I understand the reasoning behind it. 
When it comes to a subject that is still controversial (i.e., there is
still a lot of denial and discounting around about women's right to say no
to sex), as well as being such an emotionally charged issue, it can be
very brittle ice on which to strut out such a topic for humour.  

I have to admit that, while I agree with your argument in support of
controversial humour, when a man tells me a joke that involves portraying
women as vulnerable (rapable?), I feel very cautious, wary and defensive
inside.  But that's not *necessarily* about any insensitivity on the part
of the joke teller, nor about the (possible) tastelessness of the joke. 

However, regardless of the joke teller or the joke, it still reflects on
my own personal sensitivity to the topic.  So far, I don't believe I've
seen Ms Amero speak in terms of her own feelings or experiences, but only
in blaming terms toward those who don't agree with her perspective on
this.  As a result, I see her perspective as rather one-sided and rigid. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that controversial humour is just that
-- controversial, meaning that we'll get a wide variety of responses to it
and there's no real right answer to it.  You're right about the principles
of humour, but since this is also such a highly charged emotional issue,
principles can only present part of the picture and will not always or
necessarily negate the emotional factor.  If your son had, indeed, been
killed by cannibals or if you lived in a society where that was likely,
you might find it hard to laugh at a joke about it, too -- no matter how
dynamic, potentially healing or funny the joke.  No blame, just human
nature. 


Wendy

-- 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
   "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." (John Wooden)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

In article <34D0C9EF.40CF@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <amero@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:

> Thomas M. Cantine wrote:
> >    I'm interested to know how you'd distinguish between a joke that makes
> > light of rape and a joke about rape, or do you hold them to be necessarily
> > the same thing? That is, would you want to say that a joke about rape is by
> > definition a joke that makes light of rape?
> 
> I said any jokes that make light of rape, make rape a joke, 
> i.e. meaning to take away the seriousness of rape, which is 
> no joke. I will clarify that now by saying that any, all jokes
> about rape make light of rape, make rape a joke, take away the
> seriousness of rape. Rape is no joke!

   I certainly agree that rape is no joke, but I don't think I agree with
the general claim that any joke about rape necessarily means to downplay
the seriousness of rape. Humour is sometimes based on a sense of outrage,
and not always a belittling of the topic. Remember the outrageous,
exaggerated violence in the Monty Python sketch about Sam Peckinpah's
"Salad Days"?

   I don't know if my last message on the subject made it to your server,
but do you remember participating in a joke about cannibalism some time
last year? I said something about how we were saving my son for
Thanksgiving, and you played along with it. Anyway, with that joke we
certainly were not saying that cooking and eating babies is really no big
deal. Indeed, quite the opposite; it's so absolutely horrific an idea that
our only reasonable way to deal with it is by laughing at it.

   Of course, with rape, it's kind of different in that rape is rather more
common than cannibalism in this society. So the idea of someone actually
committing rape is all too believable, and thus much harder to joke about,
and  we have to introduce some element of unbelievability to allow the
humour in. Say, for example, putting my 10 month old son in a lineup as a
rape suspect. Something ludicrous like that. Or maybe something about that
obnoxious purple dinosaur getting gang-raped by a pack of demented
Care-Bears. 

   Anyway, my point is simply that the interpretation of a joke about rape
as necessarily making light of rape is not perfectly complete. If we accept
the absurdity type of humour, then it is conceivable for a naive but
well-intentioned person (one who sincerely is unaware of the actual
frequency of rape, for example) to joke about rape on the assumption that
surely no one would ACTUALLY do that, would they? Such a person's
incredulity when you answer "Yes, people DO do that all the time," is not a
sign of evil intent, but perhaps a desire to maintain faith in the goodness
of one's fellow humans.

-- 
Thomas M. Cantine, Philosopher for hire
/=================================\
|     "Will Think For Food"       |
\=================================/
http://www.incentre.net/tcantine/home.html

In article <34D0C9EF.40CF@dbis.ns.ca>, amero@dbis.ns.ca is reputed to have 
said...

>I said any jokes that make light of rape, make rape a joke, 
>i.e. meaning to take away the seriousness of rape, which is 
>no joke. I will clarify that now by saying that any, all jokes
>about rape make light of rape, make rape a joke, take away the
>seriousness of rape. Rape is no joke!

Have to agree here, there is nothing remotely funny about enforced sexual 
actions against a woman or a man. Personally, (And no, I do not want to see 
samples), I can't think of how one would make the subject funny, even in the 
crudest sense.

-Marc Bissonnette
Internalysis
Corporate Competitive Intelligence, Research and Results