A threat to Army.ca

[Dean Thompson]

And it is also a habit for HRCs to take their powers and apply them unreasonably. It is not a stretch to expect them to take a case like this and blow it out of all rportions.

You're still on the internet? Are all the Aurora's broke down or something?  ;D

 

[aesop081]

You're still on the internet? Are all the Aurora's broke down or something?  ;D

Wouldnt you like to know.........

 

[Dean Thompson]

Wouldnt you like to know.........

Not really, or I'd just call Servicing and find out.  8)

 

[NL_engineer]

Mike, is there a way to secure the form so you can't access it without a login (like lightfighter)?

 

[Michael OLeary]

I thin we've drifted from the main point of this thread.

The principal threat to army.ca is not necessarily that the site's activities aren't defensible against a charge of spreading hatred, etc.  The threat comes from a lack of resources (i.e., Mike B.'s time, energy, and money) to sustain a protracted legal battle to establish that fact in court.  

So, unless anyone is willing to formally volunteer their own money to enable that to be done, then each of us has to be careful in how aggressively we bash anyone in a protracted sense without due diligence to maintaining a credible debate on the associated issues. We've all seen threads spiral into the wasteland of worthlessness when emotions and a lynch-party-mood take over and leave reasoned discussion far behind.  Those situations, and they are always recoverable with good web searches, are the hidden mines in this field of "freedom."

 

[retiredgrunt45]

It seems that as we move farther into the "21st century", the closer we get to the scenario in the Orson Welles novel "1984" Big brother is watching. Some may find this a bit humourus but if this continues we all may see and eventual erosion of all of our personal freedoms, to the point when, what ever you say or your views that may seem out of line to certain parties, you will be held liable and forced to pay the piper. "Guilty until proven innocent"

I feel that the erosion of our personal freedoms, by "Obvious entities", spits on the graves of those who sacrificed it all, so we could continue to enjoy those freedoms for the generations who followed.

A very sad day indeed.

 

[aesop081]

the closer we get to the scenario in the Orson Welles novel "1984" Big brother is watching. Some may find this a bit humourus .........................

Life imitates art i guess.

I agree....sad day indeed

 

[Michael OLeary]

The underlying requirement remains that people have to to realize that if they want to participate at any level in online exchanges, then they have to remember that their words will remain available to searches for a very long time.  While a single inflammatory or insulting post may be explained away as a "heat of the moment" occurrence, that reasoning gets pretty tough to defend if someone comes up with a hundred posts by an individual that are all anti <insert group/or individual of choice here.>  Add to that the increasing normality of investigating services to request IP information and to associate that with individuals through internet service providers.  Frankly, anyone posting on line with outright vehemence is producing the evidence for their own prosecution in such cases.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Christie is right in his analogy to strict liability offences. I'm watching this with interest, I believe there is a serious threat to free speech from these cases.

If one thinks about this to its end state, if the defendant loses, a lawyer attempting to defend a client from these charges could actually be guilty of the same offences.  As a result, I dont think the CHRC can succeed in advancing the war against free speech much further.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Wow

You mean to tell me we can get shut down for suggesting a journalist has their head up their ass or a book author is RTFO yet there are hundreds of message forums across canada that actively spread hate, racisim, gay bashing, stupidity etc..?  Crazy times.

Mike thanks for hosting this site, sorry you have to deal with wankers trying to shut it down cause we call them on their BS

 

[Michael OLeary]

There's a big difference between "call[ing] them on their BS" using fact based debate and "suggesting a journalist has their head up their *** or a book author is RTFO".

One is justifiable debate, the other is simply inviting the kinds of actions that could (possibly) leading to the site being shut down in order to avoid legal action.  No-one has yet said that there is any intent to stop reasonable debate on any issue, the warning here for all of us is that if this case succeeds, then army.ca could be held legally responsible for every anonymous bashing post and thread (along with the member who posted it).

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm not being difficult I'm honestly confused.

If you think I'm an idiot how can you justify it other than saying "Hey it's my opinion".

If I think a journalist is being a douchebag do I need to come up with a university level debate on my points in order to justify it?
In Canada you can pray to a cartoon if you want and it will probably have to be taken seriously by ones employer, lest said employer violate that persons religious freedoms and rights. 
I just find it amusing. 

I guess you can actually get in shit for slandering someone, people probably aren't that familiar with that law.  To me I would figure someone would come on army.ca and defend themselves and clear their name instead of dropping greenbacks and jumping on the north american I'll sue you train.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... I would figure someone would come on army.ca and defend themselves and clear their name instead of dropping greenbacks and jumping on the north american I'll sue you train.

And I would hope the same but, go back to Mike's post.

There are some people who do not like Army.ca - some don't like what some of us say, others don't like the military. All it would take is for one of them to find a offensive post the Mods might have missed, declare themselves "offended" and launch a complaint with a HRC. In due course the complaint might well be dismissed - but it can take years and, meanwhile, Mike would have to spend his own money to fight the charges.

Army.ca is Mike's hobby and a public service, he puts a lot of time and effort and his own money into it. BUT it is not a business - Mike Bobbitt is not making money running Army.ca and, as he says, his wife would be happy enough to see it gone, too!

Surely it cannot be too much for us, all of us, to take a second to think before we hit the post key.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Wise words thank you.

I think it's a little out of control and the HRC would have better things to do then listen to someone who had their feelings hurt but this is Canada after all.
Thanks for the clairification.

 

[DONT_PANIC]

There's a big difference between "call[ing] them on their BS" using fact based debate and "suggesting a journalist has their head up their *** or a book author is RTFO".

Unfortunately, it seems that the truth (ie. facts) are not always a defence in a human rights complaint.

 

[Burrows]

Re-reading the article, it seems like this guy is in hot water because of content posted by him on his website.  It looks like he published articles saying that certain minorities were "menaces to society".

Not to say Army.ca isn't completely in the clear, but it looks like this guy is possibly getting in trouble more for what he is saying himself vs others.

 

[tomahawk6]

This is a private forum and that makes a difference too. Everyone on joining agree's to a certain standard of behavior. I would suggest that this forum require a membership before being able to view the message boards.No membership and you dont get to see whats posted.

 

[Teeps74]

A requirement for a free membership would be reasonable. Would not really waive responsibility for Mike, but it would remove all claims of "I stumbled upon this site and found it really offensive...".

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

A requirement for a free membership would be reasonable. Would not really waive responsibility for Mike, but it would remove all claims of "I stumbled upon this site and found it really offensive...".

No matter what somone can find offense in what is said. Follow the Guidelines and help out the DS when there are controversial comments made is the way to go.

 

[GAP]

This is a private forum and that makes a difference too. Everyone on joining agree's to a certain standard of behavior. I would suggest that this forum require a membership before being able to view the message boards.No membership and you dont get to see whats posted.

That's quite common in a lot of boards I run across