Wednesday, June 03, 2009

4 FreeD Anonies Identified

ARC has the story, and several background documents. Of the 8 John Does in the FreeDominion vs. Richard Warman defamation case, it has been possible to put a name and mailing address to 4, who have been served their legal paperwork over the past week or so.

The documents are interesting as a good example of how this on-line sleuthing stuff actually works. To put a name to various Internet handles, the investigation went from blogs to the comments section of online newspapers to flickr and elsewhere. This is all material found on public websites so, despite the bleating you may hear from certain sources, it is a long way from Internet "stalking".

PS. It also, contrary to what you might hear, did not involve hacking any sites in Panama with the DND (Dept. National Defense) computers. Trust me on that one.


Ti-Guy said...

And now they're defaming Warman, yet again. Truly paranoid. Commit them.

Mitka said...

Great news...didn't Warman also sue Ezra Levant and the NP?

bigcitylib said...

All ongoing, Mitka.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

The good thing is notwithstanding Mr. Warman's continued lawsuits, we still have a blog world that allows for reasonable discussion, free of censorship and _________ _ _______ _________ __________ ,________.

While it seems to me that _________________ ,_________________________________ .

I mean, it's not like the Ministry of Truth is out there or anything.

Ti-Guy said...

Speaking of Ezra, I caught him on CBC Sunday Edition via podcast yesterday. He started acting juvenile as soon as Lucie Lamarche (a human rights professor at Ottawa U.) the disputed one of his assertions. Addressed her snidely as "Professor."

When, oh when, is someone in our media going to ask him two questions:

1. Can he provide any evidence that he spent as much as he claims on his case with the AHRC? I have no reason to believe he'd lie about that, but, well..y'know...

2. Was he obliged to spend any money at all?

There's almost a conspiracy to keep two key elements in his tale of woe from from being examined more closely.

Robert McClelland said...

What I find most comical about all of this is the obvious belief by the free screechers that their incessant screeching and name calling will force Warman to back off.

Ti-Guy said...

we still have a blog world that allows for reasonable discussion, free of censorship...

Channeling for your inner douchebag, aren't you, Rob? Since when is libel protected speech?

You might be late to this discussion, but these people moved from arguably protected speech to libel in a heartbeat. And they're still doing it.

You can defend these miscreants all you want. Just don't get too close; if you disappoint them, you'll find your reputation in tatters and your family threatened.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

Ti-Guy - I've read the Warman v. Fromm decision.

I have no desire to support Nazis or White Power groups - but the Warman decision is typical of our Judiciary.

Richard Warman puts himself out there. He has chosen to make himself a public figure. No one is attacking Richard Warman outside of the context of what he does with and through the Human Rights Commissions and his law suits.

Think about this - if you can get your knee-jerk, disagreeable mind around the concept you're espousing.

Red Tory - whom I consider to be a very decent blogger and who I post on frequently, today makes reference to:

"..the tatterdemalion cadre of supercilious idiots and intellectual bottom-feeders otherwise collectively known as the “Bloggin’ Tories”…"

Now - I found the post actually amusing and I understand the context of his concerns and the use of exagerration to make a point.

However - I'm a lawyer, like Richard Warman.

I understand the laws relating to libel.

R/T has basically, by inneundo, made a post that I am a "supercilious idiot" and an "intellectual bottom-feeder".

If I re-printed every post he's made critical of Conservatives and the Blogging Tories, and put it in a Statement of Claim, I would have at least enough evidence to go to trial on a case of libel.

Like I said, I'm a lawyer, like Warman. I've got time.

So - don't tell me Ti-Guy that free speech isn't something we should be worried about being at risk due to libel chill. I mean - if there's one good thing out of this Warman matter, we now have a precident that would allow me to obtain an order giving me the actual identity of the "Ti-Guy"..

Go ahead.

Make my day.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

Oh.. by the way, I'm pretty sure you just called me a "douchebag".

Tut, tut, tut.. I'll print that out for later, uh.. use.

Ti-Guy said...

Babble on all you want, Rob. The rest of us are talking about libel.

Ti-Guy said...

Is Rob threatening everyone with libel chill? Oh, the irony.

Douchebag...DOUCHE. BAG.

bigcitylib said...


You would lose that case, and I suspect that you understand that too. We are not talking anything "frivolous" here. The accusations made against Warman are quite specific, quite damaging, and pretty clearly false. The ones in question originate with M. Lemire, who was informed by his own lawyers that spreading them around outside the HRC tribunal hearing would likely bring a lawsuit.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

BCL.. you're certainly right, I would probably lose.

But, the reality is, I could run up legal bills for Ti-Guy and R/T into the tens of thousands, spending nothing on my own - and at the end of the day, even a cost award, at best, would amount to perhaps 30% of their actual cost - not to mention the stress and anguish of dealing the system.

The point is - the blog world is incredible. The ability I have to share my thoughts with you - to disagree - even loudly and, perhaps, sometimes offensively, is a great tool to allow for exchange of ideas unfettered by the historical biases of the MSM.

If we suddenly have to stop comments on our posts because we aren't sure of where that line is, well, that would be tragic.

I for one am a great supporter of Red Tory's right to call me a ""supercilious idiot" and an "intellectual bottom-feeder" - and even Ti-Guy's right to call me a douche bag (though I suspect when one resorts to that sort of juvenile response, devoid of any semblance of rhetorical skill, the comment actually is more defamatory of the declarent than the target).

bigcitylib said...

Your arguing that libel laws shouldn't apply on line, or what? Good luck with that, if so.

Also, the comments thing is not nearly as onerous as you think. You pull anything that looks libelous and, if someone sends you an email pointing out something you missed, you delete that too.

I've done both and it really isn't that painful.

And if you're serious about Tiguy, I'll forward his IP.

Ti-Guy said...

If we suddenly have to stop comments on our posts because we aren't sure of where that line is, well, that would be tragic.

Not really. I think a huge proportion of the population (including the mainstream media) needs to learn what responsible expression means. I've always said...what's the point of championing something people are just going to treat like garbage anyway? I was far more sanguine about this until the Iraq invasion, when I was reminded, yet again, of the danger of unmoderated poisonous rhetoric.

These cases, Rob, don't involve a one-off instances of hate speech and defamation issued in a fit of pique but represent established patterns of behaviour.

And if you're serious about Tiguy, I'll forward his IP.

Just let me know if you do. As a courtesy to a fan.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

"Responsible Expression".. that's a scary concept. It clearly is laden with subjectivity.

Can you insult a political or public figure, using exageration or hyperbole to make your point. The Fromm decision suggests perhaps you can't.

In the Fromm decision the Court held that, after Warman's acts in making the complaints he made, when he was called an enemy of free speech, that was defamatory.


And - Ti-Guy, if you read the decision, it's not based upon an accumulation of statements, as they are all dealt with individually. It may be that Warman didn't file suit until after an accumulation - but from a legal point of view, it matters not that the statements were one or one hundred.

Seems to me that the comments complained of by Warman pale in comparison to things that we say about eachother and eachother's leaders and politicians every day.

How many times have I read about Conservatives as "nazi's" and "fascists"? Comments suggesting that the Government has been "bought off" by the oil industry. That is an allegation of a criminal act. But - in the context, where there is no specific factual allegation being made of such an act - it is a statement articulating an opinion or impression of complaint against the actions of Government.

If we lose the right to make public comments of our opinions of politicians and public persons unless the statements are demonstrably true - well, we're not in a free society anymore. We're in Oceana.

So - I say, screw Warman. While I make no factual statements, express or implied about the man, I can express my FEELINGS, at least I think I can. And my feelings for the man are nothing but abhorrence, abomination, acrimony, alienation, animosity, animus, antagonism, antipathy, aversion, bitterness, coldness, contempt, detestation, disapproval, disfavor, disgust, displeasure, distaste, enmity, execration, hard feelings, hate, horror, hostility, ignominy, ill will, invidiousness, loathing, malevolence, malice, malignance, odium, pique, prejudice, rancor, repugnance, repulsion, revulsion, scorn, spleen, and venom.

Ti-Guy said...

"Responsible Expression".. that's a scary concept. It clearly is laden with subjectivity.

Indeed. That why we have laws, jurisprudence, etc. etc.

I tried to read the rest of your comment, Rob, but I gave up. It's too long. If you want to sermonise, I suggest you become a priest.

Reality Bites said...

TiGuy, you're not suggesting Roblaw is a child molestor, are you?