You're Not Helping

I am conflicted re Bill C51.  Michael Geist is a pretty smart guy; the information sharing provisions do seem overly broad.  But since the Snowden revelations never impressed me (its all meta-stuff about spies spying), I sometimes find myself wondering if at least some of the complaints over C51 are similarly over-egged.

And so then Connie Fournier of (the relaunched) Free Dominion comes along and writes this for Open Media:

The part of the Bill that concerns me most is that provides CSIS with the power to "disrupt" groups of Canadian citizens. This word sets off alarm bells for a couple of reasons.

First, it is a word that was used in a "Five Eyes" PowerPoint presentation that was released some time ago by Edward Snowden. The "Five Eyes" countries include Canada, the USA, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. This presentation was given to the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group and it was entitled, "The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations".

[...]

Secondly, this is where it becomes personal. Beginning in the Spring of 2006, government operatives began signing up on our discussion forum, Free Dominion. We have since identified operatives from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), the Department of Defence, at least one Police Department, and many, many posters using proxies who posted divisive or racist comments in our forum. In 2007 we received a Section 13 complaint with regard to a link that was posted on our site. We reacted strongly and publicly to the complaint and it was later dropped.

[...]

We don't believe that it is any coincidence that the self-described strategy of the government employee who sued us four times and ultimately caused the forum to be closed, is called "Maximum Disruption". The fact that that same word shows up in the "Five Eyes" powerpoint, and that it also shows up in Bill C-51 is, to say the least, chilling.

OK,  now we've hopped the train to crazy town.  And just to address one point.  FreeD's problem with racist comments didn't stem from undercover cops, "operatives" from the CHRC, or anonymous posters.  They were typically contained in diatribes by the likes of long-time regulars such as Ed Kennedy, Bill Whatcott, Marc Lemire, and EdS.  You can google their names.  They were hate-mongering lunatics, and all members in good standing at FreeD until they became too toxic to keep around.

Of course, nobody reads Open Media but, arguably, people read The Tyee, so its particularly disappointing to see the same kind of nonsense expressed over there.

In brief, if you are dealing with thr Fourniers you're dealing with kooks.  Having these people on board the anti-C51 cause will not help it.

Michael Geist On Linking To Hate Speech

He too thinks thinks that the hate-speech/anonymity provisions in C-51 are not where the main problems with the legislation lie. The main problems with the legislation are, according to Geist:

...it has never been subject to committee review, it would mandate disclosure of some personal information without court oversight, it would establish a massive ISP regulatory process (including employee background checks), it would install broad new surveillance technologies, and it would cost millions (without a sense of who actually pays).

As for the hyperlinking issue in particular, Geist seems to think that the legislative summary is mis-describing what in the actual legislation.  It turns on the change definition of the term "communicating" from the old to new hate-crime provisions:

The revised definition is obviously designed to broaden the scope of the public incitement of hatred provision by making it technology neutral. Whereas the current provision is potentially limited to certain technologies, the new provision would cover any form of communication. It does not specifically reference hyperlinking.

I recognize that one could make an argument that a link could be included within communicating by any means or making available, but that strikes me a big stretch.

He then goes on to use the very same case I talked of here to argue that "merely linking to another site does not make that person a publisher of the material found at that site".  Now, Michael Geist is the world famous tech-law guy, and I am just me, but as I noted earlier the judge in the Crookes case also spells out circumstances where linking to defamation can be defamation, and it would strike me as odd if C-51 was not intended to bring linking to hate speech into the hate-speech provisions under roughly the same circumstances.  After all, hyper-linking to sources of hate speech is the premier means of spreading the stuff these days.

Who Would The Canadian Pirate Party Hurt?

When Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer narrowly lost his seat to the NDP's Linda Duncan in 2008, no less than four groups claimed or were assigned credit for the defeat: radical Islamists, the vote-swapping AnyonebutHarper people, George Soros, and--with at least as much credibility as any of these--Michael Geist's gang of copyright warriors.

Now, The Pirate Party--a Swedish organization dedicated to loosening copyright laws and tightening laws related to Internet and real world privacy-- is contemplating a move into Canada:

Right now, they're a handful of loosely-organized individuals spread across the country. But they want to become an official federal political party within the next few years and get enough support to persuade Parliament to relax proposed copyright laws they say are heavy-handed and a violation of personal privacy.

It would be a mistake to dismiss the impact such a party might have on the Canadian electoral landscape. On September 10th, 2001, probably the biggest news story on the planet was the fate of Napster. Unfortunate events served to wipe their legal problems off the front pages, but as Mr. Geist's rise to prominence in the last couple of years has shown, in Canada there exists a block of potential voters for whom copyright issues are near and dear. One per cent of the populace? Maybe, some day down the road. In June's European Parliament elections The Pirate Party drew a little over seven percent of the Swedish vote, enough for a seat in the EU parliament, after being in existence barely three years.

And its interesting to try and game out which of the extant national parties this addition might hurt. You would think the usual suspects--ie the perennially hapless NDP--but on the other hand Michael Geist has suggested that copyright reform brought out many traditional non-voters during the 2008 election. And there is even a Libertarian slice of the CPoC (Conservative Party of Canada) who might be swayed by their message.

And while, like the Green Party, it is highly unlikely the Pirates could achieve a seat in the House of Commons anytime soon, they might well--like the Green Party--be able to effect some degree of policy change from outside of this venue.

Interesting times indeed.

Warman Vs. Fournier: The Lawyers Respond

Two of them, at least, and they don't like it. Here's Gary Wise, and here's Michael Geist. Since they both make similar points, I will let Mr. Wise speak for both:

While I understand the freedominion authors to be an extremely tempting target to many in the blogosphere, little solace should be taken from this ruling.

An order for disclosure may have been justifiable if the statements made by the anonymous posters were, on their face, apparently actionable.

The Court's disinclination, however, to engage in any factual analysis of the alleged defamation or the necessary balancing of competing interests has created a dangerous precedent that should not be allowed to stand.

Based on Warman ruling, the mere commencement of a court proceeding may now give rise to an automatic entitlement to this form of disclosure.

On Really Fighting For Free Speech

Mark has a pay-pal button and an address up at Section 15 if anyone wants to help out with his case against Wayne Crookes. The details are here or, from a slightly different perspective, here, but the notion that Crookes has "put the whole Internet on trial" is not too far wrong.

I'll be mailing a cheque myself today, and if I can dig some Canadian Tire money out of my car's glove-box, a 2nd donation will follow. I would ask that Mark et al not reveal the exact amount of my donation when it arrives, as intimations of great wealth (an estate in both town and country, etc.) are a part of the BCL mystique and I don't want to blow the game.

Former Green Party Campaign Manager Adds Michael Geist To The List, Is Now Suing Entire Internet

Wayne Crookes is a former organizer for the Green Party of Canada, and so litigious he makes Warren Kinsella look unflappable. Michael Geist is one of Canada's foremost experts on all things Internet (and an excellent speaker). Crookes suit against Geist, according to the latter, concerns:

...an allegedly defamatory third party comment on my site that I took down and for writing about, and linking to, P2PNet.net, which in turn linked to another site that allegedly contained a defamatory posting. In other words, I'm reportedly being sued for maintaining a blogroll that links to a site that links to a site that contains some allegedly defamatory third party comments.

I am frankly at a loss for words. Some things are so stupid as to be beyond even my ability to ridicule them