Canadian Telco Regulator Turns Down Request To Block Site
from the good-move dept
Yesterday, we wrote about the effort up in Canada to have the telco regulator up there force ISPs in the country to block content that is considered "hate speech." As we noted, this was the wrong way of going about things. Blocking the content at the ISP-level wouldn't change anyone's mind about the content (on either side) and simply opened up a lot of other problematic situations. If the content is illegal, it should be dealt with -- but asking it to be blocked by third party ISPs who have nothing to do with the content is the wrong approach. Luckily, it appears the Canadian regulators agree. They have turned down the request, saying it's premature to order the content blocked -- though, they want to get input from others on the issues at hand. Again, this seems like a situation that should be dealt with more directly. If the content is in violation of the terms of service where it's hosted (Google's Blogger platform) it can be dealt with at that level. If the content is illegal (which it may be) then it should be dealt with by law enforcement. Simply asking the content to be blocked by ISPs doesn't help anyone, and simply gets a totally unrelated third party involved while not dealing with the core issue. In the meantime, all this effort has done is given the hate speech a lot more attention and a lot more credibility than it actually deserves.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roflmao
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate Canada
......
......
......
Testing to see if this will get my ISP blocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hate Canada
Poutine tastes like s**t. Poutine looks like dog food. I hate poutine. Oh my God, the Mounties are breaking down my door righ-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I missing something here
I am always amazed when one of these stories comes out from our "friends" up north, and people here in the States start praising them.
Are you people nuts? Praising Canada because they aren't going to force ISP's to censor? Consider this: Whether you agree or disgree with those who speak out against homosexuality or who question the Jewish holocast, or spout racial slurs, you can be sent to prison merely for writing or saying such things. The real story here should be: "Despite ISP's not being responsible for blocking such speech, in Canada, there is still no freedom of speech!"
I do not know what other things are considered "hate speech" in Canada, but I do know that anything might be considered hate speech, and thus criminal. Some day, your speech might be outlawed in Canada, even if today you don't fall into any of the above categories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Am I missing something here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Despite the progressive errosion of our freedom here, we are still free to do many things, including speak. Perhaps that will change, and sooner than later, but until such time, any American who does not exercise this freedom cannot cry foul when he has lost it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOS violations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off Topic:
What I would be proposing if I believed that way is an amendment making it a legal to kick the shit out of anyone who does it in public.
ergo, he (the unpatriotic towel head) gets his free speech and Bubba and I get ours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Canadian or American
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poutine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that like the age old riddle, 'what is that white stuff in chicken shit?' (for the uninformed, that white stuff is chicken shit as well.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Canada, we understand the power of words, thats why so many of the worlds best comedians come from here.
It is unlawful in Canada to teach unlawful things, or to publish lies, that is why people who publicly state and publicly publish the holocost never happend, are required to face the law. You can think and say whatever you want in private life, but once you enter the public arena to spread hate, there is a different set of accountabilities.
Canada is complex, just like her people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canada
ACCOUNTABILITY is important to Canadians.. maybe America can learn something from that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting replies
Personaly, I am canadian by birth, American by choice (well, my dad's chouce, but my choice later on). I love both countires.
I am currently taking a government class and have since realized that, as Anonymous Coward on Aug 26th, 2006 @ 3:13pm said: "and Americans think there are "free"" is true. Yes, we do have our rights that are stated in amendments 1-10, but things such as the patriot act, give easy access to the ability to remove it for no real reason, just for saying "I hate Bush," they could start taping your phones with NO WARRENT (well, one without a judges signature)(Its a little more complex than that, but thats the simple version). Not to mention, we, the citizens of the US of A do not actually elect the president, we elect electors of a political party, say republicans, and then they go to washington as a group and vote for us. however, they can (if they decide to) vote democrat. Its an interesting system, to say the least... it even contains checks and balances on the "moboracy" or the people... and was to be lead by the "aristocracy othe the educated.".... agin, its an interesting system.... but it seems to have lasted, partly because it can adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
defending canada
end result dont hate appriciate.!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the solution?
So, what's considered the right approach? You can't take down the hate speech site – it may be in a different country. So, if you have a foreign site advocating the overthrow of the government, murder of innocent civilians, abortion clinic bombing, church burning, etc, what’s your solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the solution?
If it's a violation of the terms of service of the hosting company, you can approach them. If the site is hosted in a country where this is in violation of the laws, you can approach law enforcement.
However, more important is the recognition that this speech is unlikely to have a real impact. For people who believe in that stuff, it's not like they just happened across some random website and suddenly decided it would be good to go and kill people. The best thing to do is (1) ignore the site and let it go away or (2) point out why it's wrong. Shutting them down or blocking them just gives them more attention and makes them think they're on to something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the solution?
Wasn’t there a case a few years back where a web site was opposing abortions and listed the names and addresses of doctors performing abortions? Around the same time as the abortion clinic fire bombings?
Do you want to be targeted like that? Should we wait until after you and your family are dead before we take action?
The U.S. has historically place some limits on speech. You’re not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You’re not allowed to incite a riot. More recently, we’ve even put a gag on political speech in the name of campaign finance reform.
So, if a nation (like Germany) doesn’t want pro-Nazi propaganda, if a nation like Canada wants to block hate speech sites, what’s your solution (besides telling them “to get over it”)?
Ultimately, having the ISP or teleco's block the traffic is probably one of the few effective solutions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the solution?
You honestly believe those bombings wouldn't have happened without the website? The folks promoting that info would have sent it out to their followers by other means, such as email or private bulletin board. The fact is that the info would be out there.
In fact, having it on a public site is probably better, because it makes it clearer who's being targeted and how to protect them.
Do you want to be targeted like that? Should we wait until after you and your family are dead before we take action?
Did you even read what we wrote? No. If there's a specific threat, we should go after those making the threat and prosecute them as the law states.
The U.S. has historically place some limits on speech. You’re not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You’re not allowed to incite a riot. More recently, we’ve even put a gag on political speech in the name of campaign finance reform.
Wow, did you ever miss the point. Yes, absolutely, as we said, IF THIS GUY IS BREAKING THE LAW, then go after him. The point was that they weren't going after him. They were just asking the ISPs to block, which is ineffective and dangerous.
So, if a nation (like Germany) doesn’t want pro-Nazi propaganda, if a nation like Canada wants to block hate speech sites, what’s your solution (besides telling them “to get over it”)?
Um. What's wrong with telling them to get over it? Blocking the speech is putting your head in the sand. It's not solving the issue. It's not helping to educate those who are ignorant. It's pretending the ignorance and hatred doesn't exist, while allowing it to grow angrier. That's bad. That's dangerous.
Ultimately, having the ISP or teleco's block the traffic is probably one of the few effective solutions.
Define "effective." If you mean allowing a gov't or ISP to pretend a problem doesn't exist without actually focusing on the real issue, then sure, it's "effective." Instead, if you actually think it through you realize this isn't even remotely effective in dealing with the problem and has a high likelihood of making it worse.
It doesn't stop anyone from thinking the way they do. It doesn't reduce the threat against the individuals. It gets more attention to the hatred. It makes those spewing the hatred feel persecuted and more justified in their hatred. It doesn't really block those thoughts, as those who want to find them will find them elsewhere. It doesn't help to deal with the underlying issue of the hatred. It opens the door to other blocks for other content. It likely ends up blocking additional perfectly legitimate sites.
How in the world could you possibly consider that effective?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the solution?
Wow. Did you even read the premise?!? The guy is in a foreign country where your country has no jurisdiction. You can not go after him because your laws don't apply.
You and your puny laws can't touch him
Now, are you going to allow someone to publish your name, your address, your child's photo, and a "gee, wouldn't it be great it if we could kill Mike and his b*st*rds"?
Remember ... their in the server is in a foreign country. You just have to get over it I guess.
It doesn't reduce the threat against the individuals.
So, allowing access to "Let's kill Mike and his kids" makes you more safe than blocking such messages? Good job Mike. I feel safer already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the solution?
The guy is in the US, where it's illegal to make threats. The Canadian and US authorities cooperate all the time.
So, uh, sorry, the laws do apply.
Remember ... their in the server is in a foreign country. You just have to get over it I guess.
No, you go to authorities in that country. This isn't that hard.
So, allowing access to "Let's kill Mike and his kids" makes you more safe than blocking such messages? Good job Mike. I feel safer already.
No. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make me or my family any safer. The people who supposedly want to kill me or my kids will still get the same message. Pretending it isn't there doesn't help -- and it's worrisome that you think it does. It's putting your head in the sand. Going after the individual for the threats makes me safer. You do recognize that there's a difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1984
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_c ode/criminal_code_hate.cfm
Once you've read them, then I would encourage you to go and read the EFF's summary of the USA Patriot Act. Note in particular the provisions which remove the requirements for a warrant.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
Anybody seen the movie 1984?
'nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]