Canadian Telco Regulator Turns Down Request To Block Site

from the good-move dept

Fri, Aug 25th 2006 6:05pm — Mike Masnick

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

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Gavin, 25 Aug 2006 @ 8:04pm

Wha?
In Canada they don't block first then ask questions later? In the U.S. they not only have your ISP shut you down, they also call the keystone cops to break down your door and throw a pie at your computer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damien, 25 Aug 2006 @ 9:53pm

Roflmao
haha, rofl at the pie at your pc comment. =D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2006 @ 9:53pm

Re: Wha?
That model seems to reflect lapd activities as well. LOL.... Stop! Bang bang bang... or I will shoot. Good job Canada.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2006 @ 10:21pm

Re: Re: Wha?
almost a good response. i laughed when i thought of how that could have been phrased...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 26 Aug 2006 @ 4:20am

In Canada, luckily, our Internet is governed by the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission) and thankfully they aren't hotheads.... and to top that they force our major ISPs to allow independant ISPs access to their networks... I hear the FCC canned that...... I love Canada!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coolcliftop, 26 Aug 2006 @ 7:26am

I hate Canada
I HATE CANADA! I HATE CANADA! I HATE CANADA! I HATE CANADA! I HATE CANADA! I HATE CANADA!
......
......
......
Testing to see if this will get my ISP blocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anna, 26 Aug 2006 @ 9:30am

Re: I hate Canada
Try this one instead.

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 thread ]
charlie potatoes, 26 Aug 2006 @ 11:07am

O Canada
Well if you all love Canada so much why don't you just marry her?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anna, 26 Aug 2006 @ 11:15am

I love Canada
Actually I'm crazy about the Canadian people. That's why I'm an American cracking a joke about poutine, which is considered to be the junk food of the Gods by many Canadians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Teilo, 26 Aug 2006 @ 12:51pm

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2006 @ 3:13pm

and Americans think there are "free"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Teilo, 26 Aug 2006 @ 4:50pm

That's sour grapes.

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 thread ]
Jared, 26 Aug 2006 @ 4:51pm

TOS violations
ISPS should not be the ones who block content. They should be the way to connect to the internet. It is up to the individual hosting companies to shut down the sites that have this content on them. So many people are making the ISPs have the burdon of policing everyones brousing and e-mail for content, spam, and viruses. The ISP's job should be to provide the connection to the tubes. Not to filter the content going into their tubes. When you sign up for a hosting account you have a terms of service agreement and included in those agreements are usually not using their service to have hate sites, piracy sites, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
charlie potatoes, 26 Aug 2006 @ 5:53pm

Off Topic:
I have always maintained that anyone who proposes a constitutional amendment against flag desecration is too stupid to have me explain it to him.
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 thread ]
Louis, 27 Aug 2006 @ 5:58am

Not a Canadian or American
What's a poutine?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
potatoe head, 27 Aug 2006 @ 8:05am

poutine
think of french fries covered with cheese curds and gravy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2006 @ 9:09am

melted cheese curds. YUM YUM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
charlie potatoes, 27 Aug 2006 @ 9:23am

Ok, I'll bite..what's the difference between cheese and cheese curds?
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 thread ]
Paz, 27 Aug 2006 @ 11:50am

Re: Am I missing something here
Dude, where are you getting your facts? People are allowed to have their opinions however misguided.... even in Canada. Your attitude sounds pretty dictatorial to me, but i think you're not really making your point very clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hazel, 27 Aug 2006 @ 1:54pm

Ummm Poutine!

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 thread ]
charlie potatoes, 27 Aug 2006 @ 2:31pm

haha yeah hazel, you crack me up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
neptune, 27 Aug 2006 @ 4:40pm

Canada
Great! One more reason for me to want to go live in Canada. I just wish they would LET me!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 27 Aug 2006 @ 6:11pm

Re:
well I donn't like that, I think that people should be allowed to publish their oppions, however wrong they may be. Some guy thinks elephants can fly, let him say it and look like a fool. Those who are offended by his comments can just not listen or not look or in the case of the internet NOT GO TO THE SITE!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 27 Aug 2006 @ 6:13pm

Re: Wha?
lol, reminds me of the kids that got suspended because they went to a link they received and it turned out to be a site making fun of another student. They didnt know what the site was or any of that but they got suspended. Don't you love it when adults try to protect us but in the end end up punishing us to protect us when we are unprotectable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2006 @ 6:39pm

Canadians come from Canadia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
boozecan, 27 Aug 2006 @ 6:52pm

Canada
Although you think America is land of the free, there are far more restrictions placed on you than Canadians. Canada is a passive, liberal and much less anal country than the US. In Canada we do not allow haters to spread their hate filled speech and do our best to make sure it doesn't happen. Maybe that is why we have far less problems with race/gender/sexuality than America. We are far more accepting of others' views, but if those views are harmful and degrating, then we make sure they are silenced.

ACCOUNTABILITY is important to Canadians.. maybe America can learn something from that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
brwyatt, 27 Aug 2006 @ 8:45pm

Interesting replies
The major argument seems to revolve around who should be incharge of the regulation on content (ISPs or Hosts), and freedom of speech (I personaly like that bit on flag desicration, good job charlie potatoes!)

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 thread ]
American, 27 Aug 2006 @ 9:26pm

What Freedom?
Americans don't have freedom of speech. Just try to talk about bombs in an airport, and see how free you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Novernets Bandit, 27 Aug 2006 @ 10:56pm

defending canada
when u think about canada remember that everyone in the country has health insurance and many other benifits given to them by the queen(palament) canada legalized pot to smoke but not buy or sell. the country is a great place to visit and is never involved with us bullshit overseas. We as americans are lucky that canada is a friendly place since 1980 there population has trippled. for such a decolite place theres alot to do there all remember the movie coyotee ugly?? guess what go to that bar there its amazing!

end result dont hate appriciate.!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus, 28 Aug 2006 @ 1:01am

Re: What Freedom?
Today that is the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater. If security doesn't take you down after a stupid comment like that, the other passengers should, and they aren't required to read you your rights or make sure you get to Booking in one piece. Freedom of speech has little to do with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Johnson, 28 Aug 2006 @ 6:57am

What's the solution?
" 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.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2006 @ 7:36am

Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 28 Aug 2006 @ 10:10am

Re: 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?

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 thread ]
Alec Saunders, 28 Aug 2006 @ 11:26am

1984
I would encourage you all to go and read the provisions of the Canadian laws on this topic. They are available here:

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 thread ]
Johnson, 28 Aug 2006 @ 5:54pm

Re: Re: What's the solution?
However, more important is the recognition that this speech is unlikely to have a real impact.
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 thread ]
Mike (profile), 28 Aug 2006 @ 7:08pm

Re: 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?

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 thread ]
Johnson, 28 Aug 2006 @ 7:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the solution?
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. ... Wow, did you ever miss the point.
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 thread ]
Mike (profile), 28 Aug 2006 @ 8:23pm

Re: 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.

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 thread ]