Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Court Orders Site To ID Anonymous Posters

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the we-call-them-all-spartacus dept.

Privacy 358

An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian court has ordered the owners of the FreeDominion.ca to disclose all personal information on eight anonymous posters to the chat site. The required information includes email and IP addresses. The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy, a major blow to online free speech in Canada."

cancel ×

358 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good luck (5, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27332925)

I'm behind 7 proxies

Re:Good luck (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333041)

Yea, think it's better that they lose these IP addresses "on accident" like how the White House lost e-mails... chances are they will get slapped if they do that, while the government gets away with it...(oops did I say that out loud anonymously?)

Re:Good luck (0, Troll)

Quothz (683368) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333397)

Yea, think it's better that they lose these IP addresses "on accident" like how the White House lost e-mails... chances are they will get slapped if they do that, while the government gets away with it...(oops did I say that out loud anonymously?)

I was not aware that any Canadian court demanded IP addresses from the White House. And I'd love to hear your theories about how a Canadian court would prevent the White House from getting away with claiming they were lost.

Re:Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333433)

wooosh!

Re:Good luck (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334083)

I'm not sure anyone could troll so hard accidentally...

Re:Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334479)

I was not aware that Canada was not linked to USA (besides land, communication, commerce). I also was not aware that by stating an example in the same sentence meant that the example had to be EXACTLY like the problem.

You see, examples are like cars. A car is an example, but the only example is not the car.

Re:Good luck (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333077)

Good luck, I'm behind Candleja

Re:Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333347)

He doesn't take you away until after you finish saying his name.

Re:Good luck (1)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333383)

Yup. Someone needs to gb2encyclopediadramatica and read up on the proper technique of meme application. It's harder than it looks, kids.

Re:Good luck (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333565)

Improper meme application technique?

It's more likely than you think.

Re:Good luck (0, Offtopic)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333767)

       _    ____     ___       __
go__b_|a|__|___c\k t/o/b|__go /b/
a/c_`k|t'_o\b__)g|o/b/|a'_c\k/t/o
|b(_|g|o|_)b/a__/c/k/t|o|_) /b/go
b\__,a|_.__/_____/_/ck|_.__/_/to
|___/b/

Re:Good luck (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333535)

Uh oh, the meme police are here!

Thankfully, I'm behind 7 proxies.

Re:Good luck (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334249)

Yo dawg, I herd you like memes...

Re:Good luck (4, Informative)

slummy (887268) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333237)

Good pay proxy service: Socksify [socksify.com]

Re:Good luck (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333255)

The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy

I'm behind 7 proxies

Does anyone see something wrong with this? Courts can now redefine reality? Or will they just outlaw proxies to keep reality updated?

I sense a dejavu coming up, Matrix style.

Re:Good luck (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333971)

Will they force servers to keep logs? Why? Why not have sites commit to not keeping logs, like Cryptome.org seems to do?

Re:Good luck (2, Interesting)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334637)

Well then the court orders them to KEEP logs next time. Which will just as effectively cripple free speech as going directly after the posters in the first place.

Oh and of course, not obeying a court order is spiked with a jail sentence. And they order you to not disclose the new logging ordinance to the visitors or you'll also go to jail.

The only thing you can do is take down the site and protect the first group of posters. If you setup another site, they'll dock you for not having logs on the first incident, because you should've learned the first time.

Either way, the goal is to create fear, uncertainty and doubt among anonymous posters. Which is quite the same as posters in China feel right now.

Re:Good luck (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334705)

Which will just as effectively cripple free speech as going directly after the posters in the first place.

If you need to post anonymously, you didn't have free speech in the first place.

Re:Good luck (3, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334603)

Think of the internet as a giant Fax machine. Just because you don't sign the letter you fax, doesn't mean they don't know where it came from.

Unless you take explicit steps you are not anonymous online *ever*. Even when you do, you're only as anonymous to the point of making it more difficult to find you. The trail is there, however cloudy and convoluted.

An insecure wireless connection on the other hand...does wonders for anonymnity(sp?) ;-)

Re:Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333277)

Then you must be guilty of something! Hang 'em high, boys.

Re:Good luck (1, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334693)

I do the same when playing counter-strike.

I still haven't figured out why my ping is so bad though..

anonymous (1)

mistashizzle (1341785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27332933)

It was anonymous, so they obviously don't have that info o.O

Re:anonymous (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334107)

The info isn't public but that doesn't mean they don't have IP address information associated with the post.

Oh dear. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27332935)

Can you imagine the political rhetoric if they found 4chan.

Re:Oh dear. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333601)

Rules 1 and 2, bro.

Re:Oh dear. (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333893)

I see, this *IS* a raid...

Re:Oh dear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333927)

It's OK David, he only said 4chan.

Damn anonymous cowards... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27332955)

They should be ashamed of themselves, posting anonymously.

Re:Damn anonymous cowards... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333063)

Anonymous Cowards Anonymous.
Now Thursdays eight p.m. at an undisclosed location!

Re:Damn anonymous cowards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334497)

What time zone?

Re:Damn anonymous cowards... (2, Funny)

andy_t_roo (912592) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334685)

the next one.

Re:Damn anonymous cowards... (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333173)

Turns out they're all called John Doe.

Re:Damn anonymous cowards... (1, Funny)

theskunkmonkey (839144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333723)

and...
John Wharfen
John Bigboote
John Smallberries
etc...

Rock and hard place. (4, Interesting)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333031)

Canada has always been stuck between a rock and a hard place (US & UK). We are kind of like the retarded step-brother, very polite but not taken seriously on our own (we have a nasty habit of tagging along to our 'Big Brothers'.)

I often wondered how long it would take the insanity of US & UK to reach us. I wonder if there are any jobs in the Netherlands for an english-speaking computer-geek Canuck. They look like the only safe haven from insanity that is infecting this planet.

Re:Rock and hard place. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333543)

Hey, just come down to Montana. Most of the rest of the US thinks we're part of Canada anyhow, so we don't get noticed too much.
And our ISP's are pretty good (for now).

Re:Rock and hard place. (4, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333641)

Oh, don't worry, the Netherlands' government is much like the UK/Canada: always trying to follow the US government especially when it comes to tahrarhism and privacy. As far as the RIAA goes, they have their hands over there as well under the name BREIN (from Wikipedia):

BREIN is perhaps best known for shutting down Dutch eDonkey 2000 link giant ShareConnector.com in December 2004. Due to controversy over the legality of links to illegal content, and a lack of quality in the evidence provided by BREIN, the case has not been put to trial yet. After being offline for two years, ShareConnector reopened in December 2006 but after barely one year; on November 12, 2007, Shareconnector went offline again.

On October 23, 2007 BREIN, together with IFPI, BPI, Dutch police, and other organizations shut down prominent Bittorrent tracker Oink's Pink Palace.

On November 19, 2007, TorrentFreak announced on its website that BREIN copy-and-pasted a sentence of text from TorrentFreak's website onto its own website without attributing TorrentFreak, as per TorrentFreak's copyright license. TorrentFreak stated that they intended to seek legal action and damages of almost $1,000,000 for the alleged intellectual property violation.

According to their own website (anti-piracy.nl) the organization has as members not only the local (legalized) copyright organization but also the MPAA to 'represent the American movie industry'. According to them 35% of new and 16% of ALL media in circulation in the Netherlands is 'illegal'.

Re:Rock and hard place. (0, Troll)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333787)

Yes being able to speak publicly without anyone knowing who is speaking is a right we have enjoyed for centuries!

How dare governments take away our god given right to be completely invisible and yell whatever we want in a crowded room.

Oh wait you don't have an invisibility cloak? I thought everyone had one.

Re:Rock and hard place. (4, Insightful)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333933)

It's called an anonymous informant and a journalist.

Re:Rock and hard place. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334145)

You missed the article about the Netherlands banning magic mushrooms. They aren't as happy a place as they used to be.

Re:Rock and hard place. (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334541)

I wonder if there are any jobs in the Netherlands for an english-speaking computer-geek Canuck. They look like the only safe haven from insanity that is infecting this planet.

And if Netherlands gets corrupted, I heard you could go to outer-space, or the high seas where there are no laws. But better keep a few ninjas by to protect you from pirates.

And a little more serious, it seems like countries already enforce some laws on our seas (because they DO fight back against pirates, hard). So maybe space is the last alternative, find a distant planet far far far away.

Re:Rock and hard place. (1)

bencoder (1197139) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334679)

or the high seas where there are no laws.

Some people [seasteading.org] are looking into the living on the seas idea. They've got some good ideas and plans but they're quite expensive ideas. If it pans out I will join them as soon as it becomes reasonable for me to do so, based on whether I think I can earn a living out there.

blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333067)

website is blocked by my work's annoying websense. Reason: The Websense category Illegal or Questionable is filtered.

Fucking Faggy Canucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333075)

Go fellate a moose.

Re:Fucking Faggy Canucks (-1, Offtopic)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333161)

careful. They're not always horny. Buy them a large double double first (double double double if it's winter -- third double is double cup to keep it warm).

Re:Fucking Faggy Canucks (1)

zyl0x (987342) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333675)

No one up here ever says "double double double", they just ask for an extra cup. Actually, most of the time you don't even have to ask.

Re:Fucking Faggy Canucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334487)

So the faggy-ness isn't disputed?

Someones going to jail... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333093)

Man, sounds like they're gonna have a hell of a time finding this Anonymous Coward person if they ever look here...

Re:Someones going to jail... (1)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333425)

"It's hard to find a Vietnamese man named Charlie..."

Re:Someones going to jail... (2, Funny)

arazor (55656) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333523)

Charlie didn't ask for ID when I fought at La Choy, and Chun King. I saw my best friend's head explode at Margaret Cho.

Something interseting (5, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333107)

I noticed the blogger doesn't mention anything about the case itself. I wonder how knowing the particulars of the case might effect the response of slashdot posters.

Re:Something intersecting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333165)

They were anonymously praising Vista.

Re:Something interseting (0, Troll)

detox.method() (1413497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333187)

I THINK YOU ARE WRONG SIR

Re:Something interseting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333395)

Not knowing allows us to imagine that the posters are bastards like us. It would be harder to defend them if they were were a different kind of bastard.

Re:Something interseting (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334393)

Slashdot response is invariant of the particulars of the case. They are also ignorant of the fact that the right of free speech does not protect you from the consequences of exercising it, never has and (hopefully) never will.

Shame (5, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333211)

Shame on any site that accepts 'anonymous' comments and then tracks email and IP.

And shame on the government for this ruling.

Re:Shame (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333335)

I wonder if they actually keep the logs. For most of the sites I run, I don't, at least not for any significant length of time. Generally I run sites on CentOS which I believe has a default log rotation of 5 days. That's enough for me for troubleshooting, which is all I'm really worried about.

Re:Shame (1)

lamber45 (658956) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333585)

The site [freedominon.ca] runs on PHPbb, which stores the IP address of the poster in the phpbb_posts table right along with the post metadata for each post. It also stores a user's e-mail address in the phpbb_users table to enable password reset, even if the address isn't made public in the user's profile. Both features are helpful for tracking down abuse.

It would be possible to erase the IP addresses and e-mail addresses with a simple manual SQL query; but that would take a deliberate effort, and remove those users' abilities to reset their passwords.

Of course, the court's ruling doesn't guarantee that those IP addresses and e-mail addresses are very easy to connect to the poster...

Re:Shame (3, Interesting)

jsse (254124) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333495)

Shame on any site that accepts 'anonymous' comments and then tracks email and IP.

And shame on the government for this ruling.

If a post violate a local law (e.g. child porn, bomb threats...) and the site owner failed to provide evidence that it was sent by outsider, it's very high chance the prosecutor would put a charge on the site owner.

Therefore, unless you live in a place where no law is in place to regulate Internet content, otherwise you'd better keep some tracks for your defense.

Re:Shame (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334001)

> Therefore, unless you live in a place where no law is in place to regulate Internet content, otherwise you'd better keep some tracks for your defense.

Why not just say "I don't keep any logs - why should I?". It would be interesting if the EFF got behind a Firefox plugin which access (certain) sites via their (or a trusted) proxy to test this. Either we have the right to visit sites and not have to trust those sites to protect our rights, or there's no legal anonymous web access any more.

Re:Shame (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334489)

A lot of blogs allow posters to choose their name and then requires them to put in an e-mail address. The e-mail address isn't displayed publicly, but is used, in part, to drive other features of the blog (like e-mailing replies to comments). The IP addresses could be "tracked" by the site's log files. Never assume that you are 100% anonymous.

PDF of the motion, high lulz-to-content ratio (5, Informative)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333351)

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/motion_decision.pdf [freedominion.com.pa]

Worth a read, especially moments like request for "Any and all documents relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the website, freedominion.ca, by the Fournier Defendants, such as, but not limited to, hosting agreements, billing information, and website registrant name(s)."

Now, if the purpose of the motion is to acquire documents that will help to establish the identities of the posters - how the hell is the hosting agreement/billing details/etc relevant? Or is this a case of "let's collect all the paperwork we can, relevant or not, and then see what we can make of it"?

"Well, we see that you've established the site in 1991, and have been paying $ 39.99/month for hosting. CLEARLY, this proves... um... actually, I'm not sure WHAT it proves... Hang on."

Re:PDF of the motion, high lulz-to-content ratio (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334049)

Demanding non-relevant documents is a legal method of harassment. It wastes both the time and money of the defendant.

Legal Harassment (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334557)

Demanding non-relevant documents is a legal method of harassment. It wastes both the time and money of the defendant.

From a quick look at the pleadings.pdf above, this appears to be a civil matter. IANAL, and especially IANACanadianL, but in most civil actions, you get to charge for the documents requested/subpoenaed in this sort of deal. Most organizations of any size have a written policy about how much is charged per page for documents. Ours is $1.00 per page. Often, the plaintiff finds it easier and cheaper to hire a mobile copy service to go in and do it. We put the requested documents in a bare room with a functional electrical outlet and have an employee watch them like a hawk to make sure nothing is altered or damaged.

Free speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333363)

I know you're all fighters of justice and whistle blowing immoral activities happening around you, but why can't you be brave for once and say what you want in the open?
Or are you using anonymity only for hate messages, kiddie porns, and copyright infringements?

Re:Free speech? (5, Insightful)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333637)

Anonymity has a higher purpose than being used only for hiding behind while making threats/posting illegal activity.

It is one of the foundations of freedom of speech and democracy, allowing citizens to voice their concerns and opinions without fear of prosecution or ridicule.

It reminds us to place principles before personalities, allowing logic to take precedent over emotions.

P.S. It's a bit ironic to hear an admonition to "be brave for once and say what you want in the open" - from an Anonymous Coward. LOL. Good job. Alanis Morrisette would be proud.

A Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333447)

No reasonable expectation of privacy? What then, if the commenter had used a proxy server to mask their i.p.? That would seem to indicate a reasonable expectation on their part, wouldn't it(?), thus mooting the Court's argument.

Re:A Canadian (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333547)

The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy

I wonder what then the court considers to be a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Sorry, here or anywhere else, when I click the "post anonymously" button I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now what they happen to log etc I can understand, but there's an expectation of at least a measure of privacy. If Joe Troll emails /. asking for my IP I expect them to say get lost. But if they get a subpoena I expect them to get the IP. That's where "reasonable" lies in my opinion.

Re:A Canadian (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333639)

Sorry, here or anywhere else, when I click the "post anonymously" button I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Why? I won't defend the court's decision, but putting on a mask when in public doesn't give you a reasonable expectation of privacy. Why should putting on a mask on the internet do so?

Re:A Canadian (2, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334045)

Of course, it does.

In some places wearing a mask would be illegal -- precisely because people are not supposed to expect privacy there.

Anonymous speak Free speech (0)

crath (80215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333493)

The poster wrote, "a blow to free speech in Canada". While that's a provocative headline, it's not accurate. Free speech is about being allowed to say whatever you want: you can stand up in the public square, or blabber over the fence to your neighbour, and say whatever you want, without any fear of being persecuted, imprisoned, etc.

Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (5, Insightful)

Yamamato (1513927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333533)

Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.

Anonymous expression has always been a cornerstone of free speech/expression. The only way you can say it's not is to ignore the centuries of western commentary on exactly this subject.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (1, Informative)

crath (80215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333729)

I must disagree: western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech; however, free speech has traditionally been protected.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (3, Insightful)

Yamamato (1513927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333965)

I must disagree:

You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.

western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech

Western governments have routinely subverted the teachings of western political philosophy, but that has little bearing on what I said.

however, free speech has traditionally been protected.

Actually you can probably find more rulings against "free speech" than you can "anonymous expression".

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (1)

huiwe (1292974) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334057)

Thats governments for you. 'Those suckers have authority...'

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (2, Informative)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334707)

I must disagree: western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech; however, free speech has traditionally been protected.

You are wrong.
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).

The Supreme Court found that a law that prohibited anonymous handbills was void. Anonymous speech was specifically cited as having a role in free societies.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334259)

No, I'm not Sparticus.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334373)

There are specific laws in Canada regarding hate speech. The ruling is questionable, but is looking to prosecute people that broke a specific law. If they had yelled it out in a crowd, would it be okay to ask a private company for their surveillance footage?

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (5, Insightful)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333685)

Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.

Common Sense [wikipedia.org] would indicate otherwise.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (1)

Deadguy2322 (761832) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333799)

None of that matters, since the Canadian constitution doesn't protect free speech.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333803)

Obviously, you didn't RTFA, or google for any relevant background information about the case. In Canada, you cannot simply say anything you want if what you want to say is deemed "hate speech" by a tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. As I understand it, if you are found "guilty" by this tribunal for offensive speech, you could be fined several thousands of dollars. That, in itself, warrants "a fear of persecution."

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334211)

Say in public that homosexuality is a sin and see how much freedom of speech you have.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (1, Troll)

Code_Monkey24 (1515703) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334405)

"Freedom of Speech" means you can say whatever you want, however, it doesn't mean that you are exempt from the repercussions of what you say. You still must take personal responsibility for the freedom you take.

If you are one of those who believes that "Freedom of Speech" should be absolute, think about these situations:

Would you protect someone who is distributing child pornography? They have the freedom to distribute any information they choose to. It would be an infringement on their rights to free speech if they were to be arrested.

Would you protect someone who gets up in front of a crowd and starts advocating the extermination of anyone with red hair? Or a person who hands out leaflets advocating killing women? They're simply expressing their views.

I realize that these examples are hyperoble. No one in their right mind would defend anyone doing such things, but how about a bit more realistic situation. In my home town during the last city election, one of the people running for a spot on city council made an appearance at a local high school, and in front of a gymnasium full of young teenagers he got up and said that all gays should be exterminated because they are an abomination. This man is now in jail (might I add, where he should be) for promoting hate. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with another person's point of view. It has everything to do with promoting hate, or illegal actions.

The whole point of free speech is to prevent the persecution of individuals and groups for their beliefs, but at the same time those beliefs cannot contradict the existing laws. You're not going to be set free just because you claim that you were exercising your rights to free speech if what you are saying is illegal, or harmful to another person or group.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (4, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334547)

You are right that the headline is not accurate, since Canada doesn't have free speech.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334605)

Being able to state your opinion without fear of reprisal is a necessary condition for free speech.

It is not a sufficient condition.

Banning anonymous speech is certainly NOT a necessary condition for free speech either.

silly court decision, no free speach in Canada (5, Informative)

stuartjames (1458383) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333719)

The U.S. Supreme Court, has recognized the importance of ensuring that average citizens have the right to use false names and publish anonymously. In its 1960 decision in Talley v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that a law forbidding individuals from distributing handbills without identifying their identity unconstitutionally infringed on the First Amendment's guarantee to free speech. The Court declared: Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. . . . Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts . . .. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes. Just because someone writes on an electronic medium does not preclude to free speach.

How is this a Free speech issue? (1)

alatheia (1060314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333735)

It is definitely a privacy issue but free speech does not guarantee anonymity.

Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333795)

What's with all the [slashdot.org] Canadian [slashdot.org] stories [slashdot.org] in the past 24 hours? Did Taco finally move to Canada?

Dictionary Time? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27333913)

anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy

anonymous
Function:
        adjective

Date:
        1631

1 : not named or identified
2 : of unknown authorship or origin
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability

Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]

Re:Dictionary Time? (0, Troll)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333953)

coward
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French cuard, from cue, coe tail, from Latin cauda
Date: 13th century
Definition: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coward [merriam-webster.com]

Re:Dictionary Time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334077)

anonymous coward
Function: noun
Etymology: default user name for unregistered posts
Date: Late 20th Century
Definition: One who can't be bothered to register and/or login to slashdot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Coward

Free Speech vs Privacy (2, Insightful)

puppetman (131489) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333955)

I am a bit fuzzy on the difference between free speech and the right to stay anonymous.

It would seem to me that anonymity is not a requirement for free speech, online or otherwise.

What's to stop the internet-equivalent of standing up and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater?

Anonymity, IMHO, is actually detrimental to civil discourse - it gives individuals the idea that there are no consequences to what is said in a public forum. What we say in public life always has consequences - why should the internet be different?

Visiting most online discussions is like watching the monkeys at the zoo, and the risk of being hit with a lump of flying feces is just as high.

Re:Free Speech vs Privacy (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334137)

On the contrary, the right to privacy and anonymity is one of the base requirements for the existence of free speech. Without a guarantee of privacy, much speech which dissents from the mainstream, identifies graft and corruption, or identifies wrong-doers would be stifled if there were consequences for the speaker. Whether it's a bully stealing lunch money, a contractor putting beach sand in concrete for a building, a tip line for identifying/finding criminals, or a Governor selling a senate seat - the implications of telling the truth which is detrimental to a powerful individual can be a personal risk which is just not tenable.

Yes, privacy can be used for evil; however it is critical that is be available.

Re:Free Speech vs Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334327)

What's to stop the internet-equivalent of standing up and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater?

What is the internet equivalent of that?!? Typing "Flying Feces!" in a crowded chat room? I'm not so sure there is an equivalent.

Free Dominion? (1)

mightybaldking (907279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333985)

That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.

Re:Free Dominion? (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334267)

Is "Free Republic" any less so?

What does /. do with the IPs of Anonymous Cowards? (5, Interesting)

PhotoBoy (684898) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334033)

If I were to post this anonymously, would /. keep a record that I used my /. account to post it, even though outwardly it's anonymous? Do they also keep a record of the IP I used to post?

I looked briefly at the privacy T&Cs linked at the bottom of the page and it makes various noises about keeping non-identifiable aggregate information for stats, but it's not clear what is done with the data or what would happen if they received a legal requirement to reveal all data held about an anonymous poster.

Is this a good time for... (1)

no1home (1271260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334233)

a quick stanza of "Blame Canada"??

More shame on Canada (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334525)

What on earth is going on in Canada? As George Galloway said after being denied entry earlier this week don't they know Bush is no longer the US president and no one has to implement Bush type polices anymore?

http://www.therespectparty.org/breakingnews.php?id=555

sheesh (1)

WeeBit (961530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334543)

/weebit slaps Canada with a rolled up newspaper...bad Dog!!!!!

Canadians!!!! (1)

whitefang1121 (1432411) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334671)

Attention all canadian's!!! I am now changing from being canadian to being Palestinian.
They At least the have the Right to kill them selfs, canadian know don't even have that right
thanks to canada trying to be like californiaand regualating everything from maple syrup to the internet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>