Canadian Domain Registry Pulls Plug on Free Speech 210
An anonymous reader writes "The staff of a Canadian political candidate bragged today that he had managed to shut down a website critical of his involvement in a fundraising scandal, by having the country's registrar of domains pull the DNS records for the site. Criticism from bloggers and free speech advocates has been negative, and is coming from across the political spectrum."
Framed? (Score:3, Funny)
Appears scum are easier to frame than honest, upstanding people. Thanks for playing, but hope you and your filth go down in flames, spinning or otherwise.
Re:Framed? (Score:5, Informative)
I may not follow Canadian politics much, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Good point, he should be glad that all those sites come back up, so that even more children, and not merely those of one of his largest corporate supporters, can enable all of their kids to donate the maximum of $5,400 allowed under Canadian law...
Just think how much he can raise with all the mirror sites going up now!
In the mean time, it has come to my attention that the CRIA's requirements for having a
Re:I may not follow Canadian politics much, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fails to explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the article does imply that noone is willing to admit to setting up the site.
Maybe the site's operator didn't provide accurate information when registering it. If that is the grounds for deregistering it, then it's not quite the free speech issue it's made out to be.
apparently I'm right... (Score:5, Insightful)
UPDATE (supplemtary info): There's more information to the story. The deletion of the domain name was in full compliance of rules of the CIRA (just because it's a rule, doesn't make it right). Supposedly, if one registers a
This doesn't necessarily make it right, however. .
Whatever. Everyone assumed that it was a huge abuse of power, when in reality it was just someone using a tactic that anyone can use. Complaining that someone isn't following the rules, and following an established procedure to remedy the situation.
As usual, people get all up in arms, bloggers go nuts, emails and phone calls are made... and then we find out nothing really wrong was done.
The big public relations screw up was bragging about it on a mailing list. But otherwise, he didn't do anything that ANY political campaign wouldn't have done in the same situation.
Re:apparently I'm right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Read next update. It wasn't cited that way. (Score:4, Informative)
Except that isn't the case, if you read the next update. The rule cited by the registrar was one where they feared they'd be sued for defamation, and that can't happen where they'd lose because there was no defamation present, just some good ol'e political parody of which is common in Canada.
It's as if the store had a minor code violation that could be fixed, and then a phony trumped up charge was used to close it instead.
Re:apparently I'm right... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:apparently I'm right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever agency with authority would have a duty to investigate.
If they find a problem, they are obliged to make sure it gets resolved within the applicable rules/laws.
Notice that I'm not saying anything about the motives behind the original complaint. You (the aggrieved party) can go to court, provide evidence and have a Judge rule that the wankers who were after you really just wanted to suppress your free speech. BUT, that still doesn't change the fact that the DNS re
Re:apparently I'm right... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it is a free speech issue, but not for the obvious reason. There are times when people critical of the government or corporations [wikipedia.org] often need anonymity. Especially if there is nothing illegal about the site, then I find its removal offensive.
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
somebody must have been paying for it (Score:2)
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
It's n
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:5, Informative)
There are three parts of censorship. Part one is having an agenda of some sort. Part two is becoming empowered by the state to carry out that agenda through censorship. Part three is to find items and have them removed from circulation on the grounds that they violate that agenda.
It doesn't sound like part two or the second half of part three has been carried out here. He was not authorized by a government body to further this agenda. He did it of his own accord. What was taken down was not done so because it violated the agenda, but simply because it violated something else.
Again, the actions are morally reprehensible on the part of this politician, but does not qualify as censorship by the government of Canada.
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
Especially since Volpe is not a member of the governing party. The Liberals are currently in opposition. Volpe is a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal party--or perhaps was, after the donations-from-kids scandal [canoe.ca].
However, this sort of qualifies as abuse of power to censor legitimate political satire--but not quite, because the chicken-shit Tory smear campaign artist who put the site up didn't have the guts to say who he was. Ther
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
Oops, please disregard. Just read down some more.
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
Thank you for that detailed explanation of your dissenting viewpoint.
However, maybe I should clarify my statement: There is no reason why any ordinary Canadian citizen would feel the need to hide his identity when publishing legitimate satire about a Canadian politician.
The whole point is moot, though, since it was not anonymity that brought the site down, but potential defamation. That is bullshit, because satire is protected speech. If it stops being protected, anyone who lampooned Pi
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
Who says that only the government can censor? Schools, the media, televsion networks... they all censor. This highlights the issue that people have trouble understanding the differnce between censorship and loss of free speech rights. Only governement can do the later, but anyone can do the former.
Censorship is powerful stopping the individuals (Score:2)
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:2)
It's not a free speech issue. Of course, Slashdot will blare it as such in a headline declaring that they "pulled the plug on free speech," but that just illustrates Slashdot's rampantly inaccurate reporting.
I strongly disagree. INABILITY to register anonymously is even more a free speech issue then -any- one site being shut down, as is selective enforcement of a widely-ignored rule against an unpopular site because a politician found a technicality.
Part of the right to free speech is the right -not-
Consider this (Score:2)
If all our politicians are crooks, what is the use of democracy? Give people a break and support your candidate, or you will be part of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Shouldn't that read... (Score:4, Funny)
Shouldn't that read, "The former staff..."
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2, Funny)
Hey now, no stealing tomorrow's headlines...
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
Not the same incident - the comment from the staff member was made a month or so after Parrish's comments. And I don't remember the exact phrasing, but if I recall correctly, her apology was almost as insulting as the original statement.
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
What do you think would happen if it was reported that his press secretary called Iran's leader a "f..king towelhead"?
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
BTW, why don't elected officals have to take some sort of standardized test and have those reported to the electorate? Hell, everyone from prospective college students to prospective NFL athletes have to because people assume thier basic
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2, Insightful)
First - "George Bush is a f..king moron" is an opinion, not a fact.
And yes, as a matter of fact, when you accept certain jobs, you DO loose your right to express your opinion (but not to HAVE it).
The Official Secrets Act here in Canada a
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
OK you are correct, I shouldn't have said fact but it could certainly be considered more than an opinion. How about we call it a "possibly correct diagnosis"? "Moron" is a valid (though no longer a widely embraced) psychological term. It is one of the steps on the Binet Scale. The Binet tests were developed as a quick and easy way to compare the functionaly level of peoples intelligence. The tests were based on questions of increasing [wikipedia.org]
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
When he is a high official as he was, what he says can affect peoples jobs & livelyhood. It can affect relations between two soverign countries. He is also not ELECTED by the population tomake political decisions.
Therefore - he has no RIGHT to say what he did.
National Secrets != Insults (Score:3, Insightful)
You're confusing social and legal obligation. Certainly, giving away national secrets is illegal (you have no right), but ill-advised comments are not illegal, unless they are
Re:National Secrets != Insults (Score:2)
I am not confusing social, legal, OR moral obligations - I just happened to give a legal obligation as an example because it was more concrete.
He had no right to say it (socially)
He had no right to say it (morally)
Legally, he's free and clear.
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
Ok - I give - you lot win.
You'd think that by now I'd know better than to try to have any sort of serious discussion about *anything* here
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
THe staffer in question here was some wanker in the PM's office who becuase of pride and arrogance presumed to make a political statement that
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2, Informative)
'Directly'? Really? Oh, right, because the mighty US Department of Commerce takes actions like imposing improper tariffs on common trade goods because some foreign wanker bad-mouthed the US president. And they started on that path before the guy even made the comment!
Actually, in the case of the softwood lumber issue, I heard a rumour that there were some different wankers, ones with vested interests in the softwood market in the US, who made political donations and
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
Yes, they did
Actually, in the case of the softwood lumber issue, I heard a rumour that there were some different wankers, ones with vested interests in
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
And not calling members of the other government fucking morons doesn't mean you are "pliable"
The speed with which the Tories knelt before the US is noteworthy indeed. It is too bad that they didn't care enough about our country to get us a good or even a sensible resolution though. Then again, we shouldn't have expected much, the Conservatives were elected because they were not Liberals (most of them, anyhow), not for t
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2, Informative)
The US pursues trade practices that are to its own advantage because they are to their own advantage, not because they feel insulted by some guy they've never heard of before.
If you look back at the history of the softwood dispute, you will the see that the Liberals did indeed pursue a resolution through appropriate channels. Or was Emerson just dilly-dallying when he was a Liberal? Somehow I doubt that he was, or why would Harper have recruited him?
If only 90% of people who voted for the Conservatives ac
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
What do you think would happen if it was reported that his press secretary called Iran's leader a "f..king towelhead"?
Though not EXACTLY the same thing, it is very much on point and what happened? Well, it is considered by many as one of his greatest speeches. Now that could well be because its one of the few without the glaring use of made-up words more than based on content, but it is considered one of this best speeches
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
The staffer has didn't have the responsibility, and therefore no right.
WHen the staffer speaks, he is not just "a person" - he is a government official. If he tells his friends wh
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
*I* don't agree with it. I may or may not agree with some of the things Bush has done, but he is not a moron by any stretch of the imagination. He may be no genious, but not being able to speak pubically very well is not a sign of intelligence. Stepehen Hawking, anybody?
2nd - whether I agree with the characterisation or not, the fact remains that it is highly insulting and personal remark against the leader of what is by far
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
If citizens of a democracy forgive incidents like this, they will get more of them.
site mirrored (Score:5, Informative)
More info on why it was pulled (Score:5, Informative)
UPDATE: I just got an email from the kids at youthforvolpe.ca. They received an email from their
From : CADNS.CA
Sent : June 1, 2006 8:41:26 PM
To : "Youthfor Volpe"
CC : archive@cadns.ca
Subject : RE: Domain registration for youthforvolpe.ca
Article 3.1
Paragraph (h) (i) and (ii)
(h) not engage in any direct or indirect activity which in CIRA's opinion is designed to bring, or may bring, the Registry into disrepute, is designed to interfere, or may interfere, with CIRA's operations or designed to expose, or may expose, CIRA to prosecution or to legal action by the Registrant or a third party including, but not limited to, any of the following kinds of activities:
(i) directly or indirectly, defaming or contributing to the defamation of any other Person,
(ii) unlawfully discriminating or contributing to the unlawful discrimination of any other Person; or
(iii) committing any other actionable wrong against any other Person including, without limitation, any other infringement of the Person's rights;
Yep, the reason given was because the registrar believed that the website somehow defamed Joe Volpe and the registrar believed that it might expose CIRA to a lawsuit.
This had nothing to do with a technicality of anonymous registration.
If you are a crooked politician, your critics are like hydra - cut one down and 1,000 spring up in their place.
Re:More info on why it was pulled (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More info on why it was pulled (Score:2)
Misleading headline, summary, and citation (Score:2)
Second, the entire purpose of the stephentaylor.ca site is to fling feces at Liberals in a baboon-like fashion and
CIRA news release (Score:2)
Really.... (Score:2)
The full article (Score:2, Informative)
----8<----
Campaign gets tangled in website spoof
JANE TABER
It was all the buzz in official Ottawa yesterday -- a hilarious political whodunit in this age of websites, platforms and templates.
Overnight, someone built a website spoofing Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe and his acceptance of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from children, including the 11-year-old twins of a former vice-president of a generic drug c
Re:The full article (Score:2)
He's got to be a hacker with a name like Marc-André.
what a *crock* (Score:4, Insightful)
CIRA's rules clearly state - and have for as long as *I* can remember - that annon registrations are not acceptable. THat was, and IS, grounds to pull the DNS records.
If there is *any* story here, it should be how the hell did the site get registered in the first place, given that it didn't meet the most basic requirements.
As for Volpe? He has my congradulations
Re:what a *crock* (Score:4, Informative)
If he's correct, the site was taken down because of content not registration details. It was CADNS and not CIRA though.
Re:what a *crock* (Score:2)
"My pawn shop wasn't shut down for trafficking in stolen goods, man. It's the man, man! He's trying to keep me down, 'cause of my independent mind, man."
Or, alternately, for those who actually respect crazy conspiracy theorists:
"They don't care about our continued support of Israel and our foreign policy toward their native countries. They're clearly
Re:what a *crock* (Score:2)
Re:what a *crock* (Score:2)
I'm sorry I can't be more specific - it's 5:31AM now, and I'm a wee bit too crosseyed to wade through it again
Re:what a *crock* (Score:2)
Re:what a *crock* (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:2, Informative)
Did you read the page you linked to?
It doesn't say that the registration was improper in any way, it says that the registrar used an automated system to suspend the registration and that the registrar claimed that the registration was improper. Keep in mind that the registrar elsewhere offered a different reason for suspending the site.
Looking at the whois page, it does look fake to me, but that's not a conclusion that CIRA has stated in their media release, and it's not provable in the basis of the whois
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:2)
Blah ha ha hahahah... I'm such an American, eh?
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:2)
It's getting worse (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's getting worse (Score:2)
Bye, Bye,, Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
Keep an eye on Slashdot's DNS entries...
A Bit of Background (Score:5, Informative)
Volpe's acceptance of these contributions was widely mocked [macleans.ca] and derided. The website cited in this thread was launched, and got a fair bit of coverage online.
Mr. Volpe subsequently decided to return the donations given by these kids. At about the same time, the website above had its DNS record SUSPD for one of many reasons (the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, CIRA cited a different reason in a press release [www.cira.ca] (failure to provide valid Canadian contact information, as required by CIRA rules for a ".ca" domain) than that apparently given to the domain registrant (disrepute).
The interesting questions I find are (1) how influential were Volpe's minions in getting this site quashed, given that he was a member of the former Liberal government and CIRA operates under the authority of the Canadian Governmental department Industry Canada, and (2) what due process rights does any (".ca") domain owner have, given the speed with which this process executed (especially in light of all the legal expertise which is present on CIRA's board of directors, apparently not even bothering to ask for any court order or proper investigation against this site).
Re:A Bit of Background (Score:2)
Side note, why does returning a contribution absolve the candidate of guilt? (One can't just take the candy bar back to the store one stole
On what planet... (Score:3, Insightful)
google's cache :) (Score:3, Interesting)
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:MW-vckW5UbEJ:w
No images, but you get the text and layout at least!
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
DNS record is removed? That's all? So what? (Score:2)
Re:DNS record is removed? That's all? So what? (Score:2)
Re:DNS record is removed? That's all? So what? (Score:2)
That's only one way that shared hosting works. You can also have multiple IP addresses for a single machine, and have the webserver for each virtual host bind to the IP for that virtual host.
That's how it was done before HTTP/1.1, and some providers continue to do it that way. My hosting is from pair.com [pair.com], and is the cheapest service they offer (I think). I can access my web page by IP address, and I'm su
Mike Hunt? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:3, Informative)
I've been outside of Canadian politics for a while now, so I can't comment on on Joe Volpe or how internet saavy he or his people are.. However, seems you've just discovered that the domain is owned by... Mike Hunt... Mike Hunt... say it out loud.
I mean, there's always the chance that the person registering the domain had a very unfortunate name. On the other hand this lends credibility to another poster's claim that perhaps the domain was nixed thanks to inaccurate contact info.
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:2)
I aint heard from him in a while, dubbo if it could be the same one.
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:2)
I'm not saying it isn't a joke name in this case, but there are people named that.
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:2)
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:2)
Oh dear. How unfortunate for these 408 people [yahoo.com].
(And yes, the other ones you mentioned exist for real as well...)
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:3, Informative)
I've known a number of people named Mike Hunt. Their reactions to the joke ranged from complete obliviousness to mild annoyance.
However, I've never actually met anyone named Heywood Jablome.
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:2)
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the.. (Score:5, Funny)
Reports have it that some of Mike Hunt's other staff members - namely Mr.s Jack Mehoff and Holden McGroin - are organizing and mobilizing a grass-roots defense. I suspect they'll be tempted to use some dirty tactics, but this is clearly not the time to be hitting below the belt. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards and refuse to sink into the deep, dank, stinky chasm of corruption.
After all, that's what Mike Hunt would expect of us all.
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the.. (Score:2)
Sincerly,
Wilma Fingerdoo.
Richard Smoker (call me Big Dick)
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the.. (Score:2)
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:2)
When I signed up for a
The reality is that Dot-CA is
Re:Good ol' bad ol' good ol' Canadians. (Score:2)
When G.W. was ask about why he thought his poll numbers were down, he explained that everyone in government's poll number were down all over the world. He even gave examples pertaining to france, canada and germany.
It apears that all over the world, the wrong polititions are getting into office and people are disapointed in them. Not the Bush's drop is less trivial or anything. It just apears that politicians might be getting desperate to hide negetive informat