The Great Firewall of Canada 399
engtech writes "Canadian carriers Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron have all opted in to a blacklist, dubbed Project Cleanfeed Canada, provided by Cybertip.ca, the Canadian tip-line against child exploitation. The idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I'm a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite it's good intentions." Besides engtech's post on the subject, Dr. Michael Geist has some considered comments about this issue. From that post: "Critics are quick to draw parallels to Internet censorship in countries such as China. However, those countries involve state-based content blocking, with no transparency or legal recourse. In fact, several democracies — most notably Australia — have established limited blocking rules, while British Telecom, the UK's largest ISP, voluntarily blocks child pornography as part of its CleanFeed program. Even with various legal safeguards, many Canadians would undoubtedly find the blocking of any content distasteful. Yet to do nothing is to leave in place an equally unpalatable outcome that silences those would speak out against unlawful hate speech for fear of personal harm."
australia (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile in Denmark... (Score:5, Informative)
The verdict could have very strong implications for the future. It clearly states that an ISP can be held liable for temporarily (milliseconds) storing infringing data on their routers. This means that ISPs can be forced to block websites, if the court decides that these sites are mainly used to spread "illegal" content.
Read more here [torrentfreak.com] and here [slyck.com]...
Re:australia (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Um, come again? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a substantial difference. You are perfectly free to walk around street-corners yelling about how much you hate the jews; but when you start yelling "SOMEONE SHOULD KILL THE JEWS" and their speech...
That's when they can be punished. Even when Canada did not have a written constitution or bill of rights, this speech was still protected extensively.
Hate speech is in fact legal. it is inciting violence which is not legal, and, to my knowledge, is not legal in the US either.
Re:australia (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:1, Informative)
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/25/1
Error in article and summary (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, NTL/Telewest is the UK's largest ISP.
from a recent BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6039740.stm [bbc.co.uk]:
"The UK's largest residential internet provider is currently NTL, which has 2.9 million home customers, followed by BT on 2.2 million."
Re:Expression should never be limited. (Score:0, Informative)
Yeah, I guess the law I am reading is wrong, LOL.
Read Zundel's trial, for example.
You said yourself that Zundel's trial was about slander or some other non-sense, not hate speech.
You are not allowed to incite violence. Period.
Are you illiterate? I just quoted a phrase where it says you can be prosecuted for hate speech, even if it can be shown that it will not incite violence.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
I didn't ask for a lesson in civics.
Moreover, the section you are referencing is a rehash of a law that was struck down (In Zundel's trial, ironically enough), by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It won't stand up to a constitutional challenge the next time, either.
No, I am actually reading from the current law, not the struck down law.
Are you really this dense or are you just being a fucking idiotic troll?
The danes already have it. (Score:2, Informative)
It is now being "abused" by our version of the RIAA to block access to allofmp3.com.
Re:Meanwhile in Denmark... (Score:5, Informative)
When looking for a link, I was shocked to see a new development in this case: Yesterday the ISP in question announced that they decided not to appeal as they had announced they would, and all other major danish ISPs have started blocking allofmp3.com too.
You can read more about this in danish at Piratgruppen [piratgruppen.org].
The court decision is available in PDF format in danish here [www.dr.dk], and I found an unofficial english translation of the conclusion of the court decision here [propiracy.org].
Further analysis of the court decision in danish can be found here [itpol.dk].
Re:Um, come again? (Score:1, Informative)
Let me blockquote the thing:
You do not need me to put that into English. It is very clear: Promoting hate in public is illegal. Period. Think flyers, quoting the bible, or just standing on a street corner with a sign a-la Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3.
As someone who has attempted to prosecute using this section of the law, allow me to assure you, the judge agrees with me, public communication of hatred is not legal here. While it is incredibly rare for a judge to feel the will to prosecute under this law (most likely because it has Charter implications) and because such prosecutions normally end up at the supreme court, it is rarely, if ever tested. BUT TO SAY IT DOES NOT EXIST... that is a lie.
You are wrong, and you are going to put someone in jail by informing them improperly. How can you sleep at night knowing that?
Re:Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:2, Informative)
That's why our government holds people in jail without charging them [wikipedia.org] (federal), and denies access to representation by those who cannot afford it themselves [www.cbc.ca] (Ontario) because we are too busy charging more and more people of crimes.
It is at best naïve, and at worst xenophobic, to trust every action of your country's government simply because it is your government. It is every government's duty to serve its citizens and to act in the names of its citizens; it is every citizen's duty to ensure that his or her government does not abuse the power that is used in his or her name.
- RG>
Re:Slippery slope (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:3, Informative)
Further, the ISPs have already fought back against the copyright cartels (ie, they refuse to release customer information to such organizations), and so I'm not yet concerned.