# A threat to Army.ca



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

I know we have a thread about human rights commissions vs. free speech, but I think this belongs here, in a new thread, as a warning about a *potentially* serious threat. If Douglas Christie is correct, and it is a *Big IF*, then our words, here on Army.ca, could expose Mike Bobbitt to years of problems and expense.  

This article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.wLemire0916/BNStory/National/home


> Hearing's decision could affect all media, lawyer argues
> 
> KIRK MAKIN
> 
> ...




Mr. Christie may be off on a bit of a hyperbolic tangent but ‘guilt by association’ seems to be a major part of the current case. There are some fairly *bold* postings here on Army.ca – posts that likely to “offend” some people. Some of those people would, probably, like to see Army.ca closed down because it offends their world view. A single post that escaped the Mods’ eagle eyes *could* be the only hammer they need to nail a lid on us, here.

We have some pretty firm rules and guidelines and suggestions and policies and the like but we still seem, to me, to have too much Mod time taken up with clearing gratuitously offensive content – the sort of hing that *might* expose Mike Bobbitt to legal action.

I enjoy sharing ideas with all of you here on Army.ca. It would be a shame to lose this forum. But, we might lose it, if we abuse Mike’s hospitality.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (17 Sep 2008)

Thanks Edward, this is a case I've been following pretty closely, for obvious reasons. I think the significant part in your note above is that Army.ca does have it's enemies, ranging from journalists and authors who feel their work is unfairly targetted here to those who have simply been banned for misbehaving. All it takes is one of those people to take a post from Army.ca to the courts and we could be in a lot of trouble. Even if the case is thrown out we simply don't have the resources to pursue sustained legal action and I can guarantee it will spell the demise of the site.

And in a more pragmatic view, my wife still feels the burn from the last legal issue brought to bear against Army.ca... she won't tolerate another! All this to say that our Achilles heel is exposed and it's up to use to make sure we don't give our enemies the ammunition they need to bring us down.

There are certainly some who feel that it's their right to say what they please here, and are riled up when a Staff edits or deletes their post. Hopefully they'll take a second look at the situation and understand the potential problems that can arise.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Mike


----------



## Dean Thompson (17 Sep 2008)

Marc Lemire's White Nationalist website and others like it could be shut down for their content and the fact that they "spread hate", etc, but the ruling would have no effect on 99% of public forums. To think that a site could be legally forced to shut down because a tiny percentage of the posts may have something that's not politically correct is just silly. The only thing I could see happening to Army.ca is that DND may want the site to change it's name to show it's clearly not an official military site.  :-\


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2008)

Dean Thompson said:
			
		

> tiny percentage of the posts may have something that's not politically correct is just silly.



Considering the attitude of HRCs in this country, it is far from silly.

Even if this site contained a large amount of posts that are not PC, it should be left alone. PC is bullshit and censorship at its best.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Sep 2008)

Dean Thompson said:
			
		

> Marc Lemire's White Nationalist website and others like it could be shut down for their content and the fact that they "spread hate", etc, but the ruling would have no effect on 99% of public forums. To think that a site could be legally forced to shut down because a tiny percentage of the posts may have something that's not politically correct is just silly. The only thing I could see happening to Army.ca is that DND may want the site to change it's name to show it's clearly not an official military site.  :-\



Think you missed the disclaimer at the bottom of all pages here:



> Unofficial site, not associated with DND.
> © 1993-2008 Army.ca Technologies Inc., unless otherwise noted. All Rights Reserved


----------



## PanaEng (17 Sep 2008)

We should all be vigilant and perhaps let our members of parliament know that we will not tolerate changes to legislation that would affect our right to free expression, whether directly or indirectly - as this case could do.
However, I think there is enough precedent out there to have that case thrown out and to safeguard Army.ca against such claims - provided we maintain our current standards - on the grounds that Army.ca is the supplier of the medium where people express their opinion and share ideas and is not responsible for what people say; similarly to the telephone co. and sympatico, msn or yahoo.

As a member of the law enforcement community, freedom of speech and the right to privacy are sometimes a thorn on our sides but I am a firm believer on them and do admire (although, may not agree with them some times) people like Michael Geist and Sushil Gupta for their contribution on these issues:
http://www.supremecourtlaw.ca/lawletters/canadalawletters_pdfs/august2006/english/august24_06.asp#eight
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/62/128/

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Dean Thompson (17 Sep 2008)

The disclaimer's great, but to the uninformed public searching for Canadian Army info could easily end up on here and think it's official (unless they read the tiny disclaimer). The point I was trying to make was that no matter what happens in the above mentioned court case, I think Army.ca is safe.


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2008)

Included in that disclaimer, you might consider that the posts are the opinion of the poster only and do not reflect on the owner and moderators of the site....


----------



## Snafu-Bar (17 Sep 2008)

Dean Thompson said:
			
		

> Marc Lemire's White Nationalist website and others like it could be shut down for their content and the fact that they "spread hate", etc, but the ruling would have no effect on 99% of public forums. To think that a site could be legally forced to shut down because a tiny percentage of the posts may have something that's not politically correct is just silly. The only thing I could see happening to Army.ca is that DND may want the site to change it's name to show it's clearly not an official military site.  :-\



 The fine print states that already.

Unofficial site, not associated with DND.
© 1993-2008 Army.ca Technologies Inc., unless otherwise noted. All Rights Reserved.
Legal Notice | Privacy 
Powered by SMF 1.1.6 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC 


 But the issues being thrown around have far more dangerous implications on ones ability to freely express themselves in a somewhat open environment. If the commission finds one site inappropriate and clamps down on it, then the precendent is set for others to be clamped down on and the domino's are set in motion. The overall use of these commissions are getting out of control and are doing just as much damage as they are trying to prevent. If enough of the commissions are in play the overall freedom we seem to think we have is going to be none. Farting in our own bathrooms will be thwarted.

And remember opinions are like a-holes everyone has one. And everyone should have the rights to use them. Choosing to ignore the A-holes is akin to your own personal commission, skip the readers post and move on. Giving into the hate mongers and recognizing them does nothing for the rest of the people around them. Ignoring them and showing thier opinions do NOT matter and don't hold sway on our way of life will do far more than trying shut them down and in effect taking away from ourselves in the process.

Cheers.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Sep 2008)

> I think Army.ca is safe



That's great. It's not you who has to deal with legal action, financially or otherwise. I'd be confident too.


----------



## toughenough (17 Sep 2008)

I'd like to point out that Marc has a very, very long, documented history as a white supremacist. This is not a one off, out of context, outlier post. I don't think the same argument could be made for Mr Bobbit, or for the army.ca community for that matter. I think we're really comparing ables to oranges. It'd be quite a stretch. If this site had a banner that stated, in large letters "Bashing the NDP Since '93" it'd be quite a different matter.

The focus of this site isn't about trashing anyone. Sure, you may find a post here and there with slanderous comments about a car manufacturer, insurance company, a particular country's foreign policy, etc, but that is not the focus of this site. It is clearly not the norm, and we all know that the staff here do spend a lot of time executing their due diligence in staying within reasonable moral, ethical, and legal bounds.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2008)

toughenough said:
			
		

> If this site had a banner that stated, in large letters "Bashing the NDP Since '93" it'd be quite a different matter.



Why would it be different ?

I i want to say "bashing the NDP since 1993" , why couldnt I ?


----------



## toughenough (17 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Why would it be different ?
> 
> I i want to say "bashing the NDP since 1993" , why couldnt I ?



If you receive one ticket for doing 10 over, you'll still keep your license.

If you are out every day breaking every law in the Provincial Highway Act, then you deserve to have your right to a license taken away.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2008)

toughenough said:
			
		

> If you receive one ticket for doing 10 over, you'll still keep your license.
> 
> If you are out every day breaking every law in the Provincial Highway Act, then you deserve to have your right to a license taken away.



What law would i be breaking by having a banner saying "bashing the NDP since 1993" ?


----------



## Snafu-Bar (17 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What law would i be breaking by having a banner saying "bashing the NDP since 1993" ?



 The unwritten NDP law that will come into effect right after they win the next election  >


----------



## toughenough (17 Sep 2008)

This is assuming it accompanies a long line of slanderous comments, and not just a banner...then slander/defamation, what not and so forth, depending on the comments (and I'm not claiming to be a LEO or lawyer on this).

My point is that for this individual, their entire existence for the last 15 years has been to promote racism. It's not a one time post that a radical came to his innocent site about a completely different topic and posted.


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2008)

If that is the case, then prosecute him under the hate laws, not a HR commission....


----------



## Dean Thompson (17 Sep 2008)

toughenough said:
			
		

> My point is that for this individual, their entire existence for the last 15 years has been to promote racism. It's not a one time post that a radical came to his innocent site about a completely different topic and posted.


Exactly. There's no comparing regular public forums to the extreme right wing websites/forums. It's becoming a normal procedure for government to shut down hate spreading websites, this won't be a first of any kind.


----------



## Harley Sailor (17 Sep 2008)

toughenough said:
			
		

> My point is that for this individual, their entire existence for the last 15 years has been to promote racism. It's not a one time post that a radical came to his innocent site about a completely different topic and posted.



Just because he has been dong it for years, does not mater to the law.  It makes no difference weather it was 15 months or 15 years.  What they finely charge him with and make it stick, will set a presidents for other's to use to attack other sites.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2008)

Dean Thompson said:
			
		

> Exactly. There's no comparing regular public forums to the extreme right wing websites/forums. It's becoming a normal procedure for government to shut down hate spreading websites, this won't be a first of any kind.



And it is also a habit for HRCs to take their powers and apply them unreasonably. It is not a stretch to expect them to take a case like this and blow it out of all rportions.


----------



## Dean Thompson (17 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And it is also a habit for HRCs to take their powers and apply them unreasonably. It is not a stretch to expect them to take a case like this and blow it out of all rportions.


You're still on the internet? Are all the Aurora's broke down or something?  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2008)

Dean Thompson said:
			
		

> You're still on the internet? Are all the Aurora's broke down or something?  ;D



Wouldnt you like to know.........


----------



## Dean Thompson (17 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Wouldnt you like to know.........


Not really, or I'd just call Servicing and find out.  8)


----------



## NL_engineer (17 Sep 2008)

Mike, is there a way to secure the form so you can't access it without a login (like lightfighter)?


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Sep 2008)

I thin we've drifted from the main point of this thread.

The principal threat to army.ca is not necessarily that the site's activities aren't defensible against a charge of spreading hatred, etc.  The threat comes from a lack of resources (i.e., Mike B.'s time, energy, and money) to sustain a protracted legal battle to establish that fact in court.  

So, unless anyone is willing to formally volunteer their own money to enable that to be done, then each of us has to be careful in how aggressively we bash anyone in a protracted sense without due diligence to maintaining a credible debate on the associated issues. We've all seen threads spiral into the wasteland of worthlessness when emotions and a lynch-party-mood take over and leave reasoned discussion far behind.  Those situations, and they are always recoverable with good web searches, are the hidden mines in this field of "freedom."


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (17 Sep 2008)

It seems that as we move farther into the "21st century", the closer we get to the scenario in the Orson Welles novel "1984" Big brother is watching. Some may find this a bit humourus but if this continues we all may see and eventual erosion of all of our personal freedoms, to the point when, what ever you say or your views that may seem out of line to certain parties, you will be held liable and forced to pay the piper. "Guilty until proven innocent"

I feel that the erosion of our personal freedoms, by "Obvious entities", spits on the graves of those who sacrificed it all, so we could continue to enjoy those freedoms for the generations who followed. 

A very sad day indeed.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> the closer we get to the scenario in the Orson Welles novel "1984" Big brother is watching. Some may find this a bit humourus .........................



Life imitates art i guess.

I agree....sad day indeed


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Sep 2008)

The underlying requirement remains that people have to to realize that if they want to participate at any level in online exchanges, then they have to remember that their words will remain available to searches for a very long time.   While a single inflammatory or insulting post may be explained away as a "heat of the moment" occurrence, that reasoning gets pretty tough to defend if someone comes up with a hundred posts by an individual that are all anti <_insert group/or individual of choice here_.>  Add to that the increasing normality of investigating services to request IP information and to associate that with individuals through internet service providers.  Frankly, anyone posting on line with outright vehemence is producing the evidence for their own prosecution in such cases.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2008)

Christie is right in his analogy to strict liability offences. I'm watching this with interest, I believe there is a serious threat to free speech from these cases. 

If one thinks about this to its end state, if the defendant loses, a lawyer attempting to defend a client from these charges could actually be guilty of the same offences.  As a result, I dont think the CHRC can succeed in advancing the war against free speech much further.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Sep 2008)

Wow

You mean to tell me we can get shut down for suggesting a journalist has their head up their ass or a book author is RTFO yet there are hundreds of message forums across canada that actively spread hate, racisim, gay bashing, stupidity etc..?  Crazy times.

Mike thanks for hosting this site, sorry you have to deal with wankers trying to shut it down cause we call them on their BS


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Sep 2008)

There's a big difference between "_call_[ing]_ them on their BS_" using fact based debate and "_suggesting a journalist has their head up their *** or a book author is RTFO_".

One is justifiable debate, the other is simply inviting the kinds of actions that could (possibly) leading to the site being shut down in order to avoid legal action.  No-one has yet said that there is any intent to stop *reasonable debate* on any issue, the warning here for all of us is that if this case succeeds, then army.ca could be held legally responsible for every anonymous bashing post and thread (along with the member who posted it).


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Sep 2008)

I'm not being difficult I'm honestly confused.

If you think I'm an idiot how can you justify it other than saying "Hey it's my opinion".

If I think a journalist is being a douchebag do I need to come up with a university level debate on my points in order to justify it?
In Canada you can pray to a cartoon if you want and it will probably have to be taken seriously by ones employer, lest said employer violate that persons religious freedoms and rights.  
I just find it amusing.  

I guess you can actually get in shit for slandering someone, people probably aren't that familiar with that law.  To me I would figure someone would come on army.ca and defend themselves and clear their name instead of dropping greenbacks and jumping on the north american I'll sue you train.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> ... I would figure someone would come on army.ca and defend themselves and clear their name instead of dropping greenbacks and jumping on the north american I'll sue you train.



And I would hope the same but, go back to Mike's post.

There are some people who do not like Army.ca - some don't like what some of us say, others don't like the military. All it would take is for one of them to find a offensive post the Mods might have missed, declare themselves "offended" and launch a complaint with a HRC. In due course the complaint might well be dismissed - but it can take years and, meanwhile, Mike would have to spend his own money to fight the charges.

Army.ca is Mike's hobby and a public service, he puts a lot of time and effort and his own money into it. *BUT* it is not a business - Mike Bobbitt is not making money running Army.ca and, as he says, his wife would be happy enough to see it gone, too!

Surely it cannot be too much for us, all of us, to take a second to think before we hit the post key.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Sep 2008)

Wise words thank you.

I think it's a little out of control and the HRC would have better things to do then listen to someone who had their feelings hurt but this is Canada after all.
Thanks for the clairification.


----------



## DONT_PANIC (18 Sep 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> There's a big difference between "_call_[ing]_ them on their BS_" using fact based debate and "_suggesting a journalist has their head up their *** or a book author is RTFO_".



Unfortunately, it seems that the truth (ie. facts) are not always a defence in a human rights complaint.


----------



## Burrows (19 Sep 2008)

Re-reading the article, it seems like this guy is in hot water because of content posted by him on his website.  It looks like he published articles saying that certain minorities were "menaces to society".

Not to say Army.ca isn't completely in the clear, but it looks like this guy is possibly getting in trouble more for what he is saying himself vs others.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Sep 2008)

This is a private forum and that makes a difference too. Everyone on joining agree's to a certain standard of behavior. I would suggest that this forum require a membership before being able to view the message boards.No membership and you dont get to see whats posted.


----------



## Teeps74 (19 Sep 2008)

A requirement for a free membership would be reasonable. Would not really waive responsibility for Mike, but it would remove all claims of "I stumbled upon this site and found it really offensive...".


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Sep 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> A requirement for a free membership would be reasonable. Would not really waive responsibility for Mike, but it would remove all claims of "I stumbled upon this site and found it really offensive...".



No matter what somone can find offense in what is said. Follow the Guidelines and help out the DS when there are controversial comments made is the way to go.


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This is a private forum and that makes a difference too. Everyone on joining agree's to a certain standard of behavior. I would suggest that this forum require a membership before being able to view the message boards.No membership and you dont get to see whats posted.



That's quite common in a lot of boards I run across


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Sep 2008)

Even with the forum hidden behind a membership only policy, how does that stop someone from obtaining a membership and then taking offence?


----------



## Devlin (19 Sep 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Even with the forum hidden behind a membership only policy, how does that stop someone from obtaining a membership and then taking offence?



I don't think it does protect in that sense but it does show a level of due diligence taken by the site to prevent such an occurence. Likely though the legal arguement would not be that simple...


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Sep 2008)

Which puts the onus back on the individual members posting comments not to set the conditions for a legal battle for Mike B. and army.ca.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Sep 2008)

Devlin said:
			
		

> I don't think it does protect in that sense but it does show a level of due diligence taken by the site to prevent such an occurence. Likely though the legal arguement would not be that simple...



Correct. The site exercises practically the highest level of diligence in the world of forums, given the volumes of posts and subject matter.   

So how was frosty friday :cheers:


----------



## Devlin (19 Sep 2008)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> So how was frosty friday :cheers:



Frosty as always.... ;D


----------

