The Andrew Potter Affair #nlpoli #cdnpoli

For those interested in the controversy caused by an opinion piece in Macleans,  here are some useful links.

1.  "How a snowstorm exposed Quebec’s real problem: social malaise"  Sub-head:  "The issues that led to the shutdown of a Montreal highway that left drivers stranded go beyond mere political dysfunction"  Andrew Potter's original piece,  with some alterations and editorial notes that have been added since it first appeared.

2.  "This is not how a liberal society responds to criticism"  -  Andrew Coyne's typically cogent and eloquent criticism of the response to Potter's column article.  From the Montreal Gazette.

3.  "It was shoddy journalism that cost Andrew Potter his job"   - Chantal Hebert's typically cogent and eloquent examination of the response to Potter's column.  From the Toronto Star.

4.  From Joseph Heath, an academic's perspective on what he calls "l'affaire Potter".

5.  Many people have incorrectly stated that the vitriolic reaction to Potter's opinion piece is unique to Quebec.  Those people either are not aware of or have forgotten about the string of attacks perpetrated in Newfoundland and Labrador between 2003 and 2014 against individuals who were accused of pretty much everything folks have said Andrew Potter did or failed to do.

Here are a few stories and relevant SRBP posts:

2005:  "A vast and scenic welfare ghetto"  - Margaret Wente's original column in the Globe and Mail sparked some loud and widespread condemnation.  To find some of the reaction, you have to search the Internet Archive.  Other reaction will cost you a subscription to the NewfNat's newspaper of record, the Toronto Globe and Mail.

2005:  For others,  you need look no farther than Rex Murphy in the Globe whose entire argument is based on the premise that while others presume to be victims,  Newfoundlanders really are.   Rex becomes the Fifth Yorkshireman.

Various:  Quislings and traitors

2013:  "On bigotry and prejudice"

2016:  Margaret Wente, again,  only this time knowing how to provide the stimulus to get he neo-nationalist knees in Newfoundland jerking wildly. SRBP:  "Through others' eyes".

2016:  "Poor Russell's Almanack"

-srbp-

Mean Tweets #nlpoli

In the United States,  a late-night television program created a regular feature that has celebrities read the comments made about them on Twitter.

The comments are - to borrow the words of Constable Joe Smyth - "rude, inappropriate, [and] hateful". He was speaking about comments aimed at politicians but his description of many Twitter comments.

Americans laugh at them.  Some of the celebrities offer a pithy comment in return or flip the bird.  But most laugh.

On Jimmy Kimmel's show they call the segment "Mean Tweets".

The Beast #nlpoli

This week, people across Canada who are interested in the public right to access government information mark a thing called Right to Know Week.

It’s a time to “raise awareness of an individual’s right to access government information, while promoting freedom of information as essential to both democracy and good governance.”

People who are genuinely interested in a healthy democracy and in the effective operation of our federal, provincial, and municipal governments support freedom of information. 

It’s that simple.

When you suddenly become the enemy… #nlpoli

For those of us in Newfoundland and Labrador who  - from the outset - opposed the political style that settled on this province after 2003, it’s been a fascinating exercise to watch others suddenly take up the same issues.

Danny Williams’ Conservatives imported the style and applied it ruthlessly to anyone the Old Man felt was not sufficiently compliant with his wishes.

The pattern of behaviour is very well documented.

Until lately the province’s New Democrats and the labour unions that back them enjoyed a very special relationship with the Conservatives.  Generally, they backed the Tories on major projects and issues.  They could find lots of common ground on all sorts of issues.

And as for things like free speech, well, those things were nothing to get bothered about.

Well, those days are gone.

Federation of labour president Lana Payne isn’t signing provincial Tory praises any more now that the Tories have turned on her friends.

And so it is that Lana wrote in her Telegram column this past Saturday that the “divisive smear politics” from other places “has found its way” to this province.

It is disheartening.  No good can come from this.

Well,  of course, it was disheartening.

No good did come of it.

What was most truly disheartening in this province after 2003, though, was the way that people and organizations you would expect to fight for basic rights and for progressive causes couldn’t be bothered to do so as long as the Tories kept the public purse strings loose.  

Maybe Lana could write a column about that some time.  If she did, then maybe she might have an ounce of credibility in her sudden love of fundamental rights and freedoms.

- srbp -

Discussion is healthy, indeed #nlpoli

From the Telegram a former chief of staff in the Premier’s Office puts it as eloquently as only he could:

If public discussion, questions and debate on any issue should be dropped because “the people who have the political and corporate power to make it happen want it to happen,”  then logically there should be no talk of improving search and rescue operations, fisheries mismanagement, deficiencies in health care, industrial safety, workers’ rights, robocalls or any government or corporate action.

Indeed, why would we need public opinion vehicles like letters to the editor and open-line shows?

Why indeed?

Edsel Bonnell gives the answer:

It may be a tiresome process to some, especially those who deal with it every day in government and media, but it’s the price we pay for democracy. The pragmatic alternative is unacceptable.

Amen, brother. 

Amen.

- srbp -

How our system doesn’t work

Supposedly the Western Star – the province’s west coast daily – has never liked or supported Danny Williams.

Now before anyone starts clacking a comment just remember that is the official crackberry statement from the Premier’s publicity machine in response to a recent editorial in the Star that suggested the Old Man is getting a bit cranky and might want to consider retiring.

It’s a load of dung but that’s another story.

The Star editors this week could have decided to write an editorial on the revelation that the provincial government had royally screwed themselves and taxpayers with a botched expropriation of assets that used to belong to Fortis, Enel and Abitibi.

Sounds like a logical topic especially for a paper the crowd with crackberries would like you to think keeps a voodoo doll of Hisself that they stick pins into every day during the morning story meeting.  After all, what better story is there for the bunch of Danny-haters at the Star than this.

So what did the Star do with it?

Try this assessment on for size:

The ruling PCs stood in the House of Assembly this week and said the botched the expropriation of the AbitibiBowater properties in this province when they included properties that will likely require millions of dollars in environmental cleanup.

That aside, at least the Tories, to their credit, were up front about the blunder, and said so straight out without trying to couch it in some political song and dance.

Then they turn their attention to what the Star editorialists see as the real villain in this piece,  the five people on the opposition benches:

It’s time they admitted their shortcomings in the process.

It’s the duty of the opposition to challenge the government on legislation it brings before the house, and make sure these kinds of potentially expensive hiccups don’t make it into law.

They were asleep at the switch in this matter — there’s now way around it.
They dozed in their seats, didn’t ask enough questions ... and let the bad legislation become the law of the land.

It should be a lesson for all concerned.

Our system works best when the tough questions are asked ... not when  government gets a free pass.

That last sentence is absolutely true.

We also know our system is not working in this case because the crowd at the Western Star can’t even get a simple fact right.  When they say that the provincial government was “upfront” about the blunder and didn’t couch their news in political rhetoric, well, nothing could be further from the truth.

A good 10 months elapsed between the time the crowd on the Hill discovered the shag-up and the first time they mentioned it publicly in this province.

That’s right 10 months.

But that’s just for this province. 

In Quebec, people there knew of the monumental blunder back in October.  That’s when a Quebec court handling the Abitibi bankruptcy protection listened to arguments in a case involving the provincial government and its ongoing war with Abitibi.

And when the provincial government finally did publicly mention they owned the mill, the news release made it sound like Abitibi had simply abandoned its property and that as a result, the provincial government was doing the noble thing and taking custody to protect the public interest.

None of the government narrative on this issue since May 2009 has been even vaguely close to the credit-worthy actions the Star editorialists invented.  In fact, so great a work of fiction is the premise of this editorial that its writers would be better off handing their resumes to the show driver on Doyle than wasting their time out there in the second city.

As if that hum were not enough for the Humber crew, though, the Star then decided to blame the Liberals and New Democrats. Apparently the whole thing while a government measure could have been avoided if only they had done their jobs.

Well, here’s a simple test:  look around and try to find anyone - any one person – in December 2008 who publicly doubted the wisdom of the expropriation and/or the haste with which it was done.

Go on and look.  We’ll wait until you are done.

No luck?

That’s hardly surprising.  The Western Star,  for example, thought that the expropriation was the right thing to do and praised the legislature – the full legislature, no less – for acting.  Not a peep about the possibility of mistakes or the need to slow down and let the opposition do its job. Not a word about how our system requires a bit of sober second thought, a bit of careful scrutiny lest someone make a colossal mistake of any kind.

If there were two people in the entire province publicly criticising the haste of it, let alone the expropriation itself, then that’s all there was.  We were summarily dismissed by all those, the opposition included, who shared the view that Abitibi, the friggers,  ought to lose all its stuff in the province.  We were discounted by those who trusted the provincial government to be careful and to make sure everything was done properly.  After all, they have never been wrong before.

Your humble e-scribbler singled out the NDP leader in December 2008 to illustrate how little thought had gone into the expropriation bill, but, in fairness Lorraine Michael is nothing more than an example of the views and attitudes of almost everyone in the province at the time.

And in the end, that post concluded, somewhat prophetically, that:

In the future  - perhaps a few months or even a few years - someone will look back on this time and wonder how such steps could be taken.  They wonder how the Churchill Falls deal could have be done, with the concurrence of all members of the legislature.

In the energy bill and now the expropriation bill – as exemplified by Lorraine Michael’s comments - they have a very simple answer. No one bothered to think.

And there it is, dear friends, the simple truth of the matter.  No one bothered, no one took the time to think. no one felt thinking might be even needed.  Let Hisself and the crew look after that.

No government ought to get such a free pass.

But in this case, the government got its free pass, handed to them gleefully by the legislature and everyone else.

The expropriation debacle is the result.

And if the Star editorialists want someone to blame for this fiasco they can look in the mirror.  They needn’t waste much time doing that, though.  There’s enough guilt to go around when it comes to people who let the government have a free pass on this issue.

Then again, for the past seven years that’s what this government has had:  a free pass. They are popular because they are right and right because they are popular as the sock puppets, Fan Clubbers and pitcher plants will tell you. Things worked out when it appeared the provincial government won.  After all, our system can’t be broken if everything turns out right.  Trust in the saviour of the moment and all will be well.  Anyone saying otherwise just hates Danny.

Such ideas seem so foolish now.

The reality is that just as it was in 1969, so it was 40-odd years later.  Back then the three opposition members – Gerry Ottenheimer, Tom Hickey and Ank Murphy – sided with the government.  So too did the province’s editorialists. Fast forward to 2008 and see the same thing playing out all over again.

Our system of government works when tough questions are asked and  when thorough, prompt and complete answers are demanded.  There must be consequences  - even if only in the form of criticism - when the answers aren’t received. 

All the members of the legislature have a responsibility to ask those questions but so too do editorialists and ordinary citizens have an obligation to pose questions and demand answers.

It is the government’s duty to answer them.

Our system of government in this province is not working;  it has not been working since 2003.  The Abitibi expropriation mess serves only to highlight just exactly how great is the risk that people in this province are taking as a result.

And until people  - ordinary citizens and Western Star editorialists alike - start to acknowledge that, the risk that more Abitibi fiascos will take place – or have already - will only increase.

-srbp-

Taking responsibility – comments, courts and disclosure

A Nova Scotia court decision last week ordering The Coast to cough up details of people who left comments on the newspaper’s website caused a bit of a stir in some communities over the weekend.

The Telegram Saturday editorial takes up the issue, as does Telly editor Pam Frampton in her weekend column.  There’s also an editorial in Halifax’s major daily the Chronicle-Herald.

Each focuses on the the idea that people making comments online should not expect complete anonymity.  They should be expected to take responsibility for their words. As the Herald editorialist concludes:

The bottom line is that freedom of speech online has no exemption from the same legal limitations that exist everywhere else in society.

Amen to that, brothers and sisters.

But with your head suitably swollen with such lofty thoughts, go to The Coast website and look at what is actually there in the stories stories about the Halifax regional fire department and allegations of racism.

That’s where things get a wee bit more complicated.

For starters, the two people who sought the identities of the commenters were not just “two firefighters” as both the Herald and the Telegram opted to describe them. Rather they were the chief and deputy chief of the department.  Both are directly involved in a human rights case launched by a group of black firefighters that alleges not only that racism takes place with the regional fire department but also that senior officials did not act promptly to deal with the issues.

Next, take a look at the comments under the various Coast stories dating back to last spring. Unless the Coast has removed the comments – there doesn’t seem to be any sign of that -  it’s pretty hard to find one which connects the two applicants directly with alleged actions.

With that done, you should realise there might be more to this story than meets the eye.  Someone might want to take a hard look at the speed with which the judge in this case issued the order.  A similar case in Ontario – as the Herald notes – is still awaiting decision.

If nothing else,  people might want to consider the implication of any such easy order for whistleblowers, especially in a province  with no legal protection for disclosure of confidential information in the public interest. 

Again, the Herald raised that point but did nothing with it in the editorial. 

Nova Scotia provincial public servants are protected by a set of regulations but it doesn’t appear those protections extend to municipal employees. In Newfoundland and Labrador, public interest disclosure is looked upon, apparently, with the same disdain as any disclosure of information under the province’s access to information laws.  Although the current administration promised a whistleblower bill in 2007, there’s no sign one will come to the legislature while the current administration is in power.

Some commentators criticised the editors at The Coast for stating they will quickly comply with the court order.  The editors are right to do so.  If there is libel in the comments, then those defamed have the right to seek redress. No one should be able to make scurrilous, defamatory comments with impunity:  speech online ought to be subject to the same law as speech everywhere else in this country. 

At the same time, though, those same commentators ought to realise that free speech isn’t really threatened in this case.  Even in the worst scenario where now or in the future someone tries to silence legitimate speech with the chill of legal action, the Coast editors are likely to pursue that issue with the same vigour they have used thus far in tackling the allegations of racism within Nova Scotia society.

A free press stands alongside free speech as a means of ensuring that those in power are held to account.  Both are secure in this Nova Scotia example.

-srbp-

Planted calls and personal threats against talk show host revealed

In an interview with Geoff Meeker, VOCM Open Line show host Randy Simms gave the text-book definition of a planted caller. 

Simms was describing his experience in the first couple of days after news broke that the Premier was in the United States for heart surgery. He rejected the idea the calls and e-mails were organized but then gave what is in essence the textbook definition of an orchestrated, partisan political campaign of intimidation aimed at local news media:

“…In many instances, they weren’t listening to the program, they don’t know what the question was that I asked, they haven’t read my column. But they are responding (anyway)… and a lot of them will respond and cc it to other offices, let’s say that.  And it’s done for a different motivation than engaging in legitimate democratic debate. But you get some of that, right?”

Simms also described the e-mail portion of the campaign:

Towards the end of the February 2 program, Simms referred to a bunch of emails he had received that day; messages that were vicious, insulting and mean-spirited.

“I don’t know why you would take the time to write an email, the sole purpose of which is to insult, to see if you can inflict some kind of emotional hurt. I don’t know why you would do that. That says more about you, than it does about me. …”

And if that wasn’t enough, Simms has also been subjected to personal threats:

““All of us, everybody, in any form of public life will have threats made against them. If you could read what has been said to me, about me, and of me, simply because we mentioned Danny Williams name and health care in the same sentence. I’ve had my life threatened. I’ve been threatened with being shot. I’ve been threatened with having my house burned down. We even had a guy come on Facebook yesterday and he actually said that Randy Simms should do us all a favour and hang himself in his basement. Now I ask you – These people… should these people be walking around free?”

The short answer is “no”.

It’s a criminal offence to make threats, and if Simms has been getting that type of stuff, the best thing to do is turn the information over the police.  Let them investigate and take appropriate action.  Some of these louts can be tracked down and when they’ve been rooted out, let them deal with the consequences.

No need to wonder any more if last Saturday’s analysis here at Bond Papers read too much into the current climate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-

Signing his own death warrant

Newfoundland and Labrador information commissioner Ed Ring is welcoming a  court case that will settle once and for all a dispute with the provincial government over access to government records.

The provincial government is insisting Ring shouldn’t have access to documents as part of his review under the province’s open records law.  That law currently gives Ring the powers of a commissioner under the public inquiries act to compel the delivery of any and all documents he deems relevant to discharging his responsibilities.

Danny Williams disagrees.

Now a judge will get to sort it out.

Of course, those of us who know Ed Ring personally wouldn’t expect anything from him but exactly this thoughtful and responsible discharge of his duties as set out by law.

Let’s just hope that if the judge sides with Ring, the powers that be don’t decide Ring must be replaced with someone considerably more pliable.   it would be a shame that doing his job and speaking his mind wound up being a case of the guy signing the death warrant for his own job.

-srbp-

Power, politics and change

People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people.

'Tis that time of the year once more, dear friends, when the political origins of an ancient commemoration once more slips a wee bit more from the popular view. This is a shame since in the events marked by bonfires in many parts of the Commonwealth we may find a timely inspiration.

The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt at violent political change and the book and movie from which the opening quote is taken contained its share of violence. Yet, violence is not as sure a means of effecting political change as knowledge and words.

Discovery of the Plot set back the cause of Roman Catholic emancipation in Britain for some two centuries, yet experts will equally argue that had the plot succeeded in killing the King and the Protestant members of parliament, it may well have led to a period of even greater repression of Roman Catholicism throughout the United Kingdom.

Compare that experience with events in India before 1947 or in the United States when the power of non-violence coupled with information produced far more dramatic and positive social and political changes.

The truth is that governments in the past century of human civilization do fear their people. They fear not so much the potential for violent revolution, although that has occurred. Rather if we look to Pakistan of just the past few days, we see the actions of a government declaring martial law because it feared the prospect of a change in government administration through legal, i.e. peaceful means. The pretext for martial law is a particular decision of the country's Supreme Court, but the struggle between the courts and General Pervez Musharraf go back many months. The rule of law has been frustrating the General's plans and, in some respects, it may only have been a matter of time before Musharraf or another member of the armed forces that has ruled the country for too many years seized power.

Closer to home we may also see evidence of a government that fears its people. The Prime Minister recently ruled out the prospect of an inquiry into allegations against one of his predecessors, not because the allegations have already been reviewed, but because such an inquiry would be "dangerous".

Yet neither the Prime Minister nor his predecessor found the prospect of public inquiries into other matters to be "politically driven", or in the case of Paul Martin sufficiently dangerous to his own political fortunes to serve as an excuse for not appointing an investigation.

The Prime Minister, we would contend might be afraid of the implications such an inquiry might have for his own administration. He is almost certainly afraid of undermining his own politically driven use of past misdeeds.

Closer to home, we find another government and another first minister seemingly afraid of the people. The struggle in this instance is waged with words that are effectively stripped of any real meaning. The legislature is kept closed while the evidence makes plain that the excuses offered by the cabinet are nonsense.

People are warned against demanding increased public spending on one or another cause they consider good because of "the debt." Never mind that the debt has increased and that public spending under the current administration has kept pace with the flow of petro-dollars; the spending of course, is on things which the government considers important. People should scarcely need reminding that this same administration has refused to tell the people what they will actually be charging developers for the right to develop public natural resources and fought for the longest time to prevent an inquiry into spending on fibreoptic cables. These are actions, we are reminded of an open, accountable and transparent government.

Therein lies the clearest example of how governments show their fear of the people who they would rule. Culture and history are malleable and the very meaning of common words may be altered to the point where even reasonable people cannot grasp the inherent contradictions in what they claim.

I like the fact that our current premier seems intent on appealing to the strengths and skills of the people of this place. I like the fact that his government beefed up the rules for MHAs in the wake of the constituency-allowance spending scandal, based on Chief Justice Derek Green’s recommendations.

or from the earlier column:

He preaches that the solution lies not with him, but with us.

How "he" alone accomplishes this we do not know, especially when the political program is designed to increase government control over resources rather than creating an environment in which enterprising individuals may flourish. How "he" should be credited with introducing those rules when, as anyone may well see, "he" allowed the inappropriate spending - the allowances not the alleged criminal activity - to flourish until discovery of the latter revealed the former; let us not forget either that implementing those rules was delayed, as the columnist's own paper reported, while people were led to believe something else. The "solution" - no problem is defined - cannot rest with "us" when the entire premise of the administration is founded on "him" being in charge; "us" should dutifully follow and offer only positive suggestions in support of whatever is decided by "him" and "his" ministers.

Words can have no meaning in a world where they are changed at whim, where information is withheld from the public and where, as it turns out, even editors have let slip the mooring lines of fact.

I remember how the meaning of words began to change. How unfamiliar words like "collateral" and "rendition" became frightening, while things like Norsefire and the Articles of Allegiance became powerful. I remember how "different" became dangerous.

Another writer called it Newspeak, but in other works, George Orwell demonstrated his clear appreciation of how language may be perverted to obscure meaning and thereby frustrate public understanding. In some countries, governments show their fear of people with violence. In others, they show fear by doing violence to language and history.

Both fears are rooted in the understanding that power rests ultimately the individuals within a society. Yet in any democracy worthy of the name, there is no legitimate reason for fear nor for the response it seems to engender from the governors toward the governed.

In Pakistan, the country has taken a step backward from democracy and only time will tell how the Pakistani people will respond.

In Canada, we may continue to work for change and to exercise our power as citizens in a democracy in the country as a whole or within the province. We must reject the debasement of language and history.

True power, after all, does not come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from the exercise of basic freedoms, despite what some governors may ponder.

As individuals in a free society, we should remember that true power comes from the mind.

-srbp-

When free speech is compromised

The Telegram editorial today raises questions about the provincial Progressive Conservative plan to put a bounty on booties of $1000 for each new child born or adopted in the province.

The questions raised in the editorial - based on sound research - point to criticisms of the approach from other quarters, none of which are partisan. Other news media have covered the issue in somewhat the same way as the Telegram does.

The criticisms are based on experience in other jurisdictions where these pronatal policies have not worked and have proven to be very costly.

So why, pray tell, would the Telegram feel the need to preface its editorial with these words:

This is not meant to be a criticism of any party's election platform...?

An editorial is the place where a newspaper should take a critical position - if need be - and not have to apologise for it at all. An editorial should criticize the platform of any party if there is a good reason to do so. Being ineffective is as good a basis for criticism as anything else, particularly when the criticism is constructive.

Feedback, including critical comment, should be expected in return. The Telegram took issue yesterday with a Liberal who eventually wound up as a candidate in the current election voting in an open nomination process of another party, the Progressive Conservatives.

As far as Bond Papers was concerned, the editorial was off base on its facts. Frankly even after the editorial page editor commented on it, it's still hard to see what the issue actually is. The alternate point of view - expressed eloquently by the Telly's sister the Western Star - was presented in that post to demonstrate the difference of opinion on the issue.

But...

No one questioned the right of the Telly's editorialists to make a critical comment in the first place.

Free speech demands no less.

Free speech needs no qualification.

On the front page of the Telegram today there is also an article calling attention to comments made by a Liberal supporter, who referred to the Premier as a "Fuehrer". The Telly story isn't available electronically but cbc.ca/nl picked up the same point:

Party supporter Jim Combden, speaking at a rally in the town of New-Wes-Valley, made a crack about how Progressive Conservative cabinet minister John Hickey had threatened to sue critics of his spending.

"[Hickey] said, 'I will sue you if you speak on the open line programs, if you speak on legitimate airwaves, if you criticize my government, if you criticize my fuehrer, I will sue you,'" Combden told the rally, in the Bonavista North district.

Combden's remarks were over the top and the use of any analogy to Nazi Germany is the certain death of any point. Rather than lamely try to pass the comment off as a joke, Combden ought to apologise unequivocally and immediately withdraw the remark. It was wrong.

However, let's recall that the incident to which Combden referred prompted concerns at the time about many things including libel chill; that is, that the threat of law suits would silence critics. The fear is reasonable given the abuse of defamation laws by the rich and powerful in our own society and in the developing world to silence anyone with whom they disagree.

The Premier is notoriously thin skinned. In February, at the time the Hickey suit was first raised, Danny Williams named several individuals - including your humble e-scribbler - and threatened to sue them for motives he attributed to the individuals falsely, at least speaking in reference to Bond Papers.

Let's also recall at the time that the Premier stated his belief that it would be appropriate to eliminate the right of free speech in the provincial legislature. Centuries of precedent and a hard won liberty be damned: let's take the parliamentary immunity away.

In the aftermath of the Premier's remarks and the launch of Hickey's suit against former premier Roger Grimes, many people changed their behaviour. One blog vanished for a period of time, although ostensibly for other reasons. There's no question that callers to the province's very popular talk radio shows regularly checked themselves needlessly or in some cases refrained from comments out of fear of lawsuits.

Thankfully, that chill was temporary. Nattering nabobs, as Telegram editor Russell Wangersky named them after the fashion of former American vice-president Spiro Agnew, have their valued place in any democracy worthy of the name.

However, when the province's leading daily newspaper hobbles its own opinion as it did today, free speech is compromised.

We are weaker.

We should be ashamed.

And the only determination we should have is to resist unreasonable efforts to restrain voices of dissent.

-srbp-

The Power of Blogs

In which some people discover the reality, namely that bloggers are not immune to libel and slander laws and in which we discover the potential that some other people - including the rich and powerful - might seek to impose a form of chill by simply launching lawsuits claiming defamation.

Then there's Michael Geist's blog. Geist is a law professor specializing in Internet issues. He's got a youtube link to a piece from The National on the issue. There are other posts on the Internet and free speech issues. geist is being sued himself, incidentally, for doing nothing more complicated than including in a blogroll a link to a site allegedly containing defamatory comments.

The Toronto Transit Commission has threatened legal action over a blog posting.

Ditto for a newspaper that prides itself on being locally owned and telling it like it is.

And of course, there's the Premier's famous melt-down. Oddly enough, by falsely accusing your humble e-scribbler of attempting "to disparage the reputations of people", the Premier was effectively doing the thing he claimed to be opposing.

Go figure.

The issue of defamation is a potent one for any form of communication, but especially for the online community where many of the rules and conventions of society appear to be ignored by so many. There are aspects of the Internet that seriously challenge some of the conventions society has evolved to permit free speech. Those will require some careful consideration and some serious thought before anyone rushes to write new laws.

At the same time, the notion of free speech apparently causes some people concern simply because it exists. The content is not as important to these people so much as the fact that comments are made publicly which are contrary to whatever turns out to be the official dogma of the moment.

Take for example, that there are some people out there who have a great deal of difficulty with the things written here from time to time. The comments include the now infamous "I am all for free speech but..." line used by a surprisingly large number of people to claims that your humble e-scribe ought to be thrown in jail for something they deem as "treason" to actual threats of violence.

Blogs can be a powerful medium, so powerful in fact that some people spend a heck of a lot of time trying to figure out how to shut them down. As the links above suggest, the future of blogging in Canada might wind up being a very hot topic this fall.

-srbp-