Dear stooly:
You know who you are. You're the individual who just left a comment here that consisted of information that is currently subject to a publication ban in this country. Your comment has been deleted and your IP has been banned.
If you disagree with the publication ban, that's an opinion you're entitled to. It's an opinion I don't share and there might be a worthwhile debate to be had around that. But you don't have the right to leave me open to the possiblity of being charged for violation of that ban. If you want to take that risk, do it yourself. Don't use me to further your own agenda.
You're no longer welcome here.
pogge
To every other Canadian blogger:
Watch your comments. If you want to take the risk it's your own decision. But it's one that someone else shouldn't take on your behalf and without your permission.
Update:
Or maybe I should call it a postscript. Yes, I do have a temper. Certain things set me off. In this case it's some fool who thinks it's OK to put someone else's neck on the line. If he wants to use a blog to serve his agenda, let him get his own.
One of the trackbacks to this post is from Ghost of a flea who has pre-emptively banned the same IP address and has this to say:
This is a private publication and nothing is printed here without my permission. Anyone attempting to circumvent a court order and in so doing placing others in the way of criminal prosecution is not welcome here whatever I may or may not think of the merits of the court order.
Pretty much.
In almost a year and a half of blogging this is only the second commentor I've banned. I don't do it simply because someone has an opinion that differs from my own, but I'll certainly do it if I think someone is abusing the ability to comment here. My house, my rules.
Wouldn't want the Mullahs to knock down your door. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Friggin' Canada.
Who promised you democracy would be easy?
ss, your comments are annoying and baseless. While I admire such bloggers as Angry in the Great White North for their courage, I disagree that this publication ban should be broken. As one commenter at bound by gravity noted, this is a case of balancing the right to free speech (temporarily only) and the right to a fair trial.
The point of my little temper tantrum (and I admit that's what it was) seems to have gone over the head of our friend ss.
My anger was directed at someone who wanted to get around the publication ban but didn't have the guts to do it himself. If ss wants to accuse someone of cowardice it should be stooly, the guy who chose to use me (and others it turns out) to hide behind.
pogge--
jeez, would that be freedom of choice?
Of course, as ss may, or may not know, choice is not free.
That seemed to me more righteous wrath than a mere tantrum, pogge.
Have you read the interesting editorial in this a.m.'s G&M about what people (and, apparently, Justice Gomery) perceive as a clash between free expression and the right to a fair trial?
The Globe summarizes the Supreme Court decision in Dagenais v. the CBC (1994), written by then Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. You might remember that four accused had won in lower courts a ban on the broadcast of a television drama called The Boys of St Vincent, about sexual abuse in a Catholic boys' home in Newfoundland. The Supremes' decision overturned the ban.
According to the Globe, Lamer ruled that there is no hierarchy of rights in the Charter, and that it is a mistake to imagine that free expression and the right to a fair trial clash. They must be made to work together, and further, the sophistication of juries should not be questioned or speculated upon. There's much more of course, but that is the gist of it, at least filtered through the Globe's editorial writer.
I understand that people are bothered by the American blogger himself (who has announced that he intends to "bring down" a Canadian law), and by the apparent agenda of some here in getting information to him.
And I am definitely not arguing that anyone should defy the ban as long as it applies here. But I do oppose the ban and support those who are arguing against it.
I think the effects of speculation and slow dribbles of information are much worse in these cases, even in criminal cases (I'm thinking of the delay between Homolka's trial and Bernardo's), than a straight laying-out of facts would be. And I especially agree with Justice Lamer's arguments about the respect we owe jurors.
The Globe and Mail has a huge picture of the Web site (including is name), as well as the author's name, in this morning's paper. CTV on last night's news had his name, and also the name of the Website a couple of nights ago, so the publication ban is now pretty much moot.
It was a tantrum in the sense that I usually take a deep breath before I write something like that.
I think that American is suffering from a terminal case of blogger triumphalism. He's certainly managed to stir things up but the real credit goes to the Gomery Commission for not thinking through what would be involved in making a publication ban work in the internet age.
I imagine that G&M editorial is behind the subscription wall but the points you raise are well-taken. Unfortunately that discussion is difficult to have right now. There are too many people, including some Canadians, for whom bashing Canada seems to be the main reason they connect to the internet and this whole affair is providing grist for their mill. I suppose everyone needs a hobby, though.
Pogge,
You're position is 100% correct. If someone wants to break the ban at least have the courage to do it yourself. Don't drag others into it.
As for ss, he seems typical of the faux freedom of the press/democracy people that are so typical in the U.S. these days. The self censorship and disinformation of the fascist corporate American media is orders of magnitude worse than any media ban in Canada.
"My house, my rules."
Hey, if your house has a dungeon in the basement with whips, chains, and padded handcuffs, well, I'll be right over to break some rules. ;-)
I think I just learned things about Sean that I didn't particularly want to know.
;-)
You and me both, James.
"My house, my rules."
You sound JUST like my dad. BTW, he's a great dad!
You could hardly blame him for "triumphalism" considering that he's been interviewed across Canada.