An Example of how International Law ...
Green Mtn
location: Observing the Progressive madness with considerably less amusement.
listening to: Grandchildren, the best reason for saving the future.
registered: 2004.04.03
posts: 2617
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
... with surely come in to play.The following is a small excerpt from the "Internet
Underserveiilance 2004" section, on the right, of the Reporters
Without Borders site, especially noted previously. It contains a
dropdown for many countries.
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=273/This is but a disconcerting excerpt from Canada's review. Last, the
USA is rated as middling. Do note how a Canadian Court cites an
Aussie decision which leads who knows where for all of us.Canada Population : 31,271,000
Internet users : 16,110,000 (2002)
Average charge for 20 hours of connection : 10 euros
DAI* : 0.78
Situation** : good Canada is one of the world’s 10 countries best-connected to the
Internet. Though just as advanced in this way as its neighbour, the
United States, it goes much less far in monitoring online activity.
The government has chosen consultation and dialogue with the
private sector and civil society. However, a Canadian court recently
took a dangerous position on the responsibility of website editors
for online material.
An Ontario judge agreed in January 2004 to hear a libel case
against the US-based website of the Washington Post, a decision
with ominous implications for Internet law. UN official Cheickh
Bangoura was accused in the paper in 1997 of serious professional
errors while he was working in Kenya that year. Since then,
Bangoura has become a Canadian citizen and sued because the
article could still be read online in Canada.
Dangerous legal precedent
The judge unexpectedly ruled that the paper "should have
reasonably foreseen that the story would follow (Bangoura)
wherever he resided" and noted that material was put on a website
with intent to reach a wider audience. He thus indirectly referred to
the Gutnick case (see Australia chapter in 2003 Internet Report)
and said editors were not forced to post articles online. He added
that the more important the subject of the article, the more careful
editors should be.
Until then, only judges in France and Australia had agreed to rule
on the content of websites based in other countries. The Canadian
decision added to the legal uncertainty about the issue and said
online material could be considered as published in all countries
where it could be read. Does this mean an site editor can be hauled
up before a court in any country ? The ruling is dangerous because
it could make website editors censor themselves for fear of being
prosecuted abroad.
Threat to secrecy of journalistic sources...
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
G
Green Mtn
(view)
... with surely come in to play.The following is a small excerpt from the "Internet
Underserveiilance 2004" section, on the right, of the Reporters
Without Borders site, especially noted previously. It contains a
dropdown for many countries.
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=273/This is but a disconcerting excerpt from Canada's review. Last, the
USA is rated as middling. Do note how a Canadian Court cites an
Aussie decision which leads who knows where for all of us.Canada Population : 31,271,000
Internet users : 16,110,000 (2002)
Average charge for 20 hours of connection : 10 euros
DAI* : 0.78
Situation** : good Canada is one of the world’s 10 countries best-connected to the
Internet. Though just as advanced in this way as its neighbour, the
United States, it goes much less far in monitoring online activity.
The government has chosen consultation and dialogue with the
private sector and civil society. However, a Canadian court recently
took a dangerous position on the responsibility of website editors
for online material.
An Ontario judge agreed in January 2004 to hear a libel case
against the US-based website of the Washington Post, a decision
with ominous implications for Internet law. UN official Cheickh
Bangoura was accused in the paper in 1997 of serious professional
errors while he was working in Kenya that year. Since then,
Bangoura has become a Canadian citizen and sued because the
article could still be read online in Canada.
Dangerous legal precedent
The judge unexpectedly ruled that the paper "should have
reasonably foreseen that the story would follow (Bangoura)
wherever he resided" and noted that material was put on a website
with intent to reach a wider audience. He thus indirectly referred to
the Gutnick case (see Australia chapter in 2003 Internet Report)
and said editors were not forced to post articles online. He added
that the more important the subject of the article, the more careful
editors should be.
Until then, only judges in France and Australia had agreed to rule
on the content of websites based in other countries. The Canadian
decision added to the legal uncertainty about the issue and said
online material could be considered as published in all countries
where it could be read. Does this mean an site editor can be hauled
up before a court in any country ? The ruling is dangerous because
it could make website editors censor themselves for fear of being
prosecuted abroad.
Threat to secrecy of journalistic sources...
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
