Butbutbut...

...that's different!!! Hahahahahaha!

Oh yeah. When it comes to free speech, so far it's been a great summer for all those who love liberty! The Levant and Macleans HRC complaints were withdrawn or tossed (with one complaint outstanding against Macleans which will also undoubtedly be tossed), as was the libel suit against broadcaster Rafe Mair, and -- what's that? Oh, Mair's case is different??

"Free speech advocates must be popping champagne corks celebrating two key decisions released this summer.

Within two days in late June the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the concept of fair comment and the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled why no hearing was warranted for the controversial Mark Steyn article published in Maclean's in October 2006.

Being a pessimist, I'm keeping the champagne in the cooler until I see the practical impact of these decisions."

Yeah yeah... why? What's the problem?

"The Supreme Court decision involved a radio editorial by Rafe Mair, a well-known British Columbia talk show host. He lambasted a social activist, Kari Simpson, for the position she took opposing any positive portrayal of gay lifestyle in public schools."

Whoops!

"Mair called Simpson a bigot and said she had "placed herself alongside skinheads and the Klu Klux Klan." He also made references to Hitler when he said: "I'm not suggesting that Kari was proposing or supporting any kind of holocaust or violence but neither really -- in the speeches, when you think about it and look back -- neither did Hitler."

Simpson sued Mair and the radio station for defamation, the lowering of her reputation." [...]

"First, one might wonder if the Mair decision might have differed had Mair not attacked an easy target. It's easy to assail someone like Simpson whose anti-gay views are not popular or politically correct. Suppose Mair had attacked a gay supporter? The result should be the same but would it?"

Boo-friggin-hoo: the difference is that Simpson isn't a minority (even if her twisted, ass-backwards views are). So it's free speech for me, but not for thee. Can anyone even doubt the fact that, like I said, it's not about free speech, it's about their free speech?

Help Support Mark Francis!

From Mark Francis:

The OpenPolitics libel case goes to trial October, 2008. Please support the defendants in this important lawsuit which threatens to make authors and publishers responsible for collaborative content and the political comments of others. You can read about it over at OpenPolitics.ca. Yes, it is one of the Crookes cases.

Else, send a cheque to

Cambridge Green Party Association
104 Adam St.
Cambridge ON N3C 2K6

Make the Cheque out to the association, but mark the cheque as being for the Legal Defence Fund as related to the Crookes vs Holloway et al. case. This is the case I am in. Money sent here will get you a tax receipt, but so far does not support the OpenPolitics case.

Win this one first

Having worked in the advertising business for more years than I care to remember, I often make the mistake of assuming my career bestowed upon me some kind of magickal immunity to the vile power of marketing buzz. Others may be taken in by the Noise! Noise! Noise!, but oohhhh noooooo, not me, never me.

Wrong-o, and as recently as last week it was proven once again. Along with a lot of other blogospheric nosy parkers, my attention was recently commandeered by all the noise being generated around a certain libel suit. After familiarizing myself in an elementary way with the Five Ws of the thing, I concluded that the case against one of the respondents was weak to the point of unfairness, and quite possibly a threat to the rest of us.

Not much change in the weather on that front. However, in the course of all this I was slapped upside the head by the reality of a related and even more threatening issue that I had thought was already dead: the libel action against Section 15's Mark Francis. Mark was sued for libel because he unknowingly (get this!) linked to a site that in turn linked to a third site that had published allegedly libelous material. A link to a link to alleged libel was enough to get this guy's unknowing ass sued. If anyone thinks that the deal one of the Warman respondents is getting is a touch raw, the deal Mark Francis is getting is so raw that it's still running around barking and squealing like a hyena in heat.

Although it was initially tossed out of the BC Supreme Court, there are appeals and other assorted litigious bullshit, and it could still end badly. Most significantly, the decision in Mark's case will be made long before the lawyers for the Warman respondents even get their shoelaces tied. The Section 15 case will set the precedent -- if Mark loses, anyone after him is done like dinner and truly toasted. This should be of extreme interest to anyone supporting the bloggers named in the Warman suit last week.

Zorpheus has blogged extensively and outrageously about Mark's plight and Right Blogistan's underwhelming response to it, especially given that it could save the asses of some of their own. Read Zorph and get mad, then go visit Mark. You know what to do after that. (But just in case you're not sure...)

UPDATE: Please see Mark's comment here for more info on his situation.

Chill

It was uncharacteristically quiet in Left Blogistan today, with surprisingly little schadenfreude cake being served up over the libel suit(s) launched yesterday against some of our favourite Wingnuttians. My immediate reaction to the news yesterday was "Oh shit!?" and a quick hand stifling laughter. But after a few minutes the gravity of the situation, and its far-reaching implications, started sinking in. That feeling didn't improve as I read the Statement of Claim.

It's sometimes easy to forget that the laws of meat space also apply to The Internets. Although it might get a little crazier here on the Toobz, the rules of engagement are generally the same -- you can't say that someone did some nasty lowdown thing that they didn't do. Posting to a blog is like publishing a column in a newspaper -- if an editor writes a column that makes wild and unfounded accusations about someone, he can expect the law's great shit-hammer to come down on his head in due course.

There's nothing weird about Warman's lawsuit except the fact that the defendants didn't see it coming. (NOTE: According to the SoC, the defendants were advised this was coming a couple of months back, so they weren't completely gobsmacked.) Most of them have been poking at this litigious hornet's nest for months, so no surprise that it didn't end well for them, and for most of them, no sympathy from me. However, when I read the Statement of Claim I found the suit against SDA disturbing. Kate McMillan is being sued for things she didn't say or post herself: a post by a guest poster and remarks made by commenters.

Once again, I surprise myself: I really hope Kate wins this fight, so much so that I might even throw a few bucks into her defense fund (EDIT: Nah, I don't think so.*) It's bad enough that libel suits are flying around at all, but worse still for someone to be sued for things she didn't even say. Forget for a moment about the negative side of SDA (is there another?) and even whether there was tacit approval of the libelous statements on Kate's part -- she didn't make them herself, and that is all that matters. If she loses, it won't be good for anyone.

UPDATE: Okay, thanks to the education provided by my hard-working commenters, I'm becoming less convinced about what I blurted out in the last paragraph above. (I haven't lapsed into total ambivalence yet, though.)

*However, another issue that came up (thanks, BCL) is that Mark Francis of Section 15 is still fighting his libel suit, which also came about because of a link, and it's the precedent-setter, not SDA's case. I have to admit I was only vaguely aware of Mark's suit, and for some reason thought that it was finished, but it's not. If anyone is so inclined, that's where I'd "throw a few bucks".

That's just what happens

when you leave the inmates in charge of the asylum: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*Ahem* Yes, quite.