Today I read a story that’s so off the wall in magnitude and scope, that I could hardly comprehend that it was getting international media attention (due to the absurdity of the lawsuit). You see, the perpetrator claims to be a victim, and that’s why he’s suing Google, non-profit Wikipedia, and several other bloggers and large webmasters for either hosting or linking to apparently offensive anonymous comments made about him. I’m not going to name this person, but some research on your part might reveal the person with such a crooked sense of reality that he thinks suing bloggers left, right, and center is going to teach them a lesson.
Out of respect for the various blog aggregators I’m listed on, I will not be giving a link to the story, since apparently that is all it takes to draw the ire of this sue-happy-victim-of-alleged-libel. But I will suggest you read Section 15 because this story has serious implications for communicating online [and also in the real Canadian world].
==
Update:
And what in tarnation would compell a judge to give a criminal a smaller hit than his captors?
And where’s Olaf? It could be the Canadian version of Where’s Waldo.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Rosie | 23-Apr-07 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
I’m not commenting on lame lawsuits because I’m afraid I will get sued. Although, I might take up shoplifting in the meantime-it could pay for the lawsuits.
Rosie | 23-Apr-07 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
another thing….could you imagine if everyone in the canadian blogosphere blogged about the topic which we will not discuss in fear of litigation? I mean, how many people CAN you sue? Could you imagine, 2000 bloggers blogged about it? The lawyer would quit I think. Maybe we should organise a blogburst.
Gayle | 23-Apr-07 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
About the shoplifter - I think the decision was fair. There are limits to what degree of force may be used to arrest - whether that arrest is conducted by civilians or the police.
Or, to put it another way - it was a stupid pack of razors, probably worth 5.99. And for that you kick the guy so hard he loses a tooth? If he steals something worth more than $10.00 do you get to gouge out his eye?
I miss Olaf too…
Dodos | 23-Apr-07 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
I wonder where Olaf is as well.
I made the mistake of commenting on a story on SDA the other day and I got ravaged for daring to present a contradictory opinion. While funny as hell, it was also a little gross. Olaf was a great beacon of hope for the blogosphere - the name calling was at a minimum and people actually had discussions. Olaf even thanked me for providing him with new information. What’s that about?
Saskboy | 23-Apr-07 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
Gayle, even so, the force is understandable, so long as there is an actual crime in progress. You can’t reward a criminal just because the captors were too rough.
Saskboy | 23-Apr-07 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
Rosie, I was thinking of that, but the perp might decide to go after just the “ringleaders” of the blogburst, so it would have to be actually massive, and not just 50 or so people I think.
Dodos, I feel the same way, it’s a big shame that Olaf isn’t around to provide some reasonable conservative opinions so people don’t have to point to SDA for the “balance” in the blogosphere.
Anth | 24-Apr-07 at 1:05 am | Permalink
I miss that die hard tory named Olaf - he’s the only one worth reading. Whenever I read Small Dead Animals I have bad nightmares.
Gayle | 24-Apr-07 at 8:51 am | Permalink
“You can’t reward a criminal just because the captors were too rough.”
Actually, as this case has shown, yes you can. It is as much a punishment for the person using excess force as it is a reward for the recipient.
This does not mean you cannot use any force, just not excessive force. Security officers often use force without repurcussions. You must remember that in this case there were two people “arresting” one accused. Since when did you have to kick someone to arrest him anyway? If they were kicking him in teh face, clearly he was on the ground.
Anyway, enough said (by me anyway).
Saskboy | 24-Apr-07 at 9:17 am | Permalink
I didn’t know they kicked him while he was subdued. That crosses the line obviously. But it sends a bad message to give a smaller punishment to the instigator of the incident.
Rosie | 24-Apr-07 at 10:50 am | Permalink
At the very least he should have paid all the court costs that he cost the taxpayers with that money due to his stupidity.
Werner Patels | 24-Apr-07 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
I can’t believe what I’m reading here. This is just insane. I have just been to Section 15, and all I can say is that guy (the complainant, not Section 15!) is nuts. I agree with Section 15 that this is an attack on the internet and bloggers in particular. Our freedom of speech is under attack here folks, so batten down the hatches, get your rifles out and start firing at will.
Tim Ebl | 24-Apr-07 at 9:04 pm | Permalink
Hey, if you blogburst let me know. God didn’t put very much fear in me…… of humans, that is! I have a lot of fear of chainsaws and alligators, as well as clowns with monkeys. Clowns with lawsuits just aren’t as scary as a loaded monkey, somehow.
Olaf | 27-Apr-07 at 11:34 am | Permalink
What an outstanding Olaf lovefest this has turned into. You’re all far too kind, if somewhat deluded about my personal virtues (delusions that I rely on heavily for my popularity). Good news is that I’m back…
Saskboy | 27-Apr-07 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
Thank goodness for that.
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy » Blog Archive » I guess Zorph was right - UPDATED | 14-Apr-08 at 3:02 pm | Permalink
[...] UPDATE 3: Let’s all get sued! [...]
themusicgod1 | 17-Apr-08 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
Rosie: Hey, the RIAA has sued what, 25,000 kids? If Crooke and Warman are crazy enough, they’ll do it to. It turns out using lasuits as an extortionate speech-chilling policy can be very profitable, netting the RIAA a substantial percentage of their yearly windfall.