Autonomous Source: Come and get me, coppers!

April 04, 2005

Come and get me, coppers!

Captain's Quarters links to a story from the London Free Press that suggests bloggers that linked to the blog post that broke the Gomery publication ban may be in for a 'world of pain':

[Inquiry official Francois] Perreault warned that even if Brault's testimony has been outed by a U.S. website, it doesn't mean it's now public information.

"Anyone who takes that information and diffuses it is liable to be charged with contempt of court," Perreault said.

"Anybody who reproduces it is at risk."

And...

Sun Media lawyer Alan Shanoff said publishing the name of the blog or the Canadian news site that promoted it or providing the blog's Internet address could lead to a contempt charge.

Now, don't think for a minute that I'm posing as a brave defender of freedom of speech by continuing to link to this information. I completely doubt that the RCMP would try to round up such a huge number of Canadian bloggers that have done the same. (Though it is interesting to note that the three Canadian blogger/journalists I follow -- Paul Wells, Andrew Coyne, and Colby Cosh -- have all avoided directly linking to the source of the offending information.)

They may be looking for a site to make an example of though. Nealenews, which is to Drudge as Windsor is to Detroit, directly linked to the forbidden knowledge for most of yesterday -- though today he's taken down the link. It may not be enough; the call for blood has gone out.

The ban could be lifted in a few days anyways, and all this fuss will blow over. The lawyers for Brault and Coffin are looking to move their trials back until September, so Gomery's definitely not going to keep the lid on this testimony until then. After all, it's supposed to be a public inquiry. All the ban will have done then is to wet everyone's appetite.

Posted by Bruce Gottfred at April 4, 2005 12:06 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Thanks for staying on top of the story.

Posted by: Andrew at April 4, 2005 06:48 PM

I'm considering making at least an oblique reference to the AdScam leak on my own 'blog. Unfortunately, one of my current employers happens to be a media outlet. While I'm sure any reasonable individual can separate personal publishing from mass broadcast publication, this particular outlet has had a couple of run-ins with local law enforcement and immigration as of late, and the city's finest would probably jump at the chance to help the feds make an example of our angry outlet due to the off-duty actions of an employee.

Although the case I'm about to refer to is American, this is not the first time I can think of that the threat of contempt has been held over online publications linking, or even just publishing a URL without A HREF tags, to offending information. Hit up Google for "2600 DeCSS link", then read it and weep.

Posted by: Mark Bialkowski at April 4, 2005 08:56 PM

I vaguely remember that case. Hollywood was involved, and I can understand how they won. This is just the government of Canada. Amateurs. I'm not afraid.

Posted by: Bruce Gottfred at April 4, 2005 10:56 PM

This is just the government of Canada. Amateurs. I'm not afraid.

Easy for you to say. I hang around people who have been profiled, targeted, arrested, mistreated, and jerked around by all levels of government and law enforcement on a daily basis--on either side of the border. The feds here may be amateurs, but they could still make a person's life hell in the meantime. Court costs, lawyers, taking time away from work (or losing one's job, even!) can be expensive.

It really does take some degree of guts to stand up to power and authority, especially when a lot of people give legitimacy and consideration to the arguments presented by people representing that power structure--no matter how "amateur" that power structure may seem.

As for the 2600 case... I can personally attest to having legitimate uses for the offending software, since at the time no legal DVD players for Linux or *BSD existed. Another case of a bad law squashing people.

Just the threat of state power being used to suppress an individual's speech in regards to government activities is insulting and scary enough. I may come from way the hell on the other side of the political compass, but hopefully we can agree that the chilling effect alone is an abrogation of the rights we claim for ourselves every day.

Posted by: Mark Bialkowski at April 4, 2005 11:39 PM

Well, I'm being a little facetious when I call the government amateurs. They're actually quite good at making people's lives miserable.

But I really have no fear of the law being used against me in this case. It's too public, there's too many people doing the same thing, it wouldn't stop the leaks. Trying to flex their muscles here would just demonstrate how powerless they really are to control information.

But it would be fun to see them try.

Posted by: Bruce Gottfred at April 5, 2005 09:13 AM