before making this an issue about gov vs little guy or freedom of speech, we should not ignore the role of the human condition in this fiasco as being a major factor contributing to exiting events. the original news article (http://www2.canoe.com/infos/societe/archives/2008/02/20080208-060002.html). In this article... [edited out by moderator (see connatation diffamatoire and in English)] On the other hand i am also against the closing of the forum site because it is a public forum,and as such has the right to express the opinions of the users on it. However sometimes the whole story can get buried under the instantaneous indignation of a specific incident, article or posting. Did the municipality do the right thing? Maybe not, but after years of frustration and complaints about said person they must think that they have legal recourse to do what they did. sometimes The internet makes even the little guy's website sound as important as the big guys (if enough effort is put into it). But also remember that any person or legal entity has the right In law,to defend against defamation that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism(From wikipedia).One more thing, most of the various articles are rather biased towards the forum being closed rather than the fact that a handful of people crossed over the line of slander(which should have been nipped in the bud by the moderatores of the site!). The fact of the matter is that not lonly the five or so people involved in the legal proceedings feel that they have been wronged, but many of the people who had to deal with some of these individuals through the years and who have not been heard from. Enough ranting for me.
new stuff
Don't want to be accused of pointing fingers, but the original forum sould have been better moderated. If some of the posting were in any other media, slander and libel charges would have been laid immeadiatly .Most users on forum sites only know each others online personas and not the real person behind the sometimes vindictive personalities that post to said forums. Nothing against the webmaster at the forum but if personal attacks were the trade of the day on the site maybe would have been better off on BBS or alternative.
all i can say is use DD (due dilligence)
reposted from earlier
reposted from earlier posting
before making this an issue about gov vs little guy or freedom of speech, we should not ignore the role of the human condition in this fiasco as being a major factor contributing to exiting events. the original news article (http://www2.canoe.com/infos/societe/archives/2008/02/20080208-060002.html). In this article... [edited out by moderator (see connatation diffamatoire and in English)] On the other hand i am also against the closing of the forum site because it is a public forum,and as such has the right to express the opinions of the users on it. However sometimes the whole story can get buried under the instantaneous indignation of a specific incident, article or posting. Did the municipality do the right thing? Maybe not, but after years of frustration and complaints about said person they must think that they have legal recourse to do what they did. sometimes The internet makes even the little guy's website sound as important as the big guys (if enough effort is put into it). But also remember that any person or legal entity has the right In law,to defend against defamation that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism(From wikipedia).One more thing, most of the various articles are rather biased towards the forum being closed rather than the fact that a handful of people crossed over the line of slander(which should have been nipped in the bud by the moderatores of the site!). The fact of the matter is that not lonly the five or so people involved in the legal proceedings feel that they have been wronged, but many of the people who had to deal with some of these individuals through the years and who have not been heard from. Enough ranting for me.
new stuff
Don't want to be accused of pointing fingers, but the original forum sould have been better moderated. If some of the posting were in any other media, slander and libel charges would have been laid immeadiatly .Most users on forum sites only know each others online personas and not the real person behind the sometimes vindictive personalities that post to said forums. Nothing against the webmaster at the forum but if personal attacks were the trade of the day on the site maybe would have been better off on BBS or alternative.
all i can say is use DD (due dilligence)