Should a website owner be held responsible...

[kaaryn]

for the comments left by visitors to their forum?

This lady is being confronted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for 'hate speech' because of comments left LAST YEAR in her forum by a member of the site:

04/24/06 "I can't figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals."

03/09/06 "I defy Islamic censorship and speak about what I believe is the truth about violent Islamism and its threat to religious liberty in Canada."



Here are some commentaries on what's going on...

http://shaidle.blogmatrix.com/:entry:shaidle-2007-07-21-0000/

http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2007/07/human-rights-complaint-against-free.html


Oh - and the complaint was filed by a non-Muslim woman who visited the site and somehow felt discriminated against... :hmm ???

I don't know, but this seems to smack of censorship more than "protection". I don't like it, not one bit. :no

[Ringo]

In America with bleeding heart Traitor Liberals and their scumbag Lawyers, it would be possible!

IT NEVER should happen but who knows! Hell I am insulted daily, and I give it back, as suing peopel is not even in my vocabulary!

[Zanoog]

In America with bleeding heart Traitor Liberals and their scumbag Lawyers, it would be possible!

IT NEVER should happen but who knows! Hell I am insulted daily, and I give it back, as suing peopel is not even in my vocabulary!

:lmao You are so hilarious!! :akbar :lmao :akbar

[April15]

If you don't like what is being said go somewhere else!

[kaaryn]

That's what I was thinking. I can't imagine what their reaction would be to some of the stuff posted here, or on Newsy's site, or on places like JihadWatch.

[MW]

I guess the woman thought it was an US site, and she could find legal protection (i.e. $$$) against being offended.

:roll

[Coyote]

I'm sure a couple of you will be happy to know that website owners can't be held liable for another user's post. At least when it comes to slander, libel, defamation, etc. I'm not sure on the "hate speech", though. The first three are pretty clear, but hate speech is so subjective.

I would imagine, though, that threats against heads of state, should they occur (I have seen them on other forums), should be removed immediately. The men in the black suits won't bother with such niceties as going to court over it....

[Sweet Tart]

I have a very strong belief that the owner of a website should NOT be held accountable for anything that is posted by a member.

That's all :para

[Trueblue]

Tell that to Bill OReally. :pisslaugh

[The Q]

If you don't like what is being said go somewhere else!

:rofl2
:rofl2
:rofl2

How come when I say that, people jump on their huffy bikes and ride around in circles to the Lone Ranger theme song?

ADQ

[bluedog]

I personally would like like to see "hate speech" defined, absolute. Hate is such a subjective term and with slight manipulation by someone that is good with the English vocabulary a hateful insult could made to look like a "formal" invitation to a church related function, perhaps having to be read several time before the intended target actually knows they have been insulted, might less the target of hate.

And "once" defined just what fact separates this exercise of the lst amendment form other acceptable speech that breaches no formal law with the "action" of crime. As it has been "opined" in precedent after precedent that no one can be prosecuted for thinking about a crime unless said thinking is made in conspiracy to commit a felony and then actual physical proof must be presented as the planning thereof. And just who can police someones mind to know the difference between a momentary rant of anger and actual thought placed as a physical threat? In fact I would go so far as to say without knowing any case histories in relation to any hate speech that has been the subject of prosecution that all opinions have been offered, have been presented by the pen of some semi-communist liberal bleeding heart judge. BD

[April15]

I'm sure a couple of you will be happy to know that website owners can't be held liable for another user's post. At least when it comes to slander, libel, defamation, etc. I'm not sure on the "hate speech", though. The first three are pretty clear, but hate speech is so subjective.

I would imagine, though, that threats against heads of state, should they occur (I have seen them on other forums), should be removed immediately. The men in the black suits won't bother with such niceties as going to court over it....

Well I hate speeches myself. Diatribes or dissertations are ok. Just not speeches.

[April15]

:rofl2
:rofl2
:rofl2

How come when I say that, people jump on their huffy bikes and ride around in circles to the Lone Ranger theme song?

ADQ

Cause I'm a nobody and you are a somebody!

[cassandra]

I have a very strong belief that the owner of a website should NOT be held accountable for anything that is posted by a member.

That's all :para

I have to agree with you. However, if that person was somehow condoning it I think that it is their fault.

[issac the dragon]

If they control who gets to post, they are allowing it. And I'm opposed to holding that owner responsible for what people post. But I'm with Bluedog. I want someone to define "hate speech."

If I say I want to kill John Doe? If I say I think someone should kill John Doe? If I say I would like to see John Doe in his coffin?

[April15]

If they control who gets to post, they are allowing it. And I'm opposed to holding that owner responsible for what people post. But I'm with Bluedog. I want someone to define "hate speech."

Look at #13 for answer.

If I say I want to kill John Doe? If I say I think someone should kill John Doe? If I say I would like to see John Doe in his coffin?You are obsessing on John Doe. Get a life!

[Zanoog]

You are obsessing on John Doe. Get a life!

:lmao

[cassandra]

A definition for hate anything would be great. Hate speech, Hate crimes, you name it. Seems like anyone can throw that term around for anything these days. :shrug

[quiet man]

no i don't think a website owner of a public forum is remotely responsible for what is in the forum. could not have any control of posts from any members at all. would be impossible to pull that one off. :drevil