This is unbelievable!! I have posted on Ezra Levant's site asking that this post suggesting someone murder Mr. Warman be removed. I also must wonder if it is against the law to permit the publishing of such posts and I am not talking about hate speech laws but criminal law?
Thank you Dr. Dawg for pointing this out. I would only suggest that it may be wise to remove the actual quote from your page. People can see it for themselves if they want to slag through the mud of Levant's site.
Good point, J. Chapel, and I have taken your advice.
No kidding that comments do not appear without his approval. I left two unprofane comments yesterday evening, under the pseudonym "Canadian." One simply stated "no" to his request for financial support and one simply challenged an earlier commenter's suggestion that it's time for America to invade Canada (I suggested that America finish losing Iraq first before taking on Canada).
Neither one has appeared yet. Apparently, they're not free speechy enough for Ezra the Censor.
On some of the more popular left-wing and right-wing blogs, the really offensive stuff is usually to be found in the comments section. I think Warman's Statement of Claim refers to things posted about him on message boards and in blog comment sections as well.
When the smoke clears from this mess, I think you'll see moderated comments - or no comments at all - on most Canadian blogs.
Hmmmm...
Do you think Ezra took a screenshot of your momentary accusation that he encouraged others to commit a criminal offence?
Just wondrin'
How do we know that this wasn't a post from Warman himself, or from a police officer trying looking to provoke other comments? Its happened before.
From Damian
"When the smoke clears from this mess, I think you'll see moderated comments - or no comments at all - on most Canadian blogs."
I think there will be plenty of comments after Mr.Warman gets taken apart. He is going into real court - The only comment he will be thinking about is "your not in Kangaroo court any more toto"
Terry, repeating a Nazi's lie doesn't make it true.
It does, however, reveal a lot about you. The most generous interpretation one can get from your remarks is that you're incredibly stupid.
When the smoke clears from this mess, I think you'll see moderated comments - or no comments at all - on most Canadian blogs.
I believe there's a middle ground; those who choose to have comments have an obligation to engage their commenters. A lot of the excesses come about when people simply think they're shouting into a void and that no one else is hearing. But other people hear it and react, and the situation escalates, and the blog takes on a particular flavour. and ends up attracting a certain type of fan.
I believe most people would stop commenting if the blogger simply informed them that they are not welcome and that anyone who won't take that as an answer and persists, over an appreciable length of time, in circumventing whatever controls are in place crosses the line into online harassment and cyber-bullying, not to mention the sock-puppetting (Hi, Just Me!).
I think at this point, that's a bigger threat to the medium and the way it operates than the content itself.
RealityBites - Considering they have been known to do that in the past I would say that you are truly the stupid one. Hey when on a leftard board you can only expect stupidity from the "progressives"
I see the brownshirts are on the march...
How do they end up here?
eww gross.
Haloscan's acting up again...
Just Me:
Do you think Ezra took a screenshot of your momentary accusation that he encouraged others to commit a criminal offence?
What "momentary accusation?" You're hallucinating. I simply removed a quote from one of his commenters that was already there in the screenshot.
Rob:
Hey when on a leftard board you can only expect stupidity from the "progressives"
But I expect civility from everyone. First and last warning.
hmmmmmm ... Rob receives a warning for being insulting but not RealityBites ...
Calling people "stupid" occasionally is gratuitous but not very objectionable, really. It's just silly rhetoric.
The use of words like "leftard" to describe my blog, however...is a different thing entirely.
This is as explosive as your Nazi bathroom pics! Keep up the "good work".
This is as explosive as your Nazi bathroom pics!
???
I seem to have brought out the crazies today, no mistake.
Mordechai posted this comment on on Jay Currie's blog. Couldnt have said it better myself:
"For those suggesting this is a “free speech” issue think again. This is a matter of libel. One in which Ezra is all too familiar both as a plaintiff and a defendant.
Mr. Warman it seems has secured one of canada’s top libel lawyers. So this is pretty serious. Dr. Dawg has got it right as well, the allegations against Warman re the CHRC business is just that allegations. None of which can be used unless fully proved. The accusations of criminal activity lodged by some in the right wing blogosphere against Warman and the CHRC are in my view actionable. They certainly will have absolutely no bearing on the libel proceedings except in Warman’s favour where he will use them to prove ongoing libel.
Sit back relax, this is a slow process but in the end those who libel have much to be wary of."
heh ... I guess it depends who's at the receiving end ... fair enough.
When the smoke clears from this mess, I think you'll see moderated comments - or no comments at all - on most Canadian blogs.
I hope you're wrong, Damian. Comments are what breathe life into the blogosphere. They are a visible sign that you're actually getting read. : ) More importantly, sometimes some really good discussions take place--it happens regularly at your place and mine.
I am hoping that we get some kind of a ruling that might make things clearer in the jurisprudence. I don't want blog publishers automatically liable for comments posted on their blogs. I think that they should be saved from liability if, for example, they are warned about an actionable item and promptly take it down; or can show that, for one reason or another, they were unaware of it.
In Kate McMillan's case, I have some real misgivings. She was off at a dog-show somewhere in the US, and left Kathy Shaidle in charge--who published and retracted a libellous post before Kate got back. I have no evidence, although I could be wrong, that Kate was aware of this little incident until after it had all been and gone.
I would suggest, however, that if one has a moderated comments mechanism, then one's liability is more evident. After all, the owner has actually approved the comments for publication.
I have no difficulty been called to take reasonable precautions against defamation at my site. And, as always, that word "reasonable" should be liberally interpreted.
1) The bathroom pic was not first posted on this blog.
2) Showing graffiti and showing a death threat or at least whatever is past a wish for someone's death seems to be umm.. not the same at all.
To the points about comments, I think there will still be comments, I just think that some people are getting a belated, and costly, lesson on what it means to be a publisher of a blog.
"When the smoke clears from this mess, I think you'll see moderated comments - or no comments at all - on most Canadian blogs."
If you have ever been sued in this fashion, you do learn from the experience. I've always taken it as a given that I was responsible for whatever was on my blog. That's why I was extremely judicious about inviting other bloggers to guest post, AND I moderate all comments.
Call me a coward, or a stick in the mud against all the fun of com-boxes -- but it's rare that I can make it through the day and NOT see an actionable comment at some blog's com-box or other. I am, because of the Indian act pretty much judgement proof. But I really don't want to get sued again.
While people may think this is an attack on free expression or on the blogosphere itself -- the fact remains that if we want to be self-publishers we need to understand the kind of rules that dead-treeware publishers have to live with.
Freedom of expression is simply not a liscence to commit libel against others or allow it on our blogs.
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of being held liable for a comment someone else posted on my blog, but I should point out that I moderate comments on my blog as well, and that doesn't seem to have stifled conversation. It takes some dedication to approve moderated comments quickly, but if you can do that, the conversation still manages to flow.
I _have_ to do this, for no other reason but to keep spam from cluttering up my site.
Re comments. I've struggled with how to best handle those since are I started writing. I've gone to moderation recently since, as a result of writing on this and a few other topics, I've had defamatory comments appear that I THINK were deliberately planted (by the people that were defamed). And I know for a fact that this has happened on different blogs on other occasions.
But you can't really blame this on Warman. It isn't a new phenomenon, and everyone should realize that if something nasty turns up on your blog, you can probably get nailed for it if it isn't removed.
I have been reading the comments on this blog for a few days now and I must admit that I am slightly perplexed. There seems to be a shared feeling that government has a duty and right to censor its own citizens while at the same time advocating that it's for our own good. Sounds rather illiberal to me. Perhaps this is the new "progressive"?
Dawg,
The only thing I seem to be imagining is your penchant for honesty, as far as I can tell.
You accused Ezra Levant of counselling others to harass Richard Warman, then promptly removed such word for fear of being sued for libel.
Then, you promptly take screen shots of potentially damaging comments from another's blog and further distribute them in order to damage the website owner. What honor.
It seems you fit in well with your ideological brethern.
Just Me:
That's a flat-out lie. I already dealt with that matter earlier. My position was entirely defensible--"go dig up dirt on Warman, and send it to me" was the gist of his message--but I know Ezra's litigious nature and chose to avoid the word "harassment." In addition, the choice was mine, and I made it before anyone prompted me.
That's different from approving a message for publication that calls for the killing of an opponent, and removing it only after at least one reader protests.
I think you are quite well aware of the differences here. Now, go away. And those aren't the two words you deserve.
Cameron:
The bathroom picture was never posted on this blog.
MWW, James et al.:
I read all of my comments, and have rarely if ever had to remove anything for being libelous. This is a classy joint. : )
Yes it is Dawg. I appreciate it. I don't have the dedication that you do.
Most com-box discussions devolve into "Ya - well you're mother wears Army boots" screeds within 5 posts.
This place is the exception rather than the rule. 
I think the biggest problem is with declared advocacy blogs rather than idea blogs. After all, the whole purpose of advocacy blogs is to wake folks up as to what those powerful, evil folks of opposing views are doing and rally them to the barricades of the righteous. Also, the best known advocacy blogs often attract far more hits and there are a lot of bitter losers out there who love to vent and hurl gigantic, anonymous curses in their pyjamas. It doesn't seem to matter which side of the divide the blog is on. When it comes to comments from the sewer, Daily Kos would give SDA a run for its money any day.
Even with idea blogs, it can be tough to maintain civility and avoid insults and defamation if the ideas are controversial and the spectrum of opinion of the bloggers is wide. Think religion vs angry atheism, global warming or whether gayness is nature or nurture. You are indeed to be commended, Dr. Dawg, and so is Damian.
And we must never forget that Godwin's Law rules us all.
Comments are definitely a valuable part of a blog, being able to have a conversation with the author of a post is what distinguishes bloggers from typical media outlets.
If website administrators hit the "approve" button for comments like that to be posted, regardless of the legal opinion, morally there is clearly some shared responsibility. I think Levant taking down the comment demonstrates that he agrees as well. The faster the rest of Ezra's fan club catches on, the more productive the comments section of his blog will be. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Btw, great blog Dawg, I enjoy reading it.
Gosh, folks, you're bringing tears to my eyes. Enough with the compliments, already! I might lose my edge! : )
An honest question for you: there's a video of Richard Warman counselling a bunch of thugs to commit an assault, freely available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K...h?
v=K4eh3Utwf84
That's right, he didn't just accidentally approve a comment (amongst hundreds) with a death threat (for a couple hours), he actually suggested a physical attack. Himself. On tape.
Do you care? Warren apparently doesn't.
It's funny, but right now, given the choices that everyone has presented me in a nice binary fashion (nazi's and swarmy right wing people on one side, warren and warman on the other) I'm pretty comfortable being on the side of the pie thrower.
Well, I'm not comfortable being on the side of the pie thrower. (Neither are Keith Martin, Noam Chomsky, Rex Murphy, John Ralston Saul, etc., but I guess they're all Nazis and swarmy right wing people too.)
Keith Martin, Noam Chomsky, Rex Murphy, John Ralston Saul, etc., but I guess they're all Nazis and swarmy right wing people too.
No they're people whose expression is worth defending (well, not Martin or Murphy so much). Life is short, as they say.
Of course, you can't refer to anything they say without being sneered at (You're quoting St. Chomsky? Where do you live? Planet Chomsky? etc.) but...oh well.
OK, here's some expression from Chomsky: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Red Tory recognizes this. See http://redtory.blogspot.com/2008...of-
liberty.html
Is his expression worth defending? Or should he be silenced because he disagrees with you?
Chris, my boy, we aren't talking about "free speech" here. We're talking about the tort of defamation.
Funny, I thought we were talking about lawyers condoning violence. Do you intend to answer my question?
It's funny to listen to Chris whine about shiftiness...
Actually, hang on, one of the many things that pisses me off is this bullshit about moral relativism that gets leveled at the left all the time.
Chris, are you saying that condoning pieing is the same as condoning what any reasonable person would read as a a threat of a torture session followed by death?
I've drawn a line. I've figured out which side I'm on. I know who I'm against. One of them is you.
So to put it plainly, pieing is stupid, if the person(s) who do it get arrested and tried and convicted I'm down with that. But to pretend that it's the same as hoping for the torture death of another human being is the lowest, most disgusting form of lying that I've encountered in a very long time.
Cameron, go back and read my original question: http://www.haloscan.com/
comments...07891409#187222
Where did I say that condoning pieing is morally equivalent to a death threat? I didn't.
In fact, I think a lawyer personally counselling the commission of a physical assault is actually a whole lot worse than accidentally approving a comment with a death threat amongst hundreds of comments, for a couple hours, as Ezra did. You write as though Ezra made the comments himself -- he didn't, unlike Warman.
OK, here's some expression from Chomsky...
Yes, and for all his trouble, he gets vilified and defamed as an apologist for Holocaust deniers. Free speech warrior Jay Currie did that on this blog not so very long ago.
I much prefer Chomsky on his discussion of media and propaganda and his critique of post-modernism, something I thought passionate conservatives would lead many, many thoughtful and interesting discussions on.
I guess I'll have to wait until they finish talking about liberal bias and whatever beige threat is currently holding their collective attention.
"Funny, I thought we were talking about lawyers condoning violence. Do you intend to answer my question?"
And, as Dawg pointed out, this whole train of thought is still misdirection.
I'm just pointing out that you don't really care about threats of physical violence when someone on your side of the debate is making them.
As you put it, you're "pretty comfortable being on the side of the pie thrower."
Pie'ing = Call for execution.
Got it.
Chris,
To put it as politely as I can, you're full of it. You are trying to equate a pie-throwing incident in Warman's youth with a threat to kill a person whose politics you dislike. In fact, you are indicating that the former is worse.
If you aren't arguing that equivalence, as you claim above, precisely what is your claim, then? If someone made that kind of comment about Ezra Levant at, say, my place, we'd have to peel you off the ceiling.
(That would be hypothetical, of course, since I don't condone physical violence against political opponents, regardless of your smarmy allegation.)
Incidentally, there's some pretty good background information about the issues over at Meaghan's place--worth a look.
http://somenamedia.blogspot.com/
I would agree that Warman did himself no favours when he took part in the anti-Icke activities. He came across as a smug little prick, in my view. I also thought that going after an obviously mentally ill man like Ickes was disgusting.
That being said, if he was defamed by these people (as he seems to be convinced he was) then he should have the right to protect himself from this. Even if he's an a-hole.
Even a-holes have rights. Look to the right-wingnutia for the justification for free speech for ANYTHING anybody says, regardless of how disgustingly bigotted it is.
Look at somebody like RedTory who is firmly in the camp of some people that I know for a fact he finds detestable... I find myself vacilating between trying to determine the lesser of two evils on this.
I've got to tell you that the behavior of some of the people involved in this suit (including Warman himself re his Icke protesting) is generally contemptible.
I'm just about ready to throw my hands up in disgust of all of them.
Equivalence: Well, the fact that Ickes WAS pied. And we aren't sure how much of a threat this really was, yeah, I'd say that about balances out.
Actually, James, he wasn't. Did you even watch the video? The pie landed amongst a bunch of children's books.
The commenter, however, was in violation of the Criminal Code. "Balances out," eh? Yup, like FauxNews is "fair and balanced."
Oh, and BTW, can we stop this about Warman being a youth at the time. Unless you actually WANT to stretch the term to its breaking limit.
Oh, would a certain right-wing politician be able to simply pass off a video as "too old to need to apologize..."
Well, you may have a point. Of course, to me damned near everybody is a youth. : )
Dr. Dawg,
As politely as I can, let me say that you are full of it.
I am NOT trying to "equate a pie-throwing incident in Warman's youth with a threat to kill a person whose politics you dislike."
First of all, he doesn't exactly look like a "youth" in the video. Secondly, I absolutely condemn any death threats against Warman, but there's a big difference between making the threat and accidentally approving a blog post amongst hundreds, as Ezra did.
My claim is that counselling a physical assault, as Warman did, is a lot worse than some admittedly sloppy blog-keeping by Ezra Levant.
Yes, but some Conservative did something even worse, so it balances out yet again.
amazing revelations!
kinda like lucy warmen posting on stormfront.
Dawg: yes, saw the video. I can't quite get the image of a mature trained lawyer snickering that he was NOT (nudge nudge, giggle) counselling assault (sorry, you are right, it didn't hit Ickes, so no battery).
As for a criminal act, agreed. Death threats are criminal acts. Just like that guy who threatened George Bush:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/...ats-
080111.html
To paraphrase "Trainspotting", there's death threats and there's death threats. What kind was this to be? Anyone contacted any cops? No? Why not? Thought so...
And the idiots who hit Dion were convicted of assault, BTW.
And as for aging, can't agree with you more. My little brother turned 40 last month.
"Thank goodness for screenshots."
Man, what's this obsession with screenshots. So you can embarrass someone or get them in trouble with the authorities. I know you're not the only one, Dawg, nor is it just progressives who do it - but the practice seems pretty juvenile, if not downright mean-spirited.
I remember a friend of mine in Germany, say (back then), "You know, the problem with Germany is that everyone wants to be the policeman's friend." It was quite true. A lot of people instinctively identified with the authorities. In contrast to Canada, back then.
"That being said, if he was defamed by these people (as he seems to be convinced he was) then he should have the right to protect himself from this. Even if he's an a-hole."
Warman knows whether he was defamed or not - because he knows whether he made the Cools post or not. If he's innocent, then he got some reason to sue (though I wish he'd left MacMillan and Shaidle out of it). If he's guilty... well, guilty people want to preserve their reputations too, they just don't deserve to. If Warman's guilty, he must be calculating that he can convince the court to make an unjust ruling. Which would make him an entirely contemptible individual.
IP:
If it weren't for screenshots,a lot would simply disappear down the memory hole. Then people might well say, Why are you making these false allegations? I do like to cover myself. That's not obsessive; it's prudent.
Funny about the German cops. A professor of mine did a comparative study of (then) West German police and Ottawa police. Guess who the rigid authoritarians turned out to be?
This blogging experience is starting to convince me that law school might be a better idea after all.
If you're worried about lawsuit, I can understand. If it's a question of your integrity; well, heck, stand on your integrity. Despite your holding some deeply mistaken ideas, most people consider you an honest sort. Trust people to believe.
It's really just the whole mentality of people building up archives of supposedly incriminating screen captures. Like in the olden days, if you found someone was keeping files on their opponents, you'd regard them as a creepy weirdo. Not that files are bad in themselves.
German cops: that surprises me, knowing what I know of German cops (back in the 80s). But then, I don't know Ottawa cops. I wonder how the study was carried out. Questionnaires? Interesting potential discussion, but kinda OT.
Still, his (and my) point wasn't about the police; it was about that odious character, the "policeman's friend".
Dr. Dawg - Point taken. Tie Guy - a brown shirt? Is that the best you can come up with? Disappointing. Every time someone disagrees with your take on things you have to say something ridiculous. Pathetic!
BTW, I'm told the pie incident was in 2000, and Warman was called to the bar in 2001. Assuming this is true, he wasn't a lawyer, but it's still pretty disturbing that he could sit through three years of law school and then counsel an assault.
Screen-shots began being used by those of us on the left in response to the claim that "the integrity of link" being sacrosanct and proof of the veracity of blogs rather than the MSM.
Why do you think Ezra grabbed the screencapture of the NP article that Kay is now being sued over and posted it so quickly? Because they wanted to keep a record of what the NP blog had said before it got turfed.
If people want to claim that blogs are more reliable than the MSM because of links (ala Kate McMillan claiming so), then screen captures are even better than links. Screen captures keep people honest.
And yes, I can understand why right whingers don't like people taking captures of their writings when it would be far easier for them to have carte blanche to libel somebody one day and make it go bye-bye the next if they get into hot-water.
MWW:
I've got to tell you that the behavior of some of the people involved in this suit (including Warman himself re his Icke protesting) is generally contemptible...I'm just about ready to throw my hands up in disgust of all of them.
Indeed, and the other thing they all seem to have in common is their dogged determination to go down defending the indefensible. We seem to be awash in martyr complexes from both sides. I'm beginning to feel like I am witnessing a battle from 1900 between anarchist sreet activists and the Church. The former has got themselves into such a righteous lather about preceived injustices that they have completely demonized their adversaries and excempted themselves from all standards of decency, civility and reasonableness. The latter thinks that their belief in an infallible deity makes them infallible humans and therefore beyond criticism.
But on the subject of this post, surely it is clear the offending comment was almost certainly rhetorical on the face of it. I can think of several reasons why it was offensive, unacceptable and should be banned, but believing the guy was serious is not one of them. If I were to post that we should all take Ti-Guy out to the woods, strip him to his jockeys and beat him with rolled up portraits of George W. Bush while chanting selected quotes from The National Review (which I hasten to state I would never, ever do as it would violate my most cherished beliefs, and besides, I like Ti-Guy) I would expect to be banned by the good Dr. Dawg but I would be very surprised to be charged criminally with uttering threats. Go over to his site and see how Kinsella is using this to demonstrate once again how he filters his political positions through personal animus.
What's next, Dr Dawg catches a group of dangerous right-wingers at the Sensplex screaming "Kill the Ref!"?
Dr Dawg:
Enough with the compliments, already! I might lose my edge!
It's just part of the two-pronged strategy we conservatives have for co-opting you. The libertarian free speechers have been assigned to battle you in the streets while we Burkian tradionalists are going to hug you into submission.
Death threat? From a guy who calls himself "Ming the Merciless"? Give me a break.
breaking news. SDA is dropped by Stephen Taylor and the Blogging Tories.
Sheila:
This is surfacing at a few sites, but I can't find anything at Blogging Tories. Do you have a source?
No, because it's not true.
So, we're at the trivialisation of death threats displayed at a lawyer's site with commentary that requires approval and the propriety of screen shots?
Great. I'm up to speed.
Ti-Guy, wrong as usual. No one is trivializing the death threat. I condemn it unequivocally.
But Ezra gets hundreds of posts on his site, and though he must "approve" all of them, it's unlikely he reads every word of every post (and the death threat was buried in a long, rambling post that was #80 or so in a long thread).
What you're trying to imply, and I think Dr. Dawg was trying to imply, is that Ezra read the death threat, and posted in anyway. Either because he supported it, or because he doesn't care, or has "lost all self-control" as Warren said.
I think that's a pretty stupid assumption. Carry on, though.
I think it's high time to nip this "hundreds of posts" meme in the bud. There are presently 91 posts on that thread, and most of them had been approved and been put up before the Ming post arrived. At that point Ezra had maybe twenty or so posts to approve.
I make no comment about Ezra's state of mind when he approved the post. But approve it he did.
You forget that this is not the only thread on his site. But even if he had "only" 20 posts to approve (presumably after already approving 70 earlier in the day), is it really totally inconceivable to you that Ezra might have just skimmed the rest, rather than read every single word?
You're clinging to the idea that he must have read the death threat and knowingly posted it. This is bizarre to me, but there you go.
Chris, and in the absence of all other proof you've taken it on faith that he didn't.
@ Dawg, no one will read the articles at Buckets of Gray, it's too facty (god it made me happy though.. how I love graphs).
So, Cameron, Ezra is guilty until proven innocent, eh? Do you work at a Human Rights Commisson?
Ti-Guy, wrong as usual. No one is trivializing the death threat.
Then what's this (further up): "Death threat? From a guy who calls himself "Ming the Merciless"? Give me a break."
Please apologise for asserting that I was "wrong as usual" and we'll move on from this unfortunate contretemps.
What you're trying to imply..
I'm not implying anything about Ezra's support of that statement. Please apologise for casting asp...etc.
I will just note that my two innocent comments have still not appeared. Perhaps Ezra is trying to determine if I work for a Human Rights Commission, or something.
My apologies, one anonymous poster trivialized the death threat, once. I missed that, I guess sort of like Ezra did.
But I stand by my observation that what you're all doing here is trying to imply Ezra must have read the death threat, must have knowingly posted it, and is therefore responsible for it in one way or another. And again, that's pretty stupid.
Any "implication" here is that of the dishonest Chris Vanoostven.
We can't see into Ezra's mind, and it is foolish to speculate. The issue here is responsibility, not motive or the lack of one.
But you are, in a way, claiming to see into Ezra's mind. Warren implies that Ezra has "lost all self-control" etc., and you're implying that he's responsible for comments he almost certainly never read and wasn't aware of until informed by a reader.
Chris is thick as well as dishonest. Of course Ezra is responsible. He's the moderator who approved the comment for posting. That fact is incontrovertible.
Chris, it actually doesn't matter if he did or didn't read it.
"Whoops, I missed that" isn't really a defense.
And Chris, you've gone from being tedious to being idiotically insulting.
Go play with someone else.
He's responsible for accidentally approving a comment he shouldn't have, I assume because he was just skimming through dozens of posts and didn't see the death threat.
He's not responsible for the death threat itself.
There's a big difference which you don't seem to appreciate.
But I stand by my observation that what you're all doing here is trying to imply Ezra must have read the death threat, must have knowingly posted it, and is therefore responsible for it in one way or another.
You suggested a different implication earlier:
"What you're trying to imply, and I think Dr. Dawg was trying to imply, is that Ezra read the death threat, and posted in anyway. Either because he supported it, or because he doesn't care, or has "lost all self-control."
Now, please explain why you have shifted the assertions you are making about people's motivations. Are you attempting to goad people into making a libelous statement?
And again, that's pretty stupid.
Your last comment proposes a reasonable assumption to make, based on the evidence at hand. It is uncivil to label that "stupid." Please apologise.
He published it. After hitting the approve comment button.
The fact that he didn't actually read it till it was pointed out to him, in the narrow limits of the law, does not matter.
Are you attempting to goad people into making a libelous statement?
I must admit that that thought did cross my mind.
Are you attempting to goad people into making a libelous statement?
I think you're being very careful to avoid making a libelous statement, while still doing your best to imply that Ezra knowingly published a death threat and supported in some way.
He might have been careless in initially approving it, but he's not responsible for everything anonymous posters write.
Has Ezra apologized for mistakenly allowing the threat to appear?
If so - point the way.
If not, then quit acting like he's done nothing wrong by approving a comment to appear on his blog with a death threat in it.
I think you're being very careful to avoid making a libelous statement, while still doing your best to imply that Ezra knowingly published a death threat and supported in some way.
I'm not being careful at all. I don't believe for a second Ezra would support such a statement. The reasons for having it appear, however, are not clear.
Now, I'll ask again: Are you attempting to goad people into making a libelous statement?
Yes, let's be clear here, I don't think Ezra supports death threats against any one, nor do I think he wishes anyone dead or even a stubbed toe. If anyone reads what I've said as saying that they are mistaken because that was not my intent.
The chill in here is making me want to put on my Mr. Rogers cardigan.
The reasons for having it appear, however, are not clear.
They are to me. He had 100 or more posts to approve that day. He didn't read all of them, just skimmed them, before approving them. The death threat slipped through, for a few hours.
Seriously, are you honestly trying to imply -- in Warren's words -- that Ezra has "lost all self-control" and knowingly posted a death threat?
Because that would be libel, and if that's what you're saying, why don't you be clear about it?
Answer my previous question, Chris.
Because that would be libel, and if that's what you're saying, why don't you be clear about it?
Maybe this is the answer.
If that's the case, Dawg, I'd seriously recommend you ask Chris to go away.
Ask, hell. This is no place for agents provocateurs, Chris. Buh-bye.
If I ran an aggregator, I'd throw any blogger off who behaved that way.
Cameron said:
"Chris, are you saying that condoning pieing is the same as condoning what any reasonable person would read as a a threat of a torture session followed by death? "
"Yes, let's be clear here, I don't think Ezra supports death threats against any one,"
So Ezra doesn't support death threats, he just condones them? That's a mighty fine hair to be splitting.
It would appear that several posters here let their dislike of Ezra Levant get the better of them and implied some rather nasty (and likely untrue) things about him. And when someone called them on it and provided a much simpler alternative interpretation (which Occam's Razor indicates we should accept), they retreated to a technical argument that no one disputes, tried to pretend they never said anything untoward and then banned the whistle blower.
Not your finest hour gentlemen.
Travis,
Since Ezra alone is responsible for allowing the comment to appear on his blog, and he DID in fact allow it, and he has not given any explanation, or apology for it I would suggest that the act speaks for itself.
Unless and until Ezra would like to clarify why this happened.
Nobody has alleged anything here. They have merely observed what is true and can be proven.
As Ti-Guy suggest, this whole line of inquiry on Chris part seems designed to try and force somebody to say something that could be actionable.
Nobody is going to fall for it - not even with your neener neener neener commentary.
Well said, MWW. And I'm keeping a close watch here.
Travis, Occam's Razor says that the theory that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the best one. Following Occam's Razor does not in any way suggest that we should start making assumptions about Levant's motives (or "state of mind") in order to excuse or condemn him.
Not your own finest hour, I would hope.
Not your finest hour gentlemen.
What's this now? The afternoon shift?
God, the passive-aggressive civility directed at anyone who simply pays attention to anyone else's documented expression.
Travis, where do Conservatives learn this type of thing? Do their parents behave this way, or is it something they adopt for professional reasons?
It would appear that several posters here let their dislike of Ezra Levant get the better of them and implied some rather nasty (and likely untrue) things about him. And when someone called them on it and provided a much simpler alternative interpretation (which Occam's Razor indicates we should accept), they retreated to a technical argument that no one disputes, tried to pretend they never said anything untoward and then banned the whistle blower.
Have to admit that this is a masterful piece of innuendo and obliqueness that seems to say so much by saying absolutely nothing at all.
It'll be useful when I spread it on my tomato bed this afternoon, if and when it stops raining.
ti-guy... where do you live that you're gardening?
Also, while you're schooling people on language usage, could you try and explain "infer" and "imply"
Passive-aggressive civility? Is that like co-dependent decency, Ti-Guy? Oh well, no basis for you to accuse us all of lying anymore. We're just disordered, and if you had an ounce of progressive compassion in you, you'd absolve us of all responsibility for what we say and do and call for publically-funded counselling to help us.
I'm late to the table as usual, Dawg, but quick question: If I were to incite a violent crime on your comments page, then do a screen-capture of it, have you just assumed responsibility for my posting?
I only say this because you are great about allowing dissenting opinion (unlike some Westjetaphobics I know) and most of the comments I've posted go up almost immediately.
Anyway, keep up the fight.
Jeremy, if I may, as I understand the law, he's legally responsible. Perhaps less so since he doesn't moderate comments (the reason they go up so fast is that holoscan handles them).
Adam C, both positions made assumptions about Levant's motives. I fail to see how the assumption that Levant endorsed the comments is even remotely as reasonable as the assumption that it slipped through. In fact given that Levant removed the comment we can conclude that he does not endorse it.
Ti-Guy, interesting that you would assume I'm a conservative. It's also interesting that apparently object more to my "civility" more than my "passive-aggressiveness". I'd offer to call you names if that would make you feel better, but Dawg has already implied that he might ban me so I'll have to give that a pass.
MWW, does not the act of removing the post also speak for itself? Why don't you credit Levant for that in your analysis?
"Nobody has alleged anything here. They have merely observed what is true and can be proven."
You obviously haven't read the same comment stream I have. What can be proven is that the comment appeared on Levant's blog and was later removed.
If you want to argue that Levant was sloppy or lazy about policing his comments go ahead, there's a valid criticism there. If you want to argue that decorum indicates that he explain why he removed the comment, go to it. You won't get any objection from me.
In any case I don't see how Chris could force you to say anything just by posting comments. From my point of view he was checking to see if anyone had the balls to flat out say what they were oh so happy to imply about Levant. And the answer to that was a resounding no.
infer vs imply
Jeremy:
There's an important difference. I don't moderate comments. Hence, my job is to remove an offending comment as soon as is reasonably possible. There is no question of my having approved it for publication in the first place.
Travis:
You're just making it up as you go along, but we're all on to you by now. The question, as I have already noted more than once, is one of responsibility, not motive. Motive is, frankly, irrelevant.
I know we are in uncharted waters on a lot of this stuff, but I have a hard time believing a blogmeister would be held legally responsible for a threatening, libelous or scurrilous comment the instant it appeared on his/her site. If Dr Dawg rents a hall for an open public debate and some fruitcake starts hurling invective, is he vicariously liable for slander the instant the guy opens his mouth? Does he have to sprint to the microphone to disavow the guy or post apologetic notices saying he doesn't agree with him and will position guards at the door the next time? We've got to inject some reasonableness into this debate (and pray the judge is a blogger).
I've seen a lot of discussion about comment moderation, but isn't a big part of the problem anonymity? Should folks be allowed to comment without identifying themselves in some traceable way? It would clean up a lot of blogs fast and shorten CHR Tribunal cases too.
Travis, I only have so much energy a day for this kind of thing.
Peter:
(How I relish these quick entrees as a break from typing away on my academic work!) That is an intriguing proposal. I'm becoming a radical on the question of the "right to privacy" -- I'm coming to think that, not only is it not a right, but it's also an obsolescent concept. That, however, is for another day, and another post.
A fellow blogger did, however, put me onto this fascinating site.
Dawg: thanks for the link.
I've been saying for awhile now that what we are seeing is 20th (and 19th) Century law meeting Web 2.0 reality...
I'm making it up as I go along? If by that you mean I'm reading the responses, thinking about them and responding then yes, I am.
You're on to me? Oh noes! My "secret agenda" has been discovered. Please enlighten me, I've forgotten what it was.
So you are saying that as far as you are concerned, all we are discussing here is that Levant is reponsible for comments that appear on his blog because he moderates them, I'm perfectly willing to concede that. In fact I already did, criticize him for sloppy moderation all you want.
(Suprise suprise, Levant took responsibility and removed the comment within a few hours!)
But several of your commenters went rather far beyond that. I'm not entirely sure why you seem to object so much that I have pointed that out.
Dr. Dawg:
Yes, I did wonder about those papers of yours. A few years ago when I was very active and a co-poster on an American site, I announced that I had a big trial and would be gone for a month. I think I lasted eight days.
But never mind the right to privacy. Your blog, your rules. As in: "I don't care what the Constitution says, you still can't come to my Christmas party." Moderation sounds great, but I'm not sure most moderators can be expected to know exactly where the line is (it's an amateur hobby for cryin' out loud), especially if they are in the dogfights themselves. I think many of the sites watching this CHRC play are dripping with libel in their 2008 archives. You here see it clearly on SDA and Ezra's site, but do you think repeatedly accusing Steyn of Islamophobia or putting extra consonants in front of Kate's and Kathy's names isn't defamatory? What about Ti-Guy's accusations of dishonesty when they focus any more narrowly than on the entire conservative mass? In some ways, we all love this stuff, except when we don't. I'm not sure passive-aggressive civility would count, but my lawyer is looking into it.
It's a tough, tough problem and all of us should slow down, open our minds wide, listen and avoid visceral, reactive positions. Or, if you want to be 100% safe, you could shut this site down and start a new one dedicated to getting more fibre into the typical Canadian diet. What fun.
Peter, what are you on about, exactly?
But several of your commenters went rather far beyond that. I'm not entirely sure why you seem to object so much that I have pointed that out.
It's because you're being dishonest.
See, Peter? It's not really hard, is it?
Of course it isn't hard. Being bad is always easier than being good, Ti-Guy. More fun too.
I don't know...being patronising and long-winded seems like a lot of work to me.
I'd rather just call people liars. And if that gives you the vapours, well...tant pis.
I *do* believe it, however; I've come to realise that dishonesty is fundamental to conservatism and is only unacceptable when you get caught.
"I've come to realise that dishonesty is fundamental to conservatism and is only unacceptable when you get caught."
*snap snap snap*
Take that!
Thanks for the chuckle Ti-Guy!
It's very sad to see the Canadian left go the way of its American cousins. We used to be more intellectual; we used to have facts to back up our comments; the left has sunk to the level of the Democrats.
Frank, what fact are you contesting?
My stars! That update from Ezra was something else. I think we're witnessing a full-scale melt-down.
Anyway, in light of this explanation of his approval process...
"I quickly approved 74 comments that were waiting on my post on the Warman lawsuit -- including a long rant by some anonymous commenter that I didn't read all the way through carefully enough. I approved that comment and the other 73, because I didn't spot any grotesque profanity or anti-Semitism (or anti-Tibetan propaganda from the People's Liberation Army) that I usually skim for."
...I believe he's suggesting that my two comments (referenced above, which still haven't appeared) contained the objectionable content he mentions above.
Will he take me to an HRC or will I sue for defamation? Am I really a Chinese propagandist? Will I go back to picking my toenails? Stay tuned!
It's interesting that say your name can be discovered with "10 seconds" work on Google. So why bother to hide it at all?
Interesting link to David Brin's site, I'd never heard of him before but I've been encouraging people to stop hiding themselves on the internet since... well since I started commenting on the internet. In fact I used to spar with you occasionally on ott.general back when we both used our own names.
I did get a laugh from this excerpt from Brin's site:
"The social downside to this constant wearing of various 'masks' -- some legal, some electronic -- to guarantee our privacy is also becoming apparent; one need only look at the Internet, where the safety of hiding behind a clever pseudonym and text-only interaction brings out a whole range of antisocial behaviors from the people Brin calls 'Net tourettes.'"
A bang-on description of some folks we all know.
On the Libel thing... I think Levant and Shaidle will lose, Kate MacMillan and Jonathon Kay will win. Kate will continue on her merry way with the slight adjustment that she will suspend activity on SDA when she goes to her dog shows. Richard Warman will be sentenced to live out the rest of his life as Richard Warman.
The real winners will be all Canadians who were not aware of the horrible corruption of justice that was occurring under these Human Rights Commissions. I fully expect that all of them will get out, and stay out, of the censorship business after this profoundly embarrassing revelation of what they'd become. We all should tip our hats to Ms. Hall for blasting away the last shaky pretence that these Star Chambers were about the protection of rights.
Hello, LarryJoe--I've seen you use your real name, I think, at at least one other blog in recent memory.
No worries. I use my nom-de-plume in an effort--not always successful--to avoid taking myself too seriously. It's not a disguise, just a kind of affectation.
A bang-on description of some folks we all know.
Larry Joe probably means *me* here, since I've said some very nasty things to him in the past. He's always so disappointed with the quality of discourse on the web and will lecture you mercilessly on that point, to the exclusion of eveything else, it seems.
No amount of personal identification is ever going to stop people who traffic in obliqueness, innuendo, vilification, defamation, bald-faced lying and agent provocateurism and stalking, all of which have manifested themselves on this thread.
So Levant said: "...I approved that comment and the other 73, because I didn't spot any grotesque profanity or anti-Semitism (or anti-Tibetan propaganda from the People's Liberation Army) that I usually skim for..."
I guess he'll have to skim for death threats now, too. What a shame he doesn't skim for Islamophobia as well.
Dishonest? I quoted one of the posters to demonstrate my point. If you want to pretend that the evidence isn't there... well that doesn't make me dishonest.
On a side note, Brin is a well known SF writer and I've been a fan since I was a teenager. If you like SF, I highly recommend the Uplift Trilogy. His non-fiction is great as well, if you've ever seen the movie Wizards, try and track down his critique of that movie, it's brilliant as was his Keynote speach to the 2002 Libertarian Convention.
http://www.davidbrin.com/
liberta...anarticle1.html
How's the "provoke a civil emergency in Canada" campaign going these days?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller..?
Well, well... Dr Dawg, the policeman's friend. Or rather, the "policeman's friend", since I'm sure the police have better uses for their time than investigating trivialities like this.
To be sure: the passage was of the utmost grossness and viciousness, and if Levant noticed it, he should have deleted it on those grounds alone. But a credible threat? Ridiculous. Did Levant overlook lines 14-17 of an 18-line comment?. Very plausibly. Did Dawg figure, Of course it's not a real threat, and very likely Levant was just being sloppy... but this looks like a golden opportunity to get him in sh*t with the police. I would hate to think this, 'cos that would mean Dawg was a jerk.
Anyway, do let us know the outcome of this ill-considered foray, if you hear anything.
"Policeman's friend?" Do you read this blog? Naw, I'm just being a good citizen.
There wasn't a death threat. People keep getting that wrong. There was, rather, incitement to commit a crime (see Sn. 464 [a], Criminal Code of Canada). This is something no civilized person should tolerate.
Dawg, do you read your blog? Your title for the post is "Another call for Warman's execution".
You've earned a reputation as one of the thinking man's progressive bloggers, but reputations can only stand so much (self-)abuse.
Sorry, IP. The police always recommend you file complaints of this nature...they don't mind getting them because they have to cover for themselves as well. They also don't take stalking and threats lightly anymore.
IP:
Normally I wouldn't question your reading comprehension, but that's precisely what commenter "Ming the Merciless" did. Am I missing something here?
There was, rather, incitement to commit a crime (see Sn. 464 [a], Criminal Code of Canada). This is something no civilized person should tolerate.
I guess you don't consider Ickes to be civilized then?
If comments have to be moderated before they appear, there could be no timely give and take, where one comment responds to another.
If comments are reviewed for possible deletion after they appear, then we have to tolerate possible unsavory remarks temporarily appearing.
For this reason, to make bloggers responsible for all comments, even if temporary, is to hinder the free and timely exchange of ideas.
Yes, taken literally, it was an incitement to murder rather than a death threat. Is there a significance here I'm missing?
The point is, the moron who wrote it didn't intend it literally, and it's unlikely anyone would take it literally. Though disgusting and offensive, it was essentially fanciful. I don't believe you took it to the police out of any genuine concern for Warman's safety; more likely as an opportunity to harass Levant, with perhaps an element of would-be heroism (or self-regarding "good citizenism") thrown in. The latter is pretty much the "policeman's friend" attitude my German pal complained about back in the 80s.
Weird actually, 'cos my friend's comment was part of his extended attack on what Germans call Spiessbuergerlichkeit: petty, middle-class smugness tending towards authoritarianism. A phenomenon of the right, in other words. In contemporary Canada, a phenomenon of the left.
Weird actually, 'cos my friend's comment was part of his extended attack on what Germans call Spiessbuergerlichkeit: petty, middle-class smugness tending towards authoritarianism. A phenomenon of the right, in other words. In contemporary Canada, a phenomenon of the left.
I think you manifest that more than anyone. It's highly authoritarian of you to assert this...
The point is, the moron who wrote it didn't intend it literally, and it's unlikely anyone would take it literally. Though disgusting and offensive, it was essentially fanciful...
...with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back that up. It could be true, but the conviction with which you make the assertion, and your insistence on the poster's motivation (not to mention Dawg's) displays a degree of authoritarianism I find rather startling.
Is the only difference here that you're not middle class?
I'm almost afraid to admit this publicly, but I spent that last ??? minutes reading the whole thread here (came from Ezra's site). Seems to me that what has gotten lost in this whole argument back and forth is the good old matter of 'intent'.
Canadian law (and most if not all western civilization) differentiates between things committed intentionally or not. And THAT is the issue.
No one denies Ezra put that comment up. The issue is one of intent. And that, ladies and gentleman is something that would have to be proved in a court of law. To that charge Ezra would be 'innocent until proven guilty' and the whole thing should rest. Actually, in a court of law, Ezra would have an overwhelming victory in defence by showing the timelines between when it was posted, the conditions of his travel, and when he checked, when he was notified, and when he removed the comment after receiving an email. (Of course, he'd probably lose the case in a HRC, but that's another story) To say there was intent does indeed cross over into libel / slander.
My advice (which probably no one will take) ... let the whole thing go and let's get on to something of value.
Y'all have a great weekend!
Well if we are going to talk about intent.. let's talk about the claim that Warman is a racist homophobe who posted nasty things at various neo-nazi sites.
He says his intent was to investigate hate-speech, and in order to do more than skim the surface he tried to ingratiate himself with the neo-nazis.
I'll be happy to give Ezra the benefit of a doubt, when he and the right wing who have gone mentalist over this give Richard Warman the same benefit of a doubt.
Deal?
Seems to me that what has gotten lost in this whole argument back and forth is the good old matter of 'intent'.
The matter of intent didn't got lost in this thread. The mere fact that Dawg posted publicly available information and commented on it was viewed by the authoritarians here as an assertion of intent, and the whole back and forth consisted of arguing that point.
I'd dearly love to go over to Ezra Levant's site and engage in a similar, free-wheeling discussion about intent on his part, but the censor does not permit such a discussion.
Tant pis.
A screenshot of a comment on a comment about screenshot of a comment? You think you are annoying - i say just b-o-r-i-n-g.
Yawn...
i love this bit of desperation (from ezra's response):
"If it was inappropriate for me to briefly have that comment up, why is it okay for 'Dr. Dawg' to continue to have it up, and Kinsella to link to it?"
i think warman can determine for himself when something is a threat against him and when it isn't, thank you very much, ezra. you coy m-----------r, you....
KEvron
Language, dear KEvron...please.
Edited By Siteowner
"i say just b-o-r-i-n-g."
judging by the extent to which he went in responding (and in exposing his shameless desperation), i'd guess ezra didn't find it all that boring....
KEvron
"the moron who wrote it didn't intend it literally"
got something you want to get off your chest, ip? if not, then this claim from me has just as much merit:
the moron who wrote it meant it quite literally.
duhbatin's fun!
KEvron
A screenshot of a comment on a comment about screenshot of a comment? You think you are annoying - i say just b-o-r-i-n-g.
Surprisingly, this isn't the dumbest comment I've come across all day. The CBC web site has become almost unreadable with the prominence it gives its commentary.
Let's start a movement to get the CBC to turf commentary. I'd hate to think of public funds being directed to facilitating and giving voice to the sheer ignorance of the Canadian people. It's not like they lack other venues, such as Ezra Levant's blog.
Calling people "stupid" occasionally is gratuitous but not very objectionable, really. It's just silly rhetoric.
The use of words like "leftard" to describe my blog, however...is a different thing entirely.
Yea?
thank you very much, ezra. you coy motherfucker, you....
more silly rhetoric i guess?
This is a classy joint. : )
sure could be, if constantly moderated.
Bryan.. back under your bridge.
Cameron..how very civil
"more silly rhetoric i guess?"
what tipped you off?
"how very civil"
lol! tantamount to a call for murder, it was!
little civility in passive aggressive - and wholly disingenuous - nitpicking, either.
KEvron, redacted
"Language, dear KEvron...please."
i'm just talkin' bout shaft....
KEvron
Ah, Canadian intellectuals show their stuff.
They aren't sleeping well at the Oxford Union tonight.
Bryan... do you even know what "civil" means?
I was perfectly civil.
Additionally, civility and intelligence? Do you have some kind of proof of a linkage or are you just making stuff up?
Time out.
I'll be posting again when I have my second term paper done.
G'night, and don't break anything.
Ah, Canadian intellectuals show their stuff.
They aren't sleeping well at the Oxford Union tonight.
Did you flip your hair and smirk when you wrote that?
How juvenile.
Actually, is speaking factually now a sign of a lack of civility?
Funny how you came across just at the right time to find that comment before it was removed??? Could yourself Mr. Dawg have known about the comment prior to it's posting?
Hey, Ti-guy, remember a couple of weeks back I said that this place seemed different, that it was more conducive to debate? Well, I was wrong, apparently.
Don't worry fergusrush, it's just the winged monkey brigade.
They'll soon find something else to distract them from littering Dawg's joint -- a bright shiney Key-Chain perhaps.
those are shiny right?
is speaking factually now a sign of a lack of civility?
With respect to the personal, it always was.
Hey, Ti-guy, remember a couple of weeks back I said that this place seemed different, that it was more conducive to debate? Well, I was wrong, apparently.
Well, if you check the last comment you made, you might think of some reasons for why that is.
Minimising calls for execution (even if the intentions are not evident) is not civil. The notion itself is ridiculous and those who attempt it strike me as morally bankrupt (or simply don't know when to be quiet if they have nothing useful to say). Just because it isn't associated with potty-mouth doesn't change that.
Seriously, it's baffling to me that I even have to say this.
Where you see a "call for execution", I see the overwrought ranting hyperbole of a dimwit calling himself "Ming the Merciless".
But any stick to beat a conservative (Levant) with is a good stick apparently. In my morally-bankrupt opinion, that is.
Dawg says he's told the police: I hope he also lets us know if they pursue it or if they are morally bankrupt as well.
Where you see a "call for execution", I see the overwrought ranting hyperbole of a dimwit calling himself "Ming the Merciless".
Other things transpired in this thread. I summarised them in a comment above.
But any stick to beat a conservative (Levant) with is a good stick apparently.
What you're seeing is an escalation of intemperate rhetoric, exclusively through the efforts of Ezra Levant himself.
If Ezra or anyone else doesn't like that, well, they only have themselves to blame.
If there were no context to this, Fergus, this would, in fact, be a non-issue.
"...(Warman's) assiduous work on behalf of human rights has attracted a lot of hatred"
Umm... I would say it's attracted mostly ridicule. There's nobody on the right who takes this guy seriously, anymore. Too bad. He's shot so many fish in a barrel, he's out of ammo when it comes time to take on the ones who can shoot back.
Baiting pathetic Nazi sites with racist bile gives a faux-crusader like Warman all the credibility of Morton Downey Jr.
Gosh, rape/torture/murder fantasies are what passes for ridicule in right wing circles these days?
And the left is supposed to be the ones with no sense of humor.
Well put Ti-Guy.
I guess I was referring to right-wing circles that have more than two non-homicidal neurons to rub together. I think there's still a few of us out there.
Jemery, at the risk of feeding back a line that many of those on you side of the aisle are fond of, you lot have to do a much better job of making that point.
Not just by stating the obvious ("I don't support the killing of my political opponents" being such a low bar that I just assume most Canadians can clear it) but by actively disassociating yourselves from and condemning those who seem to think this is ok.
Sure thing, so long as "you side" keeps distancing yourself from Communist dictators, Islamist terrorists and hooligan "activists" every time they commit a violent act.
P.S. If you want to "make a point", try a quick proof-read.
-"Jemery"
I think there's still a few of us out there.
Yeabbut, but they're still all humourless. Hopefully, another PJ O'Rourke (who actually has..or at least, had...empathy for powerless people) will surface soon. We live in hope.
I've been mystified by how uniformly Conservatives despise the weak and the powerless and can only muster vicious attacks on the non-Conservatives who stand up to them.
Sure thing, so long as "you side" keeps distancing yourself from Communist dictators, Islamist terrorists and hooligan "activists" every time they commit a violent act.
What a moronic thing to say. Where are those brain cells now, Jemmerry?
Just my point, Ti. You guys can keep painting us all with the same redneck, racist brush and be mystified every time the right-wing stoops to the same tactic in reverse. Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...
To even ask me to distance myself from filth like Ming The Brainless is as intelligence-insulting as the deliberate twaddle I threw at Cameron.
BTW, you'd prefer if we ignored those who stood up to us and attacked the weak? I'm missing your logic.
P.S. If you find Mark Steyn humourless, you have a high standard for laughs.
Jeremy
1) Did you seriously just correct a typo?
2) Have you been under a rock for the last 10 years or so. I can't have a conversation without having to explain, as patiently as possible, that not everyone on the left thinks the same and that stupid gross generalizations are just that... sucks to have the tables turned eh?
3) Seriously, under a rock?
4) Exactly when did Islamic terrorists become = to anyone on the left? I believe that you just made my point for me. Bravo.
To even ask me to distance myself from filth like Ming The Brainless is as intelligence-insulting as the deliberate twaddle I threw at Cameron.
I don't recall anyone asking *you* to distance yourself from anything, but I admit, I'm losing interest in this discussion as yet another Rightist shows up to say "yeabbut but you guys didz it two!"
As far as twaddle is concerned, if you don't know that what you said isn't fringe sentiment, but rather received wisdom on the Right, then I don't think you're paying attention. But then, I do know that Conservatives don't listen to their knuckledraggers; they're good for votes, but heavens, don't invite them into the parlour, for God's sakes!
BTW, you'd prefer if we ignored those who stood up to us and attacked the weak?
Kathy Shaidle, yesterday, on the murder of a peace activist:
"Stupid is as stupid dies
One less idiot."
What was that again about attacking the weak?
If you find Mark Steyn humourless, you have a high standard for laughs.
No. Just standards, period. Sample the population who claim to find Steyn funny. Chances are, they're the ones who find Ann Coulter and the quickly-forgotten Half Hour News Hour funny as well.
Hey, if I wanted to appear really cutting, I'd throw up a [sic] - like Warren Kinsella, natch. (Sure makes them racists look ignerent.)
"Gosh, rape/torture/murder fantasies are what passes for ridicule in right wing circles these days?
Sounds to me like you're corralling all us tighty-righties with an annonymous sociopath idiot who liked Hostel too much. You may find that nobody of consequence has actually defended this guy.
Shit, If I screen-captured a left-wing "call to execution" on Dawg's site, and sent it to Mark Steyn, he'd be too embarrassed to post it, let alone make it Exhibit 'A'.
This is like Kinsella's bathroom swastika. Is this seriously all you got!?
BTW, the extra "n" in annonymous is for "nazi".
If I screen-captured a left-wing "call to execution" on Dawg's site, and sent it to Mark Steyn, he'd be too embarrassed to post it, let alone make it Exhibit 'A'.
Well, he'd be more subtle about it, like the time he referenced, very obliquely, a remark I made about him being "the robber baron's catamite."
But, no; he wouldn't do that; he relies on the knuckledraggers to do that kind of grubby work...for free!
I envy you Conservatives...the acknowledged co-dependence you've established between high- and low-brow is something the rest of us find quite mystifying and difficult to deal with at times. Thank God it's essentially content-free; when you get right down to it, it's all heat and no light whatsoever.
Not that I want to interrupt this three-way, but that last point is worth underscoring. Recall Oswald Mosely walking cosily among East London toughs, or, more recently, Ottawa's Ian MacDonald and his little Aryanfests with the simple, bald-headed folk and their amusing grunts.
Or, for that matter, Kate McMillan, who (as I've said before) uses her crazed winged monkeys as ventriloquist's dummies.
"...he relies on the knuckledraggers to do that kind of grubby work...for free."
Garsh! At least Kinsella's plea to lefty-highbrows for an incriminating photo of Steyn and Lemire could have netted 100 smackers.
Fly, my minions. Fly!
You don't have to type so much, Jeremy. Just post "yeabbut you guys didz it two!" and that should suffice.
Hey, Ti. Newsflash...
Yer the guy who said he was "losing interest in this discussion." Why don't you move on or go complain to someone? I realize you're a serial-poster and all, but shurly there's another blog you can occupy yourself with.
Sheesh, You can't win around these parts.
Gee, was I just asked to take my ball and go home?
Find "Ti-Guy"... (51 matches)
Now there's some world-class typing, my man.
How uncivil!
"Could yourself Mr. Dawg have known about the comment prior to it's posting?"
it's highly probable that ezra did....
KEvron, moderated into oblivion
Dr: Your blog, in its own way, is now a simulacrum of Kate's. Ah, progress...
Mark
Ottawa
*wince*
How so? I hardly do any cutting-and-pasting at all!
She's a craven, hate machine bent on destruction...
Kathy Shaidle, yesterday, on the murder of a peace activist:
"Stupid is as stupid dies
One less idiot."
What was that again about attacking the weak?
Ti-Guy | 04.14.08 - 2:46 pm |
or is she...?
Calling people "stupid" occasionally is gratuitous but not very objectionable, really. It's just silly rhetoric.
Dr.Dawg | 04.10.08 - 3:21 pm |
She's so silly
Again with the equivalencies that are not Bryan.
C'mon, everybody, we're almost at two hundred comments. If we all keep yanking Ti-Guy's chain, we'll be there by noon.
When a troll admits to trolling it's just lovely.
The two hundredth post will be mine: I'll be closing the comments. So (if Haloscan is accurate) each of you gets one last comment. Make it good.
Okay, how about a song...
Warman... huuh.. Good God y'all.
What is he good for?
Absolutely nuthin'
Seriously, guys. Keep up the good fight.
Dawg, thanks for the moderate moderation.
Hi Dawg, before you close down comments, I noticed that Chris has responded to you on his site.
I've been reading through all this and would be interested to read your response, if you have one.
Thanks,
Felix
======================
http://chrisvanoostveen.blogspot...lla-
lawyer.html
Dawg, that's right, you didn't speculate about his motives (though others at your blog did), but you did imply he had a motive. You implied he read the death threat and knowingly published it.
Whether because he supported it, or didn't care, or (like Kinsella said) has lost all self-control, sure, you didn't speculate. Sure, I agree. But what you did -- imply that he knowingly published a death threat -- is plenty bad enough.
It seems to me that you're the one who is now trying to weasel your way out of some pretty disgusting and probably libelous statements about Ezra Levant.
Second, there's hate, and wackos, on both sides of any modern political debate. If you don't believe that, you've been smoking something. Two words for you: Shoshana Berman.
Sorry, but the threats of "Ming the Merciless" don't say anything about the Right, or how hateful it can get. We don't even know "Ming" is on the Right -- he could easily be Dean Steacy or some other agent provocateur (a real one, not just someone asking for a clarification of comments that could potentially be libel -- like I was doing on your blog).
Third, you and others on your blog have repeatedly claimed Ezra is "responsible" for Ming's comments. I assume you mean legally, since you've reported him to the police.
Here's some quick legal advice: look up "mens rea." Because that's what you need to prove legal, criminal responsibility. And Ezra couldn't have it if he didn't read the comment before allowing it to appear on his site. It's pretty simple, really. Your case against Ezra is a joke.
Lastly, I agree with you that torture and murder are worse than pie-throwing. For you to imply otherwise is (a) completely dishonest, and (b) completely stupid.
What I did claim, however, is that telling a bunch of thugs to go pie someone (which Richard Warman did, on tape, undeniably) is a hell of a lot worse than mistakenly approving Ming's comments, for a couple hours, as Ezra did. He has hundreds of comments to approve, and -- sad but true -- doesn't always read all of them.
It's unfortunate that Ming's comment slipped through, but your claims/implications that Ezra is responsible for the death threat are, quite simply, repugnant, and, I think, probably libel.
Still trolling, huh, "Felix?"
If Ezra thinks he has a case against me, let him send me a Statement of Claim. He's a big boy. He doesn't need people like you running errands for him.
The weasel-word here, of course, is "knowingly." I made no such assertion, express or implied. He is "responsible" for the appearance of the comment as the owner of a moderated site, in the same way that the editor of a newspaper (e.g., the Red Deer Advocate in the Boissoin case) has vicarious liability if he or she publishes a libelous or otherwise actionable letter.
Dawg, I'm not Chris, but I am having some trouble seeing your side of the argument here. It seems to me like you were arguing that Ezra must have read the comments, because he had "only 20" to approve at the time, and his site is moderated, etc. If you didn't mean to imply that Ezra knowingly posted the threat, then I'm happy you have cleared that up.
Secondly, I'm not a lawyer, but was the Boissoin case a libel case? I thought it was a human rights tribunal decision. Honest question: if you're right, and say, Ezra is vicariously liable for Ming's comments, but say, an unmoderated site owner wouldn't be, why would anyone have moderated sites? It seems to me that everyone would just not moderate if they could escape liability that way.
I agree with you about mens rea, but you did report him to the police, not sue him, right?
Anyway, thanks for your response
"Felix"
Felix:
First, a mea culpa. The Boissoin case touched on an earlier action against the Red Deer Advocate, which was settled out of court. I was drawing an analogy, but I think I wasn't sufficiently clear. Whether a letter is libelous or in some other way contravenes the law, though, an editor usually has some responsibility.
(I removed my comment about mens rea because we are here dealing with the publication of a call for a person's death [not, for the last time, a "death threat"]. That is indeed a criminal matter, not a civil one. You are entirely correct. My apologies.)
The whole point about a moderated site is that the siteowner has taken on a kind of editorial responsibility for screening comments. That does, at least in my opinion, add to his or her burden of defence if a libelous or criminal comment is permitted to escape the screening.
Why would anyone have moderated sites? In part, for precisely this reason--to prevent actionable or illegal comments from appearing. A newspaper editor, to continue the analogy, is on shaky ground if he or she says, in effect, that s/he was simply failing to exercise the usual editorial discretion when an actionable or illegal letter saw print.
Better by far to have an unmoderated site, at least in my view. That's why, for example, I suspect that Kate has a good case--she was out of the country when her stand-in published comments deemed actionable.
That being said, there are all sorts of mitigating circumstances, and the facts of each case would have to be considered.
My argument, in any event, was a little more nuanced than you make out. My references to Ezra's moderated site and to the number of comments received go to responsibility, not motive. And he himself has admitted to carelessness in this regard--to which I replied in an update to this post that I saw no reason not to take him at his word.
Shoot--passed the 200 mark. One last comment, then let's move on.
Thanks for clearing that up.
But I do think that you have to give Ezra (and other bloggers who moderate) some credit. As you point out they moderate to try to prevent actionable or illegal comments from appearing.
When you have sites with as many visitors and posts as Ezra does, that can be pretty hard, you've got to admit. Sometimes stuff slips through. But at least they're taking the time to try and weed out comments like Ming's.
That's all. Thanks for listening,
Felix
Here's my last comment, to Felix.
There is a paradox here: if you have an unmoderated site, you probably have a better defence if "bad" posts get through, simply because you have made no specific editorial undertaking. The law on this is anything but clear--one consequence of the Warman action against Kate McMillan may be to develop more legal clarity in this respect.
Over and out. Cameron, Ti-Guy, fergusrush, one more each if you wish. But this has all gone farther than far enough.
Dawg, I understand, and I hope Warman's case does clarify the law.
It just seems to me like if you take on the responsibility to moderate your site, the law shouldn't then penalize you if a bad comment slips through. Moderation is a good thing, and the law shouldn't discourage it.
Regards,
Felix
If you take the responsibility to moderate your site, then you shouold moderate it. Levant was sloppy snd lazy. As former publisher of a magazine, he should know better.
I agree, he was sloppy and lazy. But I wouldn't have reported him to the police.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
