[Précédent par date]
[Index par date]
[Suivant by date]
[Précédent par thème]
[Index par thème]
[Suivant par thème]
[Previous by date]
[Index by date]
[Next by date]
[Previous by thread]
[Index by thread]
[Next by thread]
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Issues Internet Hate Decision
- To: hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org
- Subject: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Issues Internet Hate Decision
- From: Robert Guerra <rguerra@lists.privaterra.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:17:00 -0500
- Openpgp: id=09469B03
- Organization: Privaterra
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201)
This might be of interest to those on this list...
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Issues Internet Hate Decision
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1158
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has issued a noteworthy Internet hate
decision that focuses on the applicability of the Human Rights Act to
Internet hate materials (Globe coverage here). The Tribunal ordered
fines against several individuals for their role in maintaining several
hate websites and newsletters. The lengthy decision is worth reading
for at least three reasons.
First, it provides a good illustration of the difficulty in bringing
actions under the Human Rights Act against alleged hate purveyors. The
challenge is not in finding the hate online (it is readily available)
but rather in linking specific content to specific people. In at least
one case, that necessitated a policy raid and forensic examination of
computers seized during the investigation.
Second, the Tribunal found against a provider of Web hosting services
despite the presence of Section 13(3) which provides that "an owner or
operator of a telecommunication undertaking through which hate messages
are communicated, is not in breach of the Act by reason only that its
facilities were used by other persons for the transmission of the
material." The Tribunal concluded that by playing a role in soliciting
and actively promoting hate content (a significant percentage of hosted
sites focused on race issues), the owner of the hosting service did more
than just provide the service. That interpretation is noteworthy as it
obviously reads limits into the telecommunications exemption section by
not treating it as a blanket immunity provision for Internet providers.
Third, I found it interesting that the Web hosting services established
the servers in the U.S. which the owner admitted was designed to avoid
Canadian law. That did not work and serves as yet another example of
why the location of the server is of limited importance in an Internet
jurisdictional analysis.
Since this is one of several Internet hate cases currently before the
Tribunal or the Human Rights Commission, it suggests that the Act may
emerge as the leading tool to combat Internet hate in Canada.
--
Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374