Should people be criminally liable for their Web forum posts?

[yllus]

Prosecute man for Web posts, Senator urges

A Mississauga man who has been posting messages online supporting attacks against military targets in Canada should "absolutely" be prosecuted, the chairman of the Senate National Security and Defence Committee said yesterday.

Comparing the comments to "shouting fire in a theatre," Senator Colin Kenny said if Crown prosecutors are unable to convict the Bangladeshi-Canadian for condoning the killing of Canadian soldiers, the law should be revisited.

"I don't think that any free speech case is going to be a slam dunk and I am surprised that the Crown is setting that high a standard before they will undertake a prosecution," said the Senator, also a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee.

The Liberal Senator made the comments after reading a sample of the Internet postings of a University of Toronto at Mississauga student who is under RCMP investigation for calling attacks against soldiers in Canada a "legitimate" way to force Ottawa to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Asked if he felt charges were warranted, Mr. Kenny said: "I absolutely think that, and the question that I ask is, if he survived a court test I think that's fine. We've cleared something up and as Parliamentarians we know where we stand and whether we need to adjust the law or not.

"If he does not survive the court test and is convicted, that's a message to folks that talking like that isn't very smart."

The RCMP informed Salman Hossain last September that he was being investigated for incitement and facilitating terrorism after he wrote that he supports attacking Canadian soldiers on Canadian soil as a tactic for forcing Ottawa to pull out of Afghanistan. He has also written many derogatory comments about Jews.

Mr. Hossain could not be reached yesterday. Contacted earlier in the week, he declined to comment on the advice of his lawyer. In his online postings, he has asserted he has a right to express his opinions.

Counterterrorism investigators took an interest in him after three Islamist militants were arrested in Germany for plotting to bomb the Ramstein Air Base and Frankfurt Airport.

That same day, Mr. Hossain went online and wrote that: "we should do that here in Canada. Kill as many western soldiers as well so that they think twice before entering foreign countries on behalf of their Jew masters."

But four months later, no charges have been laid and prosecutors and police are struggling over the boundary between the free expression of beliefs and the incitement of terrorist violence. The case comes amid rising concerns about radicalization among a minority of Muslim Canadian youths.

As much as I abhor his statements and want to load him up on a giant catapult pointed in the general direction of Bangladesh, I think I have to fall on the side of free speech here. He might be an ignorant douche who's potentially inciting violence, but unless his words literally come to actions there's no case here.

 

[eakers]

Absolutely.

If someone threatened to kill me on a message board and I seriously believed it, you better believe that I am going to charge them with uttering threats.

In this case however, he should at least go to the human rights council. If they are going to charge Mark Steyn and the Western Standard for less, they should throw the book at this guy.

He is just lucky he lives in Canada, if it was the USA, he'd probably be in Guantanamo.

 

[thraashman]

I do hate this. Because as much as I think someone who posts ignorance and hate like him deserves something to happen to him. I do not support prosecuting someone for exercising free speech. Also if you do limit his free speech, where do you draw the line? What if someone advocates killing someone else? When do you decide who's serious and who's being sarcastic? Anyone else remember a few years ago when someone responded to a thread with the simple answer of "stab her"? It was enough that it evenutally lead to the banning of the word stab. Should he get prosecuted for advocating violence against women?

 

[Capitalizt]

He is not threatening to kill anyone and he is not forming a real plan to attack troops...So no, he should not be prosecuted.

Distasteful political beliefs are not grounds for imprisonment.

 

[ProfJohn]

Guy sounds like a nut job.

They should kick his ass out of the country if they can.

Maybe they can take away some of the ?rights? the Canadian government gives him since he obviously doesn?t appreciate them.

 

[thraashman]

I do however advocate smacking him upside the head. Though that should be carried out by someone who knows him and knows he's being a jackass.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Guy sounds like a nut job.

They should kick his ass out of the country if they can.

Maybe they can take away some of the ?rights? the Canadian government gives him since he obviously doesn?t appreciate them.

Well that's the thing about rights. Even people who don't appreciate them and don't really deserve them, still have them. It's the great thing about being in a free society. It would be nice if there were a way to make him realize that the great thing about Canada and the US is that we won't string him up for his words. In Turkey he'd be convicted of being anti-Turkish and be in some serious shit. In Taliban Afghanistan or Baath Iraq, he probably woulda been executed for his words. It's sad he doesn't accept that the only reason he can even say the things he does is because he lives in a society greater than the ones he applauds.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: thraashman
I do hate this. Because as much as I think someone who posts ignorance and hate like him deserves something to happen to him. I do not support prosecuting someone for exercising free speach. Also if you do limit his free speach, where do you draw the line? What if someone advocates killing someone else? When do you decide who's serious and who's being sarcastic? Anyone else remember a few years ago when someone responded to a thread with the simple answer of "stab her"? It was enough that it evenutally lead to the banning of the word stab. Should he get prosecuted for advocating violence against women?

It's not that simple. Each situation should be weighed. Is "stab her in the face" as an offhand remark the same as someone advocating targeting another with genuine intent that someone be harmed, and then providing diagrams for bombs, listing movements of the "enemy", names addresses etc?

I try to err on the side of free speech. Heaven knows I even have a forum that is as tacky and un PC as anyplace can be, but you can bet that if I or others thought someone wanted to genuinely harm another and was actively encouraging and providing support to say, blow up a black church, we'd act on it without hesitation.

 

[FoBoT]

they should just banish him, move him to Resolute Bay on Cornwallis Island, about 800 km (1,118 mi) from the North Pole. with no internet


http://www.resolute.worldweb.com/
http://www.cruisinaltitude.com/airports/yrbrbnuca.htm

 

[jonks]

Vague threats are not legally actionable. Silencing people who shout stuff like this just drives it underground, making combatting it all the more difficult. This doesn't seem like even a close case to me.

A closer case might be if he called for bombing a specific mall, and he says he's scouted it out, the security is lax around lunch and that's when it's busiest. Then it seems to be in at least the pre-planning stages, and if not deserving of prosecution, certainly enough probable cause for surveillance warrants.

 

[palehorse]

Here's a twist:

While his internet postings may not be criminal, and I personally do not believe any charges should be brought against him, at this point, how would you guys feel about law enforcement opening up an investigation on him? Do you believe they now have enough reasonable cause to surveil him? Interview his aquaintences? Tap his phones? Tap his email? Bring him in for questioning? etc...?

you see where I'm going with this... at what point does he become "fair game" for law enforcement scrutiny and pursuit?

Just curious...

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Here's a twist:

While his internet postings may not be criminal, and I personally do not believe any charges should be brought against him, at this point, how would you guys feel about law enforcement opening up an investigation on him? Do you believe they now have enough reasonable cause to surveil him? Interview his aquaintences? Tap his phones? Tap his email? Bring him in for questioning? etc...?

you see where I'm going with this... at what point does he become "fair game" for law enforcement scrutiny and pursuit?

Just curious...

I can accept that he's been blatant enough with his words that it is justifiable to look closer into his actions. Assuming a court order is granted, I would support surveilance on this individual that did not overstep the bounds of the court order.

Also I would support his ISP dropping his internet if they felt his words violated their TOS. That is a choice of his ISP and not the legal system.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is Juvenal, asinine, and rude to threaten people on the internet but anybody who thinks every example of it should be prosecuted should be killed.

 

[daveymark]

seriousness of internet business aside, free speech trumps most everything else

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: daveymark
seriousness of internet business aside, free speech trumps most everything else

You mean you can go around and threaten and intimidate people and make them live in fear for their life?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: daveymark
seriousness of internet business aside, free speech trumps most everything else

You mean you can go around and threaten and intimidate people and make them live in fear for their life?

Man, could I run with this

 

[Lemon law]

This country was founded with a guarantee of the right to free speech in the bill of rights.

That free speech does not extend to the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because the resulting stampede can injure others who believe the free speech.

In this person's case, no required action or panic is involved.

So if one feels its garbage speech, ignore it is the sensible thing to do. If you get your panties all in a wad, it just shows you fear the idea. And ideas cannot be killed. But Ideas
still exist in a continuum of quality, can be freely modified, and also can show other popular dogmas are not totally true either.

Censorship just drives it underground making it forbidden fruit less subject to critical examination.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Guy sounds like a nut job.

They should kick his ass out of the country if they can.

Maybe they can take away some of the ?rights? the Canadian government gives him since he obviously doesn?t appreciate them.

Typical right-wing confusion. He can appreciate his rights - to say something when the government is doing wrong.

If the US started burning Jews in ovens tomorrow, would the people who posted we should get guns and go attack the camps 'not appreciate their rights as Americans'? No.

Unfortunately, the issue can be difficult to balance, because you can construct (as I just did) scenarios of tyranny, and scenarios of evil rebellion (advocating CREATING those camps by taking over the military bases by force, by a neo-Nazi group, for example), and come up with different answers on what's right.

I lean towards the ability to prosecute (not exile) for CALLS TO ACTION of violence (not non-violent civil disobedience), but not for PRAISING the violent acts of others.

 

[teclis1023]

"we should do that here in Canada. Kill as many western soldiers as well so that they think twice before entering foreign countries on behalf of their Jew masters"

He's walking the line there, it's not a far stretch to view that as incitement. Imagine that being said at a Mosque...or in a classroom. What would happen then? At what point does the relative impunity of the interweb end when real lives are at stake?

I dunno, just wondering. Personally, I think he should be treated to a one-way ticket back to Bangladesh, courtesy of the Canadian Naturalization Services. If he hates the West so much, why does he live here ... and he could be seen as a serious possible threat in the future.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Here's a twist:

While his internet postings may not be criminal, and I personally do not believe any charges should be brought against him, at this point, how would you guys feel about law enforcement opening up an investigation on him? Do you believe they now have enough reasonable cause to surveil him? Interview his aquaintences? Tap his phones? Tap his email? Bring him in for questioning? etc...?

you see where I'm going with this... at what point does he become "fair game" for law enforcement scrutiny and pursuit?

Just curious...

For measures not invading his privacy, e.g., monitoring his web site for criminal activity? Now.

For measures invading his privacy? When there is probable cause, approved by a judge, of finding evidence he has acted criminally.

If he posts about having an illegal weapons cache in his home in case he wants to attack a base, that would be probable cause to search.

Except for the right, for whom the phrase 'illegal weapons cache' has no legal definition, and they might have to give him a citizenship award.

 

[StageLeft]

In this case however, he should at least go to the human rights council. If they are going to charge Mark Steyn and the Western Standard for less, they should throw the book at this guy.

He is just lucky he lives in Canada, if it was the USA, he'd probably be in Guantanamo.

Wth? You used the two examples of the human rights commision in Canada but then went on about Guantanamo? I'm not aware of any journalist in the US facing a "human rights commission".

Anyway, hard to say in this case. The two cases referred to here are jokes and should be thrown, but I see something distasteful about being in a country and actively hoping that its government/military are actually killed. That seems like a bit of stupidity to me. Should free speech still be free if it's used to promote non-free speech activities, i.e. violence?

how would you guys feel about law enforcement opening up an investigation on him? Do you believe they now have enough reasonable cause to surveil him? Interview his aquaintences? Tap his phones? Tap his email? Bring him in for questioning? etc...?

you see where I'm going with this... at what point does he become "fair game" for law enforcement scrutiny and pursuit?

Good point and I do feel it simple pragmatism to do some of what you say. Postings like this may be a reasonable lead as they could be for a suspect in a terrorist act, so it seems reasonable to at least consider it.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Guy sounds like a nut job.

They should kick his ass out of the country if they can.

Maybe they can take away some of the ?rights? the Canadian government gives him since he obviously doesn?t appreciate them.

Good totalitarian, here have a treat..

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
This country was founded with a guarantee of the right to free speech in the bill of rights.

you mean Canada? that dude is in Canada

 

[Vic]

No. He's just yet another ranting nutjob. Prosecution only gives him the attention he desires.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Vic
No. He's just yet another ranting nutjob. Prosecution only gives him the attention he desires.

Unfortunately, he's just one of many in this region (I lived in the city of Mississauga as well for some years). And some do in fact take it further. The Canadian/British idea of "multiculturalism" really and truly seems to be a failure. But that's not relevant to this topic.