City Council Forces Forum Offline; Claims Debate Should Take Place At Meetings Only
from the civilized-people-don't-do-online-forums dept
Eric Samson writes "The city council of the small town of Rawdon, Quebec (population: 9400) has managed to get a court order to shut down an online forum (French only) because its users were posting messages that were considered 'defamatory and detrimental to the reputation' of the elected board. Police raided the forum owner's house, copied his entire hard drive and asked him to delete the offending posts, and when he said he had over 8,000 messages to look through, they did not specify which ones were specifically targeted.
So he simply shut down the site.
Five other users, posting under their real name, were visited by police as well. The city's lawyer declared: "What we can't do in newspapers, on the radio, or on TV, we can't do on the Internet. This is the message we're trying to get across." The mayor had this to say: "Debate should be civilized and take place during Council meetings.""
Democracy may be messy, but it seems rather pointless to completely shut off an avenue for discussion just because some parties are a little rude. If any individual was being defamatory, charge them with defamation -- don't shut down the whole thing. And, to then claim that debate should only take place at council meetings shows a council that isn't just out of touch with technology, but with democracy as well.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by Overcast on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 3:22pm
Still makes one curious what the local council did that would make the citizens so mad.. :)
hmm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google cache? by Raptor85 on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 3:51pm
anyone know the forum address? maybe the posts are cached. (I'd look myself but I cant get out to the site from here)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 4:09pm
god forbid he find a free forum outside the jurisdiction of the local police..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Free Quebec by Ken on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 4:19pm
English Translation, courtesy of the Big G.
The forum was located at http://rawdon-qc.net/.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 4:35pm
This is a well establish concept that 'public' meetings have to be 'public' and the internet forum is not 'public' in that it creates an element of 'anonymous'....and secondly, you would be surprised how many people dont have or use the internet, especially the less well off and handicapped.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Alfred E. Neuman on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 4:49pm
AC said:
"This is a well establish concept that 'public' meetings have to be 'public' and the internet forum is not 'public' in that it creates an element of 'anonymous'....and secondly, you would be surprised how many people dont have or use the internet, especially the less well off and handicapped."
That is a rather lame excuse for what the elected officals did. What's next ... you can not say anything bad about an elected offical - no matter whee you are.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The internet is 'public' by Charles Abel on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 5:24pm
In response to Anonymous Coward (the first one at least):
The internet is public, and simply because it doesn't require or force someone to use their real name doesn't make it private. Here in America we like our freedom of speech, which treats the internet the same as showing up to a public forum. Guess that idea of freedom flies right over the head of you guys and gals up north.
Just because someone is handicapped or don't have the internet doesn't mean the forum is private. I don't pay for your local newspaper, so its a private forum? Please.
Funny though, that you would support the actions of the government in this action of restricting anonymous debate, then come on here and anonymously debate with us! Hah!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by trollificus on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 5:28pm
"This is a well establish concept that 'public' meetings have to be 'public' and the internet forum is not 'public' in that it creates an element of 'anonymous'....and secondly, you would be surprised how many people dont have or use the internet, especially the less well off and handicapped."
Nice to know there's always going to be legalistic prigs to play off of. So...does this mean a group of friends at a coffee shop or bar can't discuss city business?? I mean, people who aren't their friends are 'excluded' from the discussion, right? What if they were at someone's house, discussing the council's actions? THAT isn't public, is it?
Blatant suppression of VALID free speech (including insulting the council members, their appearance, dress, wives and official actions), and you are going to defend it?
F'ing tard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by trollificus on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 5:29pm
"This is a well establish concept that 'public' meetings have to be 'public' and the internet forum is not 'public' in that it creates an element of 'anonymous'....and secondly, you would be surprised how many people dont have or use the internet, especially the less well off and handicapped."
Nice to know there's always going to be legalistic prigs to play off of. So...does this mean a group of friends at a coffee shop or bar can't discuss city business?? I mean, people who aren't their friends are 'excluded' from the discussion, right? What if they were at someone's house, discussing the council's actions? THAT isn't public, is it?
Blatant suppression of VALID free speech (including insulting the council members, their appearance, dress, wives and official actions), and you are going to defend it?
F'ing tard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Cynic on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 6:09pm
Obvious explanation to me would be that Canada does not value free speech. It would be ludicrous to suggest that free speach only exists at certain times and locations or if you agree with local town government. So in the final analysis it apparently is not guaranteed in the great white North. That will have a "chilling" (no pun intended) effect on any vacation plans I make.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by DanC on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 6:45pm
"Obvious explanation to me would be that Canada does not value free speech"
Be fair - it was the wacky French Canadians, not your regular run-of-the-mill Canadians.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 8th, 2008 @ 8:20pm
sad...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Paul on Feb 9th, 2008 @ 3:55am
I blame George Bush. What? Canada? Oh, nevermind.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Correct me if I'm wrong... by JiveSucka on Feb 9th, 2008 @ 6:04am
...but isn't there NO right to free speech in Canada? If that's the case, this doesn't surprise me in the least.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 9th, 2008 @ 11:25am
For the love of (insert favourite deity here)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association."
Took me all of 30 seconds to find it, another 30 seconds to paste it. And somehow, I don't conclude that every time there's a murder in (insert country here) that they don't value life or don't have laws against murder.
This angry Canadian's going offline now to express some opinions regarding the ignorance of some of the above commenters.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What if the forum were based in the USA? by John Duncan Yoyo on Feb 9th, 2008 @ 3:47pm
Someone with a little extra server space south of the border ought to offer them a new home out of reach of the Mounties.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 9th, 2008 @ 10:11pm
Bordelle Que je suis Tanné des Québécois, ils se pense tous Mayeur que les autres.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Well, yes and no... by Anonymous Patriot on Feb 10th, 2008 @ 9:56am
Well the mayor is right when she says that "Debate should be civilized and take place during Council meetings." That of course does not preclude uncivilized debate, or debate outside of council meetings, but official debate about city business should take place at meetings, and it should be civilized.
Of course, taking down a web forum because you don’t like what te forum members have to say is just stupid, and as this Mayor is learning – counter productive.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And i thought our second class brethren were by Rob on Feb 10th, 2008 @ 1:29pm
So i guess they truly don't understand the concept of free speech, and you would have assumed they were truly democratic, obviously not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Open meeting laws by David Moisan on Feb 10th, 2008 @ 4:08pm
I belong to a town commission and in MA, we can talk all we want outside regular meetings but I can't go to my chairperson over drinks and decide business; that's for the meetings.
No censorship here, though.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by delos on Feb 10th, 2008 @ 6:24pm
before making this an issue about gov vs little guy without knowing the history behind the actions of the municipality someone should,at least read the original news article (http://www2.canoe.com/infos/societe/archives/2008/02/20080208-060002.html). In this article one woman's name is mentioned in particular who was a contributer to the rawdon forum. This individual is a very special person who has spent the last 15 years or so using and twisting the municipal by-laws to her own agenda. There is enough evidence in the minutes of the last 10 years or so of council meetings to realize that this is not just a case of an iron fisted council quashing the real issues of people who have been treated unfairly. If anyone spends even a little amount of time researching this person and her various responses to different sites and articles on the net(mostly french stuff though)you will hopfully see through her veneer of a person who cares about animals and the enviroment.On the other hand i am also against the closing of the forum site because it is a public forum,and as such has the right to express the opinions of the users on it. However sometimes the whole story can get buried under the instantaneous indignation of a specific incident, article or posting. Did the municipality do the right thing? Maybe not, but after years of frustration and complaints about said person they must think that they have legal recourse to do what they did. sometimes The internet makes even the little guy's website sound as important as the big guys (if enough effort is put into it). But also remember that any person or legal entity has the right In law,to defend against defamation that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism(From wikipedia). Enough ranting from me
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Jimbo on Feb 11th, 2008 @ 9:34am
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association."
Ask Ernst Zundel and his bouts with the Canadian Human Rights Commission about how free Canada is. Ask those travelers who want to enter Canada with "banned" books that are confiscated and burned how free Canada is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Canada by John Fairplay on Feb 11th, 2008 @ 5:26pm
Quebec is sort of toward the bill of America's hat, isnt' it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Former Rawdon resident on Feb 13th, 2008 @ 9:54pm
While I admit it might be annoying, irritating at times to deal with the same small group of unsatisfied people with an ax to grind at almost every town hall meeting, it is another thing to perpetuate a climate of mistrust that has dragged on almost ever since this administration took office.
Last time I attended a meeting, only two people on the town side did most of the talking: the mayoress and the director-general, acting as MC and main provider of content, which I find odd given this is supposed to be a meeting for citizens AND elected officials (I don't see why an unelected city official should take center stage). Other councillors were pretty silent, with most of their lines consisting of either "I propose" or "I second".
What people fail to grasp is that there is no culture of dialogue in these town meetings, with citizens often being talked down to and having little opportunity to voice their opinion (contrary to what happens when the meeting deals with minor zoning/construction derogations); the council doesn't want to have to go through the process of answering questions and incorporating comments from concerned/worried citizens. If the initiatives are so great, how difficult can they be to explain? :-) Things have gotten to the point where people can be considered out of order for ambiguous questions or comments and subjected to fines! (Isn't there a moderator/president at these assemblies?)
I have browsed the shutdown forum a few times and have also noticed the schoolyard antics of many participants, not untypical of many Internet forums. I would find it very surprising if the 'tough' talk found within it spilled over into the real world; these people were mostly playing knights and elves against evil spirits and the wicked witch of the West! The name-calling and references was mostly hyperbole; you don't like what they do, what they say, you don't have your way, so they're Nazis! That's what it boiled down to. But somehow some people could not accept the fact that somewhere out there, in cyberspace, some people were freely voicing their discontent.
All the talk was the equivalent of a pressure valve. If they had only put that energy to better use by creating a citizens' group or lining up some candidates at the last election...
Attempts were made in the past by Town people (including the director-general), family of elected officials, supporters, to voice their opinion, defend their side of the story, provide another point of view. They rapidly found their way to the sidelines, unable to cope with the medium and the sugar-rush behaviour of its more experienced participants.
Except for one, which didn't make the news and was the author of some of the most foul-mouthed, seemingly psychopathic postings, with many comments as offensive and personal as can be.
A city councillor.
A former city councillor to be precise.
But not one that had fallen out of favour.
Never said a bad word about the Town or its council.
Always had a response, a fact to provide to counter statements. Amazing was the insight of this very active forum member; having access to Town files and privileged information would not have made his answers more complete or robust.
Some people think he was a mole, an agent provocateur, helping to keep the trashy talk going. If that was the case, job well done!
Outside of these messages, we had a forum administrator, probably happy with all the activity on his website, not willing to shut down the life of the party. Most secretly enjoy flaming wars and hot topics and we all know how boring forums can get when you can't write anything that may get taken the wrong way by some sensitive soul out there. Cops shut down the party because of the loud music, taking away the records and the stereo, taking mugshots of the long-haired punks. Want to make another party or will you settle for a cup of tea and a scone?
The little treehouse where kids smoked cigarette butts and looked at the Playboy issue 'borrowed' from one of the boy's father collection has just been torn down with a city bulldozer because, well, because it was there and you just can't have kids doing kid stuff...
Now back to Ottawa.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Google cache? by Beverly Prudhomme on Feb 22nd, 2008 @ 6:23am
Google "Rawdon Forum". There are still a few cached pages available.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
New Forum / Website by Robin Milette on Mar 3rd, 2008 @ 9:38am
It didn't take long... there is not one, but two new independant web boards on the net this time: Rawdon 2.0 (forum, news, etc.) and Forum des citoyens de Rawdon, ready to serve in French and English.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Worst City Council by Hannabelle on Mar 3rd, 2008 @ 9:35pm
Acting as an agent for Nexus, a private corporation, the Onamia (MN) city council is forcing 94 convicted sex offenders into our residential neighborhood, next to elderly widows, day cares, children, and vulnerable disabled adults. It is unbelievable the way this city council is proceeding by circumventing city ordinances (if they run into an obstacle, they just change the law). Nexus CEO Jim D'Angelo and board member Peter Freeman are suing me for defamation. My life has been a nightmare this past year, as it has for my neighbors. I've put some of the city council meetings and such on the Internet. Check out http://youtube.com/hannabelle1 and also http://bradburybuzzz.blogspot.com It ain't easy to fight city hall... but Free Speech is a most worthy cause. Never give up!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: you will hopfully see through her veneer of a by who's that girl? on Mar 10th, 2008 @ 3:52pm
what is your point about this person? and howcome you know so much about all this issue of gov versus the little guy? You maybe have access to priveleged information to make a case with? ... reads like the words of an english JLB .. I gotta laugh .. but did the municipality of Rawdon do the right thing after years of frustration and complaints against said person .. here I lost you are we still on the subject of CYBERINTIMIDATION or are you referring to some snowfence case ... please liquify
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
city council forces forum shut down by Barb on Jun 20th, 2008 @ 9:34am
What happened to freedom of speech?? I guess it's only free if council approves. Hope they don't get voted in next term.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment