Slashdot Log In
Canadian Domain Registry Pulls Plug on Free Speech
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Jun 03, 2006 01:00 AM
from the surprised-we-haven't-seen-that-here dept.
from the surprised-we-haven't-seen-that-here dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The staff of a Canadian political candidate bragged today that he had managed to shut down a website critical of his involvement in a fundraising scandal, by having the country's registrar of domains pull the DNS records for the site. Criticism from bloggers and free speech advocates has been negative, and is coming from across the political spectrum."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Framed? (Score:3, Funny)
Appears scum are easier to frame than honest, upstanding people. Thanks for playing, but hope you and your filth go down in flames, spinning or otherwise.
Re:Framed? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Fails to explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the article does imply that noone is willing to admit to setting up the site.
Maybe the site's operator didn't provide accurate information when registering it. If that is the grounds for deregistering it, then it's not quite the free speech issue it's made out to be.
apparently I'm right... (Score:5, Insightful)
UPDATE (supplemtary info): There's more information to the story. The deletion of the domain name was in full compliance of rules of the CIRA (just because it's a rule, doesn't make it right). Supposedly, if one registers a
This doesn't necessarily make it right, however. .
Whatever. Everyone assumed that it was a huge abuse of power, when in reality it was just someone using a tactic that anyone can use. Complaining that someone isn't following the rules, and following an established procedure to remedy the situation.
As usual, people get all up in arms, bloggers go nuts, emails and phone calls are made... and then we find out nothing really wrong was done.
The big public relations screw up was bragging about it on a mailing list. But otherwise, he didn't do anything that ANY political campaign wouldn't have done in the same situation.
Parent
Re:apparently I'm right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Read next update. It wasn't cited that way. (Score:4, Informative)
Except that isn't the case, if you read the next update. The rule cited by the registrar was one where they feared they'd be sued for defamation, and that can't happen where they'd lose because there was no defamation present, just some good ol'e political parody of which is common in Canada.
It's as if the store had a minor code violation that could be fixed, and then a phony trumped up charge was used to close it instead.
Parent
Re:apparently I'm right... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:apparently I'm right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever agency with authority would have a duty to investigate.
If they find a problem, they are obliged to make sure it gets resolved within the applicable rules/laws.
Notice that I'm not saying anything about the motives behind the original complaint. You (the aggrieved party) can go to court, provide evidence and have a Judge rule that the wankers who were after you really just wanted to suppress your free speech. BUT, that still doesn't change the fact that the DNS re
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it is a free speech issue, but not for the obvious reason. There are times when people critical of the government or corporations [wikipedia.org] often need anonymity. Especially if there is nothing illegal about the site, then I find its removal offensive.
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Fails to explain... (Score:5, Informative)
There are three parts of censorship. Part one is having an agenda of some sort. Part two is becoming empowered by the state to carry out that agenda through censorship. Part three is to find items and have them removed from circulation on the grounds that they violate that agenda.
It doesn't sound like part two or the second half of part three has been carried out here. He was not authorized by a government body to further this agenda. He did it of his own accord. What was taken down was not done so because it violated the agenda, but simply because it violated something else.
Again, the actions are morally reprehensible on the part of this politician, but does not qualify as censorship by the government of Canada.
Parent
Shouldn't that read... (Score:4, Funny)
Shouldn't that read, "The former staff..."
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:3, Interesting)
site mirrored (Score:5, Informative)
More info on why it was pulled (Score:5, Informative)
UPDATE: I just got an email from the kids at youthforvolpe.ca. They received an email from their
From : CADNS.CA
Sent : June 1, 2006 8:41:26 PM
To : "Youthfor Volpe"
CC : archive@cadns.ca
Subject : RE: Domain registration for youthforvolpe.ca
Article 3.1
Paragraph (h) (i) and (ii)
(h) not engage in any direct or indirect activity which in CIRA's opinion is designed to bring, or may bring, the Registry into disrepute, is designed to interfere, or may interfere, with CIRA's operations or designed to expose, or may expose, CIRA to prosecution or to legal action by the Registrant or a third party including, but not limited to, any of the following kinds of activities:
(i) directly or indirectly, defaming or contributing to the defamation of any other Person,
(ii) unlawfully discriminating or contributing to the unlawful discrimination of any other Person; or
(iii) committing any other actionable wrong against any other Person including, without limitation, any other infringement of the Person's rights;
Yep, the reason given was because the registrar believed that the website somehow defamed Joe Volpe and the registrar believed that it might expose CIRA to a lawsuit.
This had nothing to do with a technicality of anonymous registration.
If you are a crooked politician, your critics are like hydra - cut one down and 1,000 spring up in their place.
what a *crock* (Score:4, Insightful)
CIRA's rules clearly state - and have for as long as *I* can remember - that annon registrations are not acceptable. THat was, and IS, grounds to pull the DNS records.
If there is *any* story here, it should be how the hell did the site get registered in the first place, given that it didn't meet the most basic requirements.
As for Volpe? He has my congradulations
Re:what a *crock* (Score:4, Informative)
If he's correct, the site was taken down because of content not registration details. It was CADNS and not CIRA though.
Parent
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Informative)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
It's getting worse (Score:3, Funny)
Bye, Bye,, Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
Keep an eye on Slashdot's DNS entries...
A Bit of Background (Score:5, Informative)
Volpe's acceptance of these contributions was widely mocked [macleans.ca] and derided. The website cited in this thread was launched, and got a fair bit of coverage online.
Mr. Volpe subsequently decided to return the donations given by these kids. At about the same time, the website above had its DNS record SUSPD for one of many reasons (the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, CIRA cited a different reason in a press release [www.cira.ca] (failure to provide valid Canadian contact information, as required by CIRA rules for a ".ca" domain) than that apparently given to the domain registrant (disrepute).
The interesting questions I find are (1) how influential were Volpe's minions in getting this site quashed, given that he was a member of the former Liberal government and CIRA operates under the authority of the Canadian Governmental department Industry Canada, and (2) what due process rights does any (".ca") domain owner have, given the speed with which this process executed (especially in light of all the legal expertise which is present on CIRA's board of directors, apparently not even bothering to ask for any court order or proper investigation against this site).
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:3, Informative)
I've been outside of Canadian politics for a while now, so I can't comment on on Joe Volpe or how internet saavy he or his people are.. However, seems you've just discovered that the domain is owned by... Mike Hunt... Mike Hunt... say it out loud.
I mean, there's always the chance that the person registering the domain had a very unfortunate name. On the other hand this lends credibility to another poster's claim that perhaps the domain was nixed thanks to inaccurate contact info.
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the.. (Score:5, Funny)
Reports have it that some of Mike Hunt's other staff members - namely Mr.s Jack Mehoff and Holden McGroin - are organizing and mobilizing a grass-roots defense. I suspect they'll be tempted to use some dirty tactics, but this is clearly not the time to be hitting below the belt. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards and refuse to sink into the deep, dank, stinky chasm of corruption.
After all, that's what Mike Hunt would expect of us all.
Parent