Joe is explaining blogs and their interconnectiveness – some history (how CNN was using Command Post as a source that was faster than their own. Good example)
On charging bloggers – how likely? On Ed Morrisey – unlikely (not to mention damned difficult) to risk the poltiical fallout and Senator Norm Coleman (of Oil-For-Food investigation creds) is not the guy to mess with if he thinks you’re out to get one of his citizens…More likely to go after smaller specific sites in Canada.
Joe defending the concept of the publication ban – within limits and under bona fide circumstances.
He’s got Captain Ed on the phone.
Are you learning more about Canada? Wonderful country – getting a lot of support from across the political spectrum.
Thoughts on publication bans? When dealing with Government corruption they are dangerous. Secrecy is important when dealing with national security – but not corruption.
What is the greater threat – that bloggers link to his site, or that millions of tax dollars have disappeared?
Still getting information from his source.
What he’s hoping for is that the pubication ban dissolves and the media can go back to doing their job and getting the information to the public. If the politicians have the information, then why the double standard for the public? Why are they privilaged in this particular case? One of the reasons he found the story interesting in the first place.
There were 399,000 hits on his site yesterday.
Back to Katzman:
When are these bans justified? There is a legal test – how effective? are there alterantives? does the good effect outweigh negative impact on freedom of expression – mentions Oakes (see Colby)
Once you have Yahoo news and Google, it’s clear that the ban is unworkable and it fails the legal test of effectiveness.
Would the ban be extended to the fall, if trial is moved back? Probably not. Points out that blogs are directing readers through search words, instead of risking direct links to CYA.
Took a break to call in. Told Katzman to say something more explosive so I can sex up my liveblogging of the show…. plugged Colby’s suggestion that the best thing for US bloggers to do is to republish the testimony widely, to further force the ban into failure of the legal test of Oakes, and the story’s prominance at Technorati politics.
Callers
Roy in Unity: Bans are going to have to be eliminated, and replaced with screening of jurors such as is practiced in the US. Probably a good solution.
Gormley makes a valid point that details of a grisly murder and details of corruption by public officials should not be given equal consideration in decisions to ban publication.
Segment is over. Now, John – when is www.johngormleylive.com coming online? If your tech people are too lazy (or unfamiliar) to mess with the software, I have a terrific blog tech support I can recommend.
I heard you on radio today on the John Gormley show. I’ve never really been aware these sites were out there. If you run into trouble and need a bit of support let me know.
What an absolutely dismal display of character to expose our young people to. No wonder they have no faith in authority or respect for others. We are teaching them well! We will see the negative effects of this sooner than we think.
Keep your head up and don’t bend over! The Government you know!!
Thanks, Victor – and keep coming back and be sure to check out the sites on the sidebar. The blogosphere is an incredibly complex system, and generally from a day to a year (think Oil-For-Food) ahead on the news/current events cycle. That, and it’s an excellent source for alternative news – not alternative as in dope-smoking, conspiracy theories, but in pointing readers to lesser emphasised reports of good news from hot spots like Afghanistan and Iraqs.
I’ve mentioned the site, the blogger’s name and linked to the offending url numerous times. Illegal? So was the Boston Tea Party.
Yup. As I sad – “Faster, please”.
Kate was John Gormley’s show breaking the ban in your opinion?? I didn’t hear it. But then I doubt it is carried in Ontario.
Kate, your courage in upholding truth is marvelous! And Kathy Shaidle’s comment about the Boston Tea Party is right on. We had our revolution (also illegal), but gained our freedom thereby. Seems Canada may have to find true freedom by the same means: rebelling against those in their own midst who would limit the freedoms of the masses to benefit the few.
I think Canada would be the best place in the world if only the majority there could truly decide what kind of government they wanted.
Good-hearted people, but mild-mannered enough to acquiesce to a small but vocal minority who dictate what is good for society in euphemisms that are easily swallowed but that contain lethal lies that will eventually cause great harm to individuals and society as a whole there.
My thoughts and prayers are with you all. Hang on, you guys are strong and powerful, more than you know. Need some ranting and roaring about now.
Lets just hope that these thousands of Canadians who have resorted to the internet to find out the news, understand that it is much more balanced than MSM is. And keep coming back.
I’m glad to see folks standing up for what they believe in. But I’m not convinced this is quite the ‘free speech’ issue many are making it out to be.
Nobody – certainly not Gomery – is trying to ‘bury’ this information. The publication ban is temporary. If Gomery had really wanted it to stay secret for all time, he would have granted the petitioners’ written requests for testimony in camera – but he didn’t. He’s simply dotting i’s and crossing t’s to make sure the three witnesses don’t have any legal excuse to exploit at their trial.
This is about making sure the bad guys don’t get away with what they did. I don’t question that the Canadian public has a right to know about this testimony, but I do wonder why the rush to make sure they know about it right now.
If there’s an election called and the publication ban stays in place, I’m all for defying it at that point – when Canadians need the information in order to make an informed decision – but until then, I think upholding the rule of law is a justifiable, conservative position.
“Lets just hope that these thousands of Canadians who have resorted to the internet to find out the news, ……. keep coming back.”
Id
That’s it. That’s the story. MSM has lost monopoly control of the agenda. Just like a previous institution, which shall remain nameless because Kathy Shadle is watching 😉
Yo Cal, I’d be the last one to defend the Catholic Church’s monopoly on agenda control, though it would be nice if our leaders were allowed to speak _at all_, without being hounded by Human Rights Commissions — while, say, Sikh leaders are given a pass…
Damian is very sane and reasoned, but I fear there is too much pent up hatred of the Liberals among many Canadian bloggers for his perfectly sound views to have much effect.
Hey Kate, why not put your considerable artistic skills to work on a graphic that says something like, I Defied the Publication Ban, and All I Got Was This Lousy Button?
There is so much information to absorb, Damian, that the only hope for the Liberals is to be able to flood out the truth during an election focused on the Scary Harper Extremists.
And when it comes to letter of the law, there has been plenty of informed discussion challenging the legal validity of the ban’s use in this case.
And I wonder if Gomery isn’t up to more than meets the eye because, at day’s end, the effect of the ban has been to focus white hot attention on the testimony.Pernaps it was Gomery’s cold dish response to a row of golfballs that were used in an attempt to humiliate him.
There is so much information to absorb, Damian, that the only hope for the Liberals is to be able to flood out the truth during an election focused on the Scary Harper Extremists.
You could be right, Kate. When I undertook Basic Officer Training in the CF over fifteen years ago (egad, has it been that long?), they taught us that disobeying a direct order was permissible. You just had to be damned sure the order was illegal, and you had to be prepared to go to jail if you were wrong. That’s always seemed like a good standard to me for breaking the law.
In that context, your scenario above seems a little thin as justification for undermining the rule of law.
And when it comes to letter of the law, there has been plenty of informed discussion challenging the legal validity of the ban’s use in this case.
True, but play the scenario out if Gomery chooses to deny the petitioners’ request for a publication ban and they beat the criminal charges as a result. At that point, Canadians are clamouring for his head, and rightly so. Dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s – erring on the side of caution – was his best option here.
And I wonder if Gomery isn’t up to more than meets the eye because, at day’s end, the effect of the ban has been to focus white hot attention on the testimony. Pernaps it was Gomery’s cold dish response to a row of golfballs that were used in an attempt to humiliate him.
I think you may be on to something with that last point. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, if Gomery had really been intent on suppressing the information, he could have granted the request for testimony in camera – and then none of us would have known a thing. I think he’s smart enough to figure out that would have been the only sure option for keeping the testimony secret.
But Gomery knows the Chretienites are accelerating the legal process to get him canned, and that the chances of secret testimony seeing the light of day once he was replaced would drop dramatically.
Gomery’s half-measure publication ban could well be crazy…like a fox.
Why don’t we just cut Brault a deal — full immunity in exchange for ALL of the dirt. We have the chance to gut the Liberals like a trout, so let’s go after the bigger prize here.
Yeah we should cast our lot with a crybaby media savy scumbag lieberal bagman and thief.
That worked really well with Carla Homolka.
Or we could try this maybe
Fine Brault into financial ruin.
Then garnish his wages for eternity.
Ram his bloated ass into an orange jumpsuit push him from a speeding Ministry Of Transport pickup onto the fuckin 401 and make him pick up garbage in the winter for the rest of his life with wet mittens so we can wail our fuckin bag lunches at his gigantic tear streaked head as we drive by.
Because
He’ll give up a few and then clam up when he figures debt paid.
What am I saying,… sounds like he already has.
Man. I am just now hearing about any of this. Too much info to absorb. So I’ll just open up my commenting with something like this: “speech GOOD!”
FREEDOM!
Sounds to me like the government rigged an election, or at least tried to. Guess the public’s “right to know” is pretty skimpy under the Canadian constitution.