FC: What Canada doesn't want you to see: Info on banned site

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[A number of politech members replied with suggestions on the 
site-that-Canada-does-not-want-you-to-see; the below message seems the most 
complete. Thanks, all of you, for helping to track this down. It seems like 
I inadvertently managed to offend some folks by describing Canada's laws as 
restrictive. But it seems to me that if I go to a court proceeding, I 
should be able to tell others what happened without facing a prison term. A 
dissenting view is below. --Declan]

***********

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:29:56 +1100 (EST)
From: Abdul Abdul <all_new_abdul () yahoo com au>
Subject: "Banned" Canadian bail hearing site -- findingjustice.com
To: declan () well com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-UIDL: d9c38216f71ee226b44e9c6b3fabb453

[Feel free to pass this along as you see fit...]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:01:05 -0500, Declan McCullagh
<declan () well com> wrote:

>A preliminary Usenet and google search turns up
>nothing; if anyone knows what it is, please send it
along.

I found it.  http://www.findingjustice.com/

There's another site that's been under fire recently
too: http://www.projecttruth2.com, which tells about
an alleged pedophile ring in Cornwall, Ontario.

(Both have been archived "just in case"...if this
censorious trend continues, I may be coming out of
retirement...I'm currently exploring offshore
web-hosting.  If anyone has something to offer, feel
free to contact me at this address.)

-Abdul (sometime editor of the alt.fan.karla-homolka
FAQ and former admin of the Teale Tales Mailing
List...see http://www.kkc.net/eye/cv940519.htm for
more info)

**********

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:19:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <cp () panix com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: <politech () politechbot com>
Subject: Re: FC: Canada bans news of bail hearing, but it appears online
 anyway

Canadian law is based on UK law in this respect: It prohibits news media
from revealing details of cases that are being litigated. There is
excellent justification for this lawm, which protects defendants from
being demonized before their guilt or innocence has been established. It
also avoids the problem of jurors being influenced by news reports.

Since no restriction is imposed on news media AFTER the verdict has been
reached, this is not censorship in the usual sense. It imposes a delay,
not a permanent embargo.

--C

***********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------