Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I did not make the information accessible by any means. Does "communication of information" include telling people how the information can be obtained??? You can teach people how to make a bomb. That would amount to nothing more than a science lesson and a fulfilment of one's right to knowledge. To actually tell someone to use the bomb would make you a criminal conspirator in the act. Likewise, telling people how they can obtain classified or prohibited information should not be a criminal act in itself. Thank god Google, Facebook and all technologically significant sites are not based in Canada. It's a good thing they're outside the jurisdiction and reach of the Canadian authorities, thereby giving us the option to look outside of our borders to circumvent their rule. So does posting the following link make me a criminal? http://wikileaks.org/ I'm sure there is plenty of banned information that the authorities don't want you to see there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I am not sure how a Wikileaks link contravenes the YCJA ban on providing information that would lead to the accused killer of Laura Szendrei. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Just think outside of the YCJA here. I was talking about illegal information in general, and not just that pertaining to juvenile offenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Yes if you post a link on this forum that leads to the name directly or indirectly then it would contravene the law on publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 You posted the name of the victim. I right clicked said name in my browser which immediately took me to a page that gave the name of the accused. It appears you have contravened the law and board rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Since there is no Canadian statute I can see that applies to Wikileaks, I do not see the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Classified CSIS and parliamentary documents don't count, eh? (If there are any on Wikileaks.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 You posted the name of the victim. I right clicked said name in my browser which immediately took me to a page that gave the name of the accused. It appears you have contravened the law and board rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I believe we have just entered a legal grey area that is open to the arbitrary discretion of the police and the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Refer back to Donky's post: As obvious as it is, he just gave a hint that could potentially be used to obtain the name. Where do you draw the clear and definite cut-and-dry line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Mens rea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Not that I know Latin nor legal jargon, but once again, the Internet proves useful in finding out thing that I don't already know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Anyways, that looks to be about as subjective and open to arbitrary judgement and assumptions as you can get. Good to know we live in an authoritarian police state with a broad reaching ambiguously defined set of laws that they can nail you with anytime anywhere at their convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 It is only ambiguous if you go by Wikipedia and do not know the Canadian case law as it pertains to mens rea (aka criminal intent). In its most basic form it means an intention to commit a prohibited act. In Canada the usual test focuses on the actual or 'subjective' state of mind of the person accused of committing the offence. When you post "here is how you can get around the law on non-publication and find the name", it would be pretty easy for a court to find the requisite intent. Courts will impute intent based upon conduct and surrounding evidence. Your posts are simply waving a red flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Unfortunately "nope" isn't a very reasoned response. Now could you be more specific. What you posted led me directly to the name in question, how is that different than what other people have posted leading to the name. If others may have contravened the law why do you suppose that you haven't? I would also prefer your answer in your own words rather than a cut and paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Isn't that what your profession as a lawyer is all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 It could be two things. 1) The above quote from you is not correct. Merely posting a link that lead directly or indirectly to the name would NOT contravene the law. OR 2) The above statement is correct. Your posting lead me to the name therefore you have contravened the law, ACCORDING TO YOU. You have either done exactly what you are saying others have or you were just wrong in the original statement. Which one would you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 It could be two things. 1) The above quote from you is not correct. Merely posting a link that lead directly or indirectly to the name would NOT contravene the law. OR 2) The above statement is correct. Your posting lead me to the name therefore you have contravened the law, ACCORDING TO YOU. You have either done exactly what you are saying others have or you were just wrong in the original statement. Which one would you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.