tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207011.post4660331648618442470..comments2024-02-23T15:48:24.856-07:00Comments on The Cracked Crystal Ball II: Bill C-13 Does Not Address Online BullyingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207011.post-53025655860067902672013-11-24T09:45:55.226-07:002013-11-24T09:45:55.226-07:00Apparently you missed the core of my argument - na...Apparently you missed the core of my argument - namely that C-13 DOES NOT address bullying per se. <br /><br />With respect to your particular counterpoints:<br /><br />1) The "public interest" defence is inadequately defined, and as a result ends up leaving the onus on the accused to establish that their actions "were in the public interest". <br /><br />2) Rob Ford's activities were simply an example. I'm quite sure that Mr. Ford would argue that because he was "by a bush" or some such that he had an expectation of privacy. Again, the definitions used are lacking sufficient clarity to be meaningfully understood as to the intent of the law. <br /><br />3) With respect to obscenity laws, you have hit on precisely the point of my argument. There have been numerous attempts to define "obscene" in law in this country, and they have all had significant problems with interpretation when challenged. This law suffers very much the same problems.<br /><br />4) As others have noted, most of what is in this legislation is a resurrection of Vic Toews' "Spy on Everything" legislation of a couple of years ago. <br /><br />If it were truly about dealing with bullying, it would be strengthening the aspects of the laws related to harassment. The term "harass" appears exactly twice in the text of the legislation, and not in a context where the amendment significantly bolsters and addresses the issues of bullying. <br /><br /><br />MgShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183962674882855323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207011.post-5561639357426269882013-11-23T17:21:20.692-07:002013-11-23T17:21:20.692-07:00Weak sauce, blogger.
First, there's a public ...Weak sauce, blogger.<br /><br />First, there's a public interest defense that would definitely capture images of public figures in compromising positions (section 162.1(3)). That's the obvious intent of that provision. <br /><br />Second, Rob Ford pissing in public is in public and he clearly does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the picture is taken (section 162.1(2)(b)). That's the obvious intent of that provision.<br /><br />Third, obscenity laws are about society's disgust in the content of the image (e.g. obscene publications, child pornography), while this law is about society's disgust in people breaching other people's privacy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05542952735496740752noreply@blogger.com