evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (02/07/89)
In article <5493@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes: >In article <493@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>If you hadn't noticed, the JEDR affair never made it to the courts. >It's not at all clear to me that the courts aren't or won't be >involved as a result of JEDR's actions. JEDR and friends did not just >babble to the press, they also contacted: (1) the police, (2) the >Canadian Jewish Congress, and (3) the Canadian Human Rights >Commission. According to the K-W Record, a spokesman for the police >said nothing in the criminal code seemed to apply. A spokesman for >the Canadian Jewish Congress said they were looking into what they >could do about the matter, and a spokesman for the Canadian Human >Rights Commission came up with a section of the Canadian Human Rights >act that they might be able to use as a basis for legal action. So you confirm the police won't press charges. The Canadian Human Rights Commission won't act because it wasn't a Canadian that was 'wronged'. The Canadian Jewish Congress is more interested in following (Canadian foreign minister) Joe Clark's overtures to the PLO. All these organizations can recognize frivolous complaints when they hear them. They all have far more dangerous threats to go after. >JEDR and his friends have attempted to get Brad fired from his job, >destroy his reputation through "trial by media", get him into trouble >with the human rights authorities, and get him thrown in jail. Tried, and failed. Brad has shown than he is perfectly capable of destroying his reputation all by himself. Why didn't you deal with the main point of my posting, that Brad's asserting copyright could not have possibly prevented JEDR's attack? The announced changes to r.h.f. would not have stopped the damage which JEDR has accomplished to date. Nor will they provide any real protection if Brad, sometime in the future, _does_ approve a truly offensive joke. I believe there are precedents where 'proceed at your own risk' messages, by themselves, do not excuse one from liability. >I'd say that JEDR and his >fellow terrorists are real good at escalation, wouldn't you? Good enough to get Brad to join their ranks. I consider his moves to ultimately pose a greater harm to the net than JEDR's. P.S. I am on the board of directors of Brampton's only synagogue. I told the original joke to the rest of the board. A few snickers, but certainly no outrage. P.P.S. I also believe that Brad's reactions to the attack (ie. the top ten list), contributed to the escalation. _____________________________________________________________________ Evan Leibovitch, System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) (02/14/89)
In article <495@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >In article <5493@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes: >>In article <493@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>>If you hadn't noticed, the JEDR affair never made it to the courts. > >>It's not at all clear to me that the courts aren't or won't be >>involved as a result of JEDR's actions. ... > >So you confirm the police won't press charges. You make it sound like this was an embarrassing admission that I only reluctantly conceded. In fact, what I was doing was reporting on what I know from reading the papers, and what I don't know. > The Canadian Human >Rights Commission won't act because it wasn't a Canadian that was >'wronged'. Actually (1) it *was* a Canadian who complained, and (2) the complaint was that Brad's actions are harmful to Jews. The last time I checked, North America's Jewish population was not restricted to the United States -- ie. Canadians are involved. > The Canadian Jewish Congress is more interested in >following (Canadian foreign minister) Joe Clark's overtures to the PLO. > >All these organizations can recognize frivolous complaints when >they hear them. They all have far more dangerous threats to go after. It's not clear to me that important and powerful organizations can recognize frivolous complaints -- after all, the press, especially the K-W Record, didn't. >>JEDR and his friends have attempted to get Brad fired from his job, >>destroy his reputation through "trial by media", get him into trouble >>with the human rights authorities, and get him thrown in jail. > >Tried, and failed. Brad has shown than he is perfectly capable of >destroying his reputation all by himself. From what I see in the pages of the UW student newspaper, it's clear that the Kangaroo Court of public opinion has found Brad guilty, guilty, guilty. It has been asserted in plain black and white, on newsprint, that Brad is a racist. Therefore it must be true. The accusation is proof of guilt. These good, moral, uprighteous anti-racist types have more in common with Edwin Meese than they know. >Why didn't you deal with the main point of my posting, that Brad's >asserting copyright could not have possibly prevented JEDR's attack? You may be right. It may give Brad a means of couterattack when some "Son Of JEDR" rises out of Tokyo Bay to smash buildings and generally be a large pest. A person might think twice about raising hell if he knows he could end up facing a lawsuit. But since the license to read r.h.f. is granted by default, Brad can only revoke it after "JEDR II" has started to complain, by which time it may be too late. The reason I didn't deal with that was (1) thinking of JEDR, I forgot everything else, and (2) I didn't want anybody to get the idea that what JEDR did was harmless. -- David Canzi