I had no intention of posting a link to her page. I'm not an idiot, and frankly don't like the tone of censorship here. Considering the state of our justice system, I felt this was a relevant topic to discuss. Anyone can simply google some of the things the Free Press quoted her as saying and find her page in a matter of minutes. Geez, so much for thinking I`d found a democratic online community.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: WinnipegParent</cite>I had no intention of posting a link to her page. I'm not an idiot, and frankly don't like the tone of censorship here. Considering the state of our justice system, I felt this was a relevant topic to discuss. Anyone can simply google some of the things the Free Press quoted her as saying and find her page in a matter of minutes. Geez, so much for thinking I`d found a democratic online community.</blockquote> It is isn't about democracy or censorship.
I was also able to find her page in a matter of minutes, but didn't enter the info here because all of us (NW) have an obligation to protect her identity, no matter what we think of her. I think the Freep went too far in providing specific information about her. These days it is very easy to locate info about people.The mods were just reminding us not to post this type of information, which is banned, as it should be.
RE: publishing the names of youths charged under Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act.
"This law puts limitations on the publication of the identity of people charged under it; the basis for this is that revealing their names would be detrimental to rehabilitation and to public safety. The publication ban also applies to the identities of victims and witnesses in cases where people are charged under the act. There are exceptions to this gag order, such as in cases where the crime is transferred to adult court or if the youth court has found the accused guilty and imposed an adult sentence."
I'm sorry, I'm all for helping people out, but people who are this capricious are undeserving of protection. This is probably where my extreme left swings to an extreme right for a brief spell.
I'd love to get that link and I'll gladly post it on my blog. I think the law is completely biased to the application of all published materials. Internet functions more like word of mouth than published media. If I mentioned her site in the context of "look at this web page, I love the colours", then what? The impracticality is mind boggling - but this also exemplifies how government is so incompetent when it comes to technology.
I think there is precedent for blogs being charged for publishing such things. I expect a forum would be no less culpable. However, closing a thread serves no purpose what-so-ever. If the defense is this space should not/will not publish information that identifies her then delete such posts. But leave the thread and subsequent discussion alone.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Omega</cite>I'm sorry, I'm all for helping people out, but people who are this capricious are undeserving of protection. This is probably where my extreme left swings to an extreme right for a brief spell.
I'd love to get that link and I'll gladly post it on my blog. I think the law is completely biased to the application of all published materials. Internet functions more like word of mouth than published media. If I mentioned her site in the context of "look at this web page, I love the colours", then what? The impracticality is mind boggling - but this also exemplifies how government is so incompetent when it comes to technology.</blockquote>
I can see the point of the owners of the website. I certainly would not want to risk any hot water they could get into. A publication ban is a publication ban. I don't like it any more than the next person. I think the energies here would be best suited to emailing your MP's and voicing disgust for the current YCJA. Girls like the one in the article, among scores of other young criminals are not being treated anywhere near serious enough and its not in the public's best interest to have them amongst us.
Oh yeah, if the owners choose not to have it, that's fine.
Sorry, didn't mean to seem pushy there. If that's their concern, they are for sure allowed to cover their bases. But I feel as though it's a sad story they should feel afraid of the information.
Publication of info leading to this girl's identity might well be illegal. Putting a link to her site would most certainly be. I'm sure if two people on this thread could find her in minutes, many others did as well. Why wouldn't the mods exercise caution.
That's arbitrary. Even if I said "here's the web page of the girl who committed a crime".
While children are not expected to represent themselves or their rights, the content is provided.
What also happens when archive.org gets a snapshot of her page and I link to that? Does the City of Winnipeg phone up wherever archive.org is hosted and insist that they delete the page from their archives?
At the end of the day, the internet is not to be treated like a one-way publication. It's to be treated like word of mouth, and to that effect what a link being outlawed effectively does is restrict your freedom of speech.
Like I said, I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't publish her name. I was simply trying to discuss something relevant. Frankly, I will not continue to take part in a group that censors me and my right to discuss my opinion.
So I have read the 19 comments and I have no clue what anyone is talking about! Do I have to look at closed threads to figure that out? Way too much trouble!