Darren Barefoot blogged Yesterday, a decision came down from Elections BC that blogs are a form of campaign advertising, and therefore must be registered as such:“Under the Election Act, it will fall within the definition of election advertising, and we would ask them to register,” says Jennifer Miller, of Elections B.C.
Newspapers, including editorials and letters to the editor, get an exemption. Actually, the exact words used were “bona fide news organizations”
Miller says the volume of sites is overwhelming, and doesn’t rule out asking for a change to the Election Act. “If we feel certain parts of the act can be amended to make it more effective and efficient, we will definitely make that recommendation,” she says.
To register, you have to complete an application for registration (PDF), which gets you added to this list. Then, within 90 days after the election, you have to file an advertising disclosure report (PDF).... Does requiring this registration stifle political debate? Yes. After all, if word gets out that you need to register to blog about the election, bloggers are less likely to become engaged with the debate.
Canada needs a First Amendment
Friday, May 13, 2005
Blogs are Advertising in Canada
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Darren emailed me Before you go promoting the First Amendment as an international panacea,
you might want to consider whether it's actually protecting bloggers in
the US: See this
You might also consider reading the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of the press. Cheers. DB.
My response was The First Amendment gives me the right to express my opinion on anything I want, particularly political matters, and it says the government can't stop me: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It does not give me the right to violate a nondisclosure agreement with a company, and shield me from that company bringing a civil suit against me.
Darren responded Well, the EFF sees the Apple case differently. They see it as a freedom of the press case, and are filing a counter-suit.
My response was I can't be responsible for what EFF does, and I believe everyone (on both sides) is too litigious. But the EFF is complaining about civil action by a corporation, not an act of Congress, so while they may refer to the first amendment, I doubt they will prevail on first amendment reasons, because Congress is not making any law to protect Apple.
Darren also said Regardless, how about my second point about Canada having freedom of the press (and, I might add, freedom of speech), both guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Would you care to modify your post to reflect that? Because currently, I think you'll agree that it implies that Canadians aren't thusly protected. DB.
I responded As this points out "There are of course limits to free speech and free press guarantees, as the Canadian Supreme Court is quite ready to point out (see CBC v. A.G.N.B., below). For example, even though the press enjoys core constitutional rights of access and publication, they do not have protection for all operational means and methods the press may choose to adopt."
And the question under discussion here is what protections of section 2(b) of the Charter really mean if they can force any blogger making comments about politicians apply to register as a Registered Election Advertising Sponsor, and then have to file a report after the election, while "bona fide news organizations" were exempt from that requirement.
I posted your first email and my response in a comment, and am doing so with this one. Should you want to expand on your thoughts, you are welcome to comment on the post.
Post a Comment