Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Criminal YouTube Link
An interesting story is developing with local blogger Curtis Webb regarding his blog WinnipegTheft.com (h/t Dust My Broom).
The controversy surrounds this post. The accusation flying through the newspapers today is that Curtis broke the law by identifying a handful of dangerous young offenders, which bizarrely, is against the law in Canada.
The problem here is that Curtis didn't actually (as far as I can find) publish the names. He linked to a video on YouTube that ID'd them. So, if linking to a video is illegal, why isn't it illegal for newspapers to "link" to his website by writing about it? Just because the newspaper medium doesn't allow for clickable hot-links, they still achieve the same effect of driving traffic to a site.
One specific case boggles the mind.
Of course it's still up on the website! The picture is still in every paper that published the picture as well. Did the local papers go around collecting and destroying every copy that contained the picture? Not bloody likely. So why should a blogger have to remove an old post? Would the photo published in the local papers not also be available in their archives?
What's really disturbing is the attempt to police blogs. Worse yet, is that "the law" is trying to hold a blogger to a stricter code. Best of luck to Curtis Webb, stop by his site and drop him a line.
Update: Winnipeg First reports that the Winnipeg Police are "investigating". By "investigating", apparently they mean sending intimidating e-mails.
Also, the Winnipeg Sun ran an online poll asking the question, "Should the media be allowed to identify young offenders?" At the momment, there have been 1181 responses to the poll, with a stagering 95% agreeing that media should be able to identify young offenders.
The controversy surrounds this post. The accusation flying through the newspapers today is that Curtis broke the law by identifying a handful of dangerous young offenders, which bizarrely, is against the law in Canada.
The problem here is that Curtis didn't actually (as far as I can find) publish the names. He linked to a video on YouTube that ID'd them. So, if linking to a video is illegal, why isn't it illegal for newspapers to "link" to his website by writing about it? Just because the newspaper medium doesn't allow for clickable hot-links, they still achieve the same effect of driving traffic to a site.
One specific case boggles the mind.
The site also posted the photo of a 16-year-old suspect wanted in connection with the March 26 murder of Tom Phillips. A judge granted police and media special permission to publish the photo for a five-day period, which expired last weekend. The photo was still up on the website yesterday.
Of course it's still up on the website! The picture is still in every paper that published the picture as well. Did the local papers go around collecting and destroying every copy that contained the picture? Not bloody likely. So why should a blogger have to remove an old post? Would the photo published in the local papers not also be available in their archives?
What's really disturbing is the attempt to police blogs. Worse yet, is that "the law" is trying to hold a blogger to a stricter code. Best of luck to Curtis Webb, stop by his site and drop him a line.
Update: Winnipeg First reports that the Winnipeg Police are "investigating". By "investigating", apparently they mean sending intimidating e-mails.
Also, the Winnipeg Sun ran an online poll asking the question, "Should the media be allowed to identify young offenders?" At the momment, there have been 1181 responses to the poll, with a stagering 95% agreeing that media should be able to identify young offenders.
Labels: Canadian Justice, Real Life, Winnipeg Crime, YouTube
