When laws and communication reality collide

Canada is voting for a new parliament today. The Canadian Election Act forbids the reporting of results as long as polls are open in any region. Leaving aside for the moment whether that is a good or bad thing, polls in the Eastern provinces close 3 hours before they close in British Columbia. Outlets like CBC, Globe and Mail, and other national outlets have shut down comments, reporting, etc to comply with the law. OTOH there are newgroups and twitter accounts that are broadcasting out the results.

Are there certain laws that are unrealistic with the type of communication available today and if yes should government bow to reality and repeal such laws?

The laws apply to all forms of communication. Enforcement is complaint driven. If someone files a complaint about any twitter/newsgroup/etc. activity; the individuals involved will be charged.

Are there certain laws that are unrealistic with the type of communication available today and if yes should government bow to reality and repeal such laws? Originally Posted by discreetgent

I guess I don't view the law as unrealistic, as much as I see that the governing bodies might not have the resolve to enforce them. While one probably can't put folks in jail for violating this law...they could make it economically unpalletable to the violators.

I do agree that if your not going to enforce a law, it might as well be removed.

Interesting election results.

Conservatives can form a majority government, yet the NDP - the furthest left of the 3 national parties made huge gains in particular against the Bloc Quebecois which has dominated in Quebec for decades and is also left leaning.

(Liberals took a huge beating as well).

The quick one that comes to mind is subverting copyright laws. I could give so many examples, but I think it is self-explanatory.

In a similar vein. In England a person or company can ask for a super-injunction which prevents the media from reporting on affairs, corporate misdoings, etc. Together with the British libel laws it makes it risky and very costly for media to violate the injunction. In the last week a soccer player, Ryan Giggs, got one of those injunctions to stop reports of an affair he had had.

Last Friday a user on twitter identified Giggs and by now he had 75,000 such references on twitter.

Parliament is looking at revisiting the law, with some members understanding that new means of communicating are making a mockery of some laws.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=212813

The parties that publicly tweeted Giggsys name are apparently subject to two years in jail. It will be interesting to see how THAT plays out...hahaha.
I mis spoke in my original post. The EU were apposed to this English law being abolished, when discussion of it came up some five or so years ago, because they (EU) wanted to somehow develop a similar European Union Law along the same terms. Good luck with that...especially in France where they love a revolt other such ridiculous issues. The whole thing is a farce lol...

Btw,...Giggsy has filed a lawsuit against twitter. How the hell does that work then? It was a USER on twitter, not an employee that posted it. How the heck were twitter to know if it was accurate info or not? Insane. Wouldn't twitter have to have knowledge of who was involved to be in any way liable?

Btw,...Giggsy has filed a lawsuit against twitter. How the hell does that work then? It was a USER on twitter, not an employee that posted it. How the heck were twitter to know if it was accurate info or not? Insane. Wouldn't twitter have to have knowledge of who was involved to be in any way liable? Originally Posted by Camille

Twitter at the moment is planning on opening an office in London but still does not have one so not sure what the argument would even be since no US laws were broken.

History tells us that the law lags far behind technology. When they clash, tech will always win.

US newspapers, radio stations and TV stations have a policy (no law involved) to not identify a rape victim. Not France, where he name is being blasted all over the country. Along with accusations that it's a set-up, that she's lying, that ...

Now I saw an article that said that a guy who owns several news stands in NYC yanked all of the French origin papers because of this. Applause.

US newspapers, radio stations and TV stations have a policy (no law involved) to not identify a rape victim. Not France, where he name is being blasted all over the country. Along with accusations that it's a set-up, that she's lying, that ...

Now I saw an article that said that a guy who owns several news stands in NYC yanked all of the French origin papers because of this. Applause. Originally Posted by austin_voy

Nina would probably call this the censorship of creative expression (see thread on feminine looking male magazine model)

What about the right to freedom of speech? Political speech is the most protected speech—isn't it?

Shout loud . . .the truth shall make you free.

What about the right to freedom of speech? Political speech is the most protected speech—isn't it?

Shout loud . . .the truth shall make you free. Originally Posted by ICU 812

In the US it is. Remember Britain does not have a constitution. Rights are defined by a basic law and by years of precedence and common law (I think I got that right)

History tells us that the law lags far behind technology. When they clash, tech will always win. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Word!