nourishing obscurity

Landmark case shows how little they care for people’s rights and how little that will interfere with the Agenda:

The very first line in the Supreme Court’s calamitous decision in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott gives a clue to where it is going. “All rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” it declares, “are subject to reasonable limitations.”

This is a legal truism, but as always it is as important what the Court did not say. It did not choose to begin a ruling on an important freedom of speech case with a ringing affirmation of the importance of free speech, or what an extraordinary thing it is to place restrictions upon it.

Indeed, in its haste to get on with the limiting, it did not even pause to properly quote the section of the Charter that grants the state such authority. The Charter “guarantees” the rights set out in it, Section 1 declares, “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The limits don’t just have to be reasonable. They have to be “demonstrably justified.”

Read further here.

………..

I’d like to pause for a moment and draw your attention to something else.  When I went to quote as has been done above, a window popped up asking if I’d like to apply for a licence to do so.

Arkell v Pressdram.  Copyright law still allows quoting as fair usage, as long as it is not great slabs in lieu of one’s own post and that’s all that’s been done.   Now I don’t know what your reaction to such prattery is but mine is never to knowingly go to that publication again.  As far as most pundits are concrned, as long as you attribute, i.e. link and/or mention by name, then you’ve done the right thing.

………..

Another thing which peeves me no end is bloggers who have Blogger set so that you leave the comment, then when you press submit, suddenly up pops this horrendous captcha with the word all blurred – not all of us have sharp eyesight – and some picture of numbers you can’t even see.

And what peeves me above all else is that those little smart-a**ses who dreamed that up think their oh so clever.  If you attempt to read the number by screwing up the eyes, then they approve it anyway as a “human”.   Never mind what you’re doing to your eyes and nerves.

That stinks.   I really do think fellow bloggers on Blogger should look hard at which options they’re approving under Comments.  I don’t mind if the captcha is up front and so it’s take it or leave it but it’s this sneaky “wait for the submit button and suddenly pop up the captcha at the commenter which galls.

I’m going to start naming and shaming these bloggers.  Well maybe not shaming because they might not even be aware of what Blogger is doing to readers of their sites.

………..

H/T Chuckles

Filed under: Blogging, Politics & economics