Kim_NS 
Member since Apr 27, 2010

Recent Comments

Re: “Hypothetical Ridiculousness

:-) And off I go again. What a great day!

Posted by Kim_NS on 07/10/2011 at 12:22 PM

Re: “People with Bad Teeth

I think OP's attic should be search for defective children.

Posted by Kim_NS on 07/10/2011 at 12:09 PM

Re: “Hypothetical Ridiculousness

Lenora is hot. She takes off her shirt. People stare. Since Lenora's hot and hot, guys don't mind, but the other women do. "Put your shirt on, Lenora, you offend us", says the other women. Lenora says, "I have just as much right to be cool as the guys walking around without their shirt. If you don't like it look the other way." Some women claimed that Lenora's nudity caused them to suffer from repressed pubescent bra-stuffing memories. A few men suffered from extreme you-can-look-but-you-can't-touch anxiety. But, overall, the guys defend Lenora's rights. It is not Lenora's fault or problem that accidents happen in the wake of her topless walk.

Bernadette is hot. Seeing Lenora walk by coolly, she takes off her shirt too. People stare. Since Lenora's hot and fat, everyone is offended. The guys especially. "That's just wrong. Put on your shirt, Lardlady", says the guys, "You offend us." The other women cried foul. They rose up to defend Bernadette's right to walk around topless. They tore off their tops and marched in protest. Old women, fat women, stick women, even breastless women. Accidents happened.

Lenora and Bernadette, seeing all these topless women walking down the street were disgusted. They put their tops back on.

Posted by Kim_NS on 07/10/2011 at 11:51 AM

Re: “Letter from the editor

Two courts rule on identity protection for online commentators
POSTED ON MAY 17, 2010

Courts in Nova Scotia and Ontario recently issued conflicting decisions on the ability of a plaintiff to compel a website to reveal the identities of online commentators.In both cases, the plaintiff in a defamation suit sought the identities of individuals who had posted allegedly defamatory comments to a website.In the Nova Scotia case, the court granted the order; in Ontario, the court refused it.The Ontario decision made it clear that such orders are not automatic – the court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case for defamation, and must also weigh the public interest in disclosure against the freedom of expression and privacy interests of the parties. These issues were not addressed in the Nova Scotia decision.
Mosher v. Coast Publishing
On April 14, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ordered a newspaper to help identify seven people who posted allegedly defamatory comments on the newspaper’s website.The case, Mosher v. Coast Publishing Ltd., 2010 NSSC 153, involved a Halifax-based newspaper, The Coast, which had published online a story about racism in Halifax’s fire service.
The Chief and Deputy Chief of the Halifax fire department sought to bring an action for defamation against the individuals who had posted the comments. Before the action could proceed, the would-be plaintiffs had to apply to the court for an order requiring The Coast to provide information about the web commentators, who had identified themselves only with pseudonyms.
In granting the order for disclosure of the information, Justice Robertson stated that “the court does not condone the conduct of anonymous internet users who make defamatory comments and they like other people have to be accountable for their actions.”
Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier
Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier, [2010] ONSC 2126 (S.C.J.), decided just a few weeks after Mosher, on May 3, was an appeal of an order to disclose information that could identify individuals who had posted allegedly defamatory comments on an internet message board managed by the defendants.In making this order, the motions judge had found that disclosure was mandatory because the information was relevant and not protected by privilege.
The Divisional Court’s appeal decision disagreed with this, noting that Charter values of privacy and freedom of expression weighed in favour of non-disclosure.The court held that where privacy interests are involved, disclosure is not automatic even if information is relevant and not protected by privilege.The court also noted the potential chilling effect on speech that would result if anyone could obtain information about the identity of online commentators simply by initiating an action. An appropriate balance, according to the court, is established by requiring that the plaintiff establish a prima facie case of defamation before disclosure can be ordered.
The decision in Mosher does not include any analysis of whether a prima facie case was made out, nor does it consider any balance of rights to be met in determining whether disclosure would be appropriate under the circumstances of that case.

http://www.canadiantechnologyiplaw.com/201…

ex-Halifax Firefighter Challenges HRM group:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_…

Posted by Kim_NS on 05/18/2011 at 7:12 PM
Posted by Kim_NS on 04/18/2011 at 2:33 PM

Re: “Gingers Unite

Ginger 'cookies' just took on a whole new meaning *Bleh*

Posted by Kim_NS on 04/18/2011 at 2:06 PM

Re: “It's There For Me, Not You

"uncontrollable berserkers possessed of neither rationality nor restraint"
That was exactly the picture that entered my mind only they would be crying while they slaughtered :- p
But, it's a short-lived craziness, once the guy adjusted, he'd be useless as a killing machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_UvcHgC8cY…

Posted by Kim_NS on 04/18/2011 at 1:44 PM

All Comments »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Real Time Web Analytics

© 2018 Coast Publishing Ltd.