Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jimmenknee who wrote (28771)	10/10/2012 1:21:13 AM
From: the_big_guy	Respond to of 53574

I had the same reaction. That is why I thought it must be a joke at first. It seems not that well writtne, full of holes. One would have to think it is not enforceable. But who knows?

To: jimmenknee who wrote (28771)	10/10/2012 4:39:15 AM
From: old 'n cranky	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53574

Do we need a lawyer to settle the basic free speech issue of this one? The JBI technology is not Scientology, JB isn't M...h..m....d and Canada isn't a Fundamentalist State. It's reasonable for us to believe that no Canadian court can dictate to even the most egregious defamers, which these three certainly don't appear to be (absent some unknown non-public statements, which would render them non-defamatory), that "Thou shall not speak their names in any context, ever". But they did. So I guess we DO need a lawyer. The questions become: What are a persons freedom of speech rights in Canada? Assuming that such rights are comparable to those enjoyed by a US citizen, can a civil court order a defendant to give up those rights? I know it's not on point, but I'm reminded of an old US Business Law lesson: A contract between two parties to commit an illegal act, that otherwise includes all the required elements of a contract, is unenforceable in court.

To: jimmenknee who wrote (28771)	10/10/2012 8:02:28 AM
From: arvitar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

You are right, and I was wrong. 1 (a) is very broad, and seems to say (I hope I'm wrong) that the defendants can't communicate anything at all in any way, publicly or privately, that is directly or indirectly related to the plaintiffs. It seems to cover "any media or form of communication", which would include private phone conversations, private emails, and private face-to-face conversations. I understand TBG's disbelief. This seems to take away freedom of expression rights that I understood to be guaranteed by Canada's Charter. Especially since the order seems to be unrestricted with respect to all details about communications by the defendants,such as content, intention, and circumstances, just so long as it isn't even indirectly about the plaintiffs. I find it hard to believe a judge allowed this. What I find particularly odd is that the public communications by the defendants about the plaintiffs have been relatively benign, to my knowledge. For example, Sandra Elsley's (Bordynuik's ex- common law wife) most recent posts that I could find amounted to two low-key posts in the year 2010 on IHUB. That's assuming she doesn't post under other aliases. It makes me question the true intent of the suit. It didn't seem to be aimed at silencing "message board bashers", as had been broadcasted by Bordynuik's mouthpieces around the internet for the past two years.