[UPDATE] Man gets cyber crime charges for spamming twitch channels

[Brooksie359]

Honestly I think what they did wasn't all that bad until the links to cp were added. If they had just used a bit to spam twitch chat I honestly think they should have just blocked him out of twitch and maybe a fine. But once they added the links it became a lot more serious and that deserves jail time. 

[The Benjamins]

2 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

10 years?!?! Child molesters that torture kids for damn near their whole adolescent life get less time than that. 

What the actual hellis going on when spamming a chat box gets you more jail time

why are Child molesters not getting 25 to life?

[dalekphalm]

19 hours ago, Streetguru said:

Bad idea to let governments set precedence over controlling speech.

In Canada, Hate Speech is already a crime. This will not set any precedence that wasn't already set. And that's not even considering that the actual charge is about spamming the chat - which is a cyber crime, and the content of the spam really has no bearing on the fact that it was spam.

19 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

If they are charging him for making a bot to interfere with a site, fine whatever, but if they are charging him with something due to what he said then I take issue. Free speech does not mean only speech that anyone in particular agrees with, it simply means you cannot be charged for what you say (minus some key exceptions that relate to causing harm (yelling bomb in a crowded store for example) or threatening)

In Canada, the laws are different. Hate crime in general can under certain circumstances be a crime.

19 hours ago, Canada EH said:

I agree with that. Free speach is a fundamental right in Canada. Whether its hate speach or hippie love everyone speach.

Free Speech is a right - but not the same way as in the US, where many view it as a draconian black and white issue where NOTHING is considered banned.

18 hours ago, matrix07012 said:

Spamming stupid shit and linking to cp are two completely different things. Spamming stupid shit should never ever get you in trouble with the law. Although he used bots, which is a completely different thing.

 

That's a bad thing.

Spamming is a crime in Canada, in a few different ways:

1. Spam email/news letters, even unwanted paper mail, can all be considered illegal

2. Spamming chat/spamming IP's, etc, can all be considered a cyber crime, as you are denying service to a system. Spamming a twitch chat can and should be enforceable under law.

 

With that in mind, it should only ever be used within certain parameters, such as if it was particularly serious/large scale, etc.

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

It's Canada so they don't have a bill of rights.  In the US nothing would happen because it's protected speech.

Yes we do. There's actually several documents.

 

There's: The British North America Act (1867) - which was later known as the Constitution Act (1867) - this is the "original" constitution of Canada

Then, in 1960, Canadian Parliament passed the Bill of Rights (1960), which is a quasi-constitutional document that is given higher weight than normal law, but slightly below constitutional law.

Finally, there's the Constitution Act (1982) - this is the current constitution of Canada - Part I of the document is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

All three of these documents enshrine various protections of free speech into law. The protections are simply different than the US, more flexible, in my opinion.

48 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Actually, they do.

 

The difference is in how the US and Canada treat free speech, both in law and in spirit.  Both countries have a certain baseline (the government can't censor speech merely because it disagrees, for instance), but the US has a much more absolutist approach where it's more likely to default to allowing speech in grey areas.

 

For example, hate speech.  The typical American position is to allow hate speech as long as the person isn't directly threatening others (you can state neo-Nazi views, for instance, but you can't threaten to destroy a mosque).  There's also a much larger culture of people who will insist that anything they say is protected by free speech, whether or not it is.  See: the people who think that a private company removing content that violates its policies is somehow censorship.

 

In Canada, it's different: it's considered illegal hate speech to demonize an entire cultural group in a way that could incite action.  The country has taken down at least some white supremacist sites because their goal was clearly to stoke racist hatred and fuel harassment or violence, even though they weren't explicitly issuing those commands.  And in general, Canadians don't get so uppity about free speech.  They value it, but they don't practice that anything-and-everything-is-legal zealotry to nearly the same degree as in the US.

 

As it stands, I don't think this plays too much into this Twitch decision.  It's really about crossing the line from being a jerk to causing serious problems for streamers and Twitch as a whole.

A whole lot of this! ^

[AshleyAshes]

Personally, I always entertained when I see Americans on the internet state that Canada is some kind of oppressive, arctic, hellscape on the brink of it's own destruction because Canadian school teachers can't declare to their class that the Jews are power hungry child killers who faked the holocaust to gain sympathy.  (This last part is a reference to an actual criminal case that is common in most Canadian high school curriculum.  Don't worry, you probably still have to Google it to know what I'm talking about.)

 

So, just so Americans can all be clear here: We're actually doing fine here Canada.  It's pretty nice.  Though we are really, really bad at committing to plans for mass transit and then funding it.  Seriously, Canadian cities can't buy a bus without 10 years of environmental assessments, changing vendors, debating the colour of the bus, and having a least one city council decide that it should be an amphibious helicopter instead of a bus only to have that plan thrown out at the next election.  But other than that, it's pretty super here.  I mean sure, I can't put a giant Nazi Swastika flag in my window so that it can be seen by the Synagogue across the street from my apartment but I guess that's the price I have to pay to live in a country where people can't point Swastika flags at synagogues.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Personally, I always entertained when I see Americans on the internet state that Canada is some kind of oppressive, arctic, hellscape on the brink of it's own destruction because Canadian school teachers can't declare to their class that the Jews are power hungry child killers who faked the holocaust to gain sympathy.  (This last part is a reference to an actual criminal case that is common in most Canadian high school curriculum.  Don't worry, you probably still have to Google it to know what I'm talking about.)

 

So, just so Americans can all be clear here: We're actually doing fine here Canada.  It's pretty nice.  Though we are really, really bad at committing to plans for mass transit and then funding it.  Seriously, Canadian cities can't buy a bus without 10 years of environmental assessments, changing vendors, debating the colour of the bus, and having a least one city council decide that it should be an amphibious helicopter instead of a bus only to have that plan thrown out at the next election.  But other than that, it's pretty super here.  I mean sure, I can't put a giant Nazi Swastika flag in my window so that it can be seen by the Synagogue across the street from my apartment but I guess that's the price I have to pay to live in a country where people can't point Swastika flags at synagogues.

Agreed - I wanted to both "Agree" and "Funny", but unfortunately, I had to choose one reaction

[Unhelpful]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - I wanted to both "Agree" and "Funny", but unfortunately, I had to choose one reaction

We need Funree to be an option. Or Fugree. Or Agrunny. 

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - I wanted to both "Agree" and "Funny", but unfortunately, I had to choose one reaction

Oh, Canada ALSO only gets Cherry Coke Zero limited runs rather than as a regular product like it is in the US.  That super sucks.  But at least we get Pizza Pops!

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

Oh, Canada ALSO only gets Cherry Coke Zero limited runs rather than as a regular product like it is in the US.  That super sucks.  But at least we get Pizza Pops!

Screw Cherry Coke - finding a reliable supply of Vanilla Coke is also a problem. You can hardly ever find them in cases of cans - normally my best bet is finding a Short Stop that sells 500ml bottles - but that seems to be hit or miss lately.

[AshleyAshes]

Another message to Americans: If you are fearful of being in Canada because spamming 'Death To All Jews' is a crime... ...Feel free to stay in America and never visit us.  ...Please.

[Shakaza]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - I wanted to both "Agree" and "Funny", but unfortunately, I had to choose one reaction

Don't worry! I have marked it as funny in your stead!

[Misanthrope]

Ok with it for flooding sounds it could be as heavy as to qualify as DoS. As for the content I don't really agree except for the part of kiddie porn which is why I think this case is federal, for all of you 'free speech' alarmists.

[AshleyAshes]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Ok with it for flooding sounds it could be as heavy as to qualify as DoS. As for the content I don't really agree except for the part of kiddie porn which is why I think this case is federal, for all of you 'free speech' alarmists.

Gonna repeat this in all caps just for clarity.

 

THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA ONLY EXISTS AS FEDERAL LAW.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROVINCIAL CRIMES IN CANADA.  THE PROVINCES HAVE ZERO AUTHORITY TO ENACT ANY CRIMINAL LAWS.  WE DON'T SAY 'FEDERAL CRIME' OR 'FEDERAL CASE' IN CANADA BECAUSE CRIMINAL LAW ONLY EXISTS AT THAT LEVEL AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR DISTINCTION.  'FEDERAL CASE' IN CANADA IN NO WAY SUGGESTS A CRIME IS MORE SERIOUS THAN A DIFFERENT KIND OF CRIME BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER KINDS OF CRIMES IN CANADA.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Gonna repeat this in all caps just for clarity.

 

THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA ONLY EXISTS AS FEDERAL LAW.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROVINCIAL CRIMES IN CANADA.  THE PROVINCES HAVE ZERO AUTHORITY TO ENACT ANY CRIMINAL LAWS.  WE DON'T SAY 'FEDERAL CRIME' OR 'FEDERAL CASE' IN CANADA BECAUSE CRIMINAL LAW ONLY EXISTS AT THAT LEVEL AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR DISTINCTION.  'FEDERAL CASE' IN CANADA IN NO WAY SUGGESTS A CRIME IS MORE SERIOUS THAN A DIFFERENT KIND OF CRIME BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER KINDS OF CRIMES IN CANADA.

Technically that could be considered not 100% correct, depending on how you define "Provincial offences".

 

For example, each province is responsible for enacting their own traffic rules - such as Ontario's Highway Traffic Act - many things in said act can result in criminal proceedings.

 

Though I am unsure if the HTA just "hands off" the charges into pre-existing "federal" charges, or whether those charges exist as provincial offences strictly under the HTA. (Not a lawyer)

[Streetguru]

48 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I can't put a giant Nazi Swastika flag in my window so that it can be seen by the Synagogue across the street from my apartment but I guess that's the price I have to pay to live in a country where people can't point Swastika flags at synagogues.

They're just the easy target for control of free speech. Just like all the spying acts that went into effect after 9/11 that lead us to where we are today. Not that the gov't didn't have that surveillance set up already though.

But at least you aren't the UK. Where police resources are wasted making sure citizens can't wrong think.

If he's only being charged with spamming chats and not the content of the messages that's nice at least.

 

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

They're just the easy target for control of free speech. Just like all the spying acts that went into effect after 9/11 that lead us to where we are today. Not that the gov't didn't have that surveillance set up already though.

But at least you aren't the UK. Where police resources are wasted making sure citizens can't wrong think.

If he's only being charged with spamming chats and not the content of the messages that's nice at least.

 

You can think whatever you want. Scotland Police can't tell what you're thinking.

 

However, society as a whole decides all the time when things are "right" vs "wrong.

 

Example: Murder, speeding, violence, not paying child support, etc.

 

There will be people who, on an individual level, may not agree with every single instance of these things, yet, by and large, they are illegal in most countries.

[AshleyAshes]

7 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

They're just the easy target for control of free speech.

Yeah, no.  I know how everyone likes to imagine that the the Government is going to take away all your rights just cause you can't march around shouting 'Sieg Heil' any place you want.  But this is also Canada, where the government TWICE tried to keep prisoners from voting in elections but the Supreme court pointed out that that violated S.3 of the charter.  TWICE.  There's literally TWO historic supreme court cases called 'Sauvé v Canada' because of this.  The supreme court literally SCOLDED the government in their decision the second time around for wasting their time.

 

So no, the slippery slope to the government taking away 'all yer freedums' in Canada is not happening.

[PlayStation 2]

O Canada, you never fail to disappoint me.

[TacoSenpai]

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

[Hellion]

Not condoning what this dumbass did but this even being in court is ridiculous and sets a terrible precedent. The guy was excersising his right to freedom of speech. Sure, it's a private service and he most definitely violated the twitch terms of service so it should have ended there, a ban from the service. It's unethical to enforce punishment to a legal extent just because some precious snowflakes take text on the internet to heart and become offended by it.

[vorticalbox]

On 16/01/2018 at 9:54 PM, SC2Mitch said:

mischief in relation to computer data”

This because although what he did was a dick move, he had not broken any laws regarding racism.

[vorticalbox]

On 16/01/2018 at 10:10 PM, JustAStrangeGeek said:

I doubt that he is a 'sad man'. anyone willing enough to do that has the potential to get someone killed. Just look at all those cases when others commit suicide because some idiot said to.

In which case where do you lay fault the person who gave a command or the person that followed it?

[SurvivorNVL]

If he was linking to CP via his bot - he shouldn't be going to jail, he should be receiving quick, clean, cheap capital punishment.

[ItsMitch]

43 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

If he was linking to CP via his bot - he shouldn't be going to jail, he should be receiving quick, clean, cheap capital punishment.

I'm all for this idea to be honest, why waste money keeping him in prison.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Hellion said:

Not condoning what this dumbass did but this even being in court is ridiculous and sets a terrible precedent. The guy was excersising his right to freedom of speech. Sure, it's a private service and he most definitely violated the twitch terms of service so it should have ended there, a ban from the service. It's unethical to enforce punishment to a legal extent just because some precious snowflakes take text on the internet to heart and become offended by it.

In Canada, there are limits to what you can say without facing consequences. 

 

But in any case, he’s not being charged with hate speech. He’s being charged (rightfully so) for a cyber crime. 

[ItsMitch]

OK I have fixed the title to be less cancerious, sorry for the delays and misleading