A few weeks after Benoit's message, things came to a head when the Washington Post ran a major article on the murders and the trial ban. Canadians living near the border drove to the US to buy copies of the newspaper. Anyone with access to online systems like Dialog or Compuserve could get the full text of the article electronically. And it didn't take very long at all for that text to be distributed via alt.fan.karla-homolka, along with the transcript of an episode of A Current Affair that had been blocked by Canadian cable companies. Mike Shahin's article for the Saturday, November 27, 1993 Ottawa Citizen was one of many to discuss the availability of banned information to people in Ontario. It was also one of the first articles to demonstrate the media's shaky understanding of the online world.
Internet posting banned details of Teale trial
Canadians with computer access to a major computer network called Internet can now read a Washington Post newspaper article that contains banned details of the Karla (Homolka) Teale manslaughter trial.
Publication of the details of the July trial was banned by the courts to ensure Teale's estranged husband, Paul, gets an unbiased jury when he faces charges of first-degree murder and sex offences.
The Post story can be found in a computer bulletin board called alt.fan.karla-homolka on Usenet, a service that runs on Internet.
Internet is a world-wide computer communications network that connects three million computers in 135 countries. An estimated 10 to 30 million people have access to the Internet, including about 15,000 local members of the National Capital FreeNet.
David Sutherland, president of the FreeNet, said he is not concerned about having the story available through it. "They'd have to demonstrate that we are responsible for publishing it. If you got it in the mail, would Canada Post be guilty of publishing it?
Many of the details printed in the Post story had already been posted on the karla-homolka newsgroup in the form of gossip and rumor. In fact, the newsgroup has gone far beyond what the media has published in terms of gruesome alleged details of the now-infamous Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy murder cases.
[...]
Concern over liability, dismissed one day, quickly led to action. The following piece by Mike Shahin, from the Sunday, November 28, 1993 Ottawa Citizen, describes the action taken by the National Capital Freenet, the largest Freenet in Canada.
FreeNet pulls plug on details of Karla Teale trial
Fearing legal repercussions, the National Capital FreeNet has blocked access to a computer bulletin board that contains banned details of the Karla (Homolka) Teale manslaughter trial.
Dave Sutherland, president of the local computer network, removed direct FreeNet access to a bulletin board called alt.fan.karla-homolka Friday night. He made the decision soon after being told the board was carrying a Washington Post article that contained information banned from being published in Canada.
Sutherland said because FreeNet "could not sustain any kind of court challenge he decided to pull access to the bulletin board until at least Monday, when he plans to consult with lawyers. He said he was worried FreeNet could be held responsible for breaking the court-ordered ban or could be found guilty of breaking copyright laws by posting the newspaper article.
[...]
Although direct access to the homolka board was cut off by Sutherland, FreeNet members can still see it with a few extra keystrokes. By connecting to out-of-town FreeNets, like the one in Finland, the bulletin board can still be found on Usenet, a service that runs on Internet. (Internet is a world-wide computer communications network that connects three million computers in 135 countries.)
[...]
As more people became aware that banned information could be found online, more carriers of newsgroups dropped alt.fan.karla-homolka. The Globe and Mail's Mary Gooderham wrote about the issue on December 2, 1993.
Computer networks hack through the Homolka ban
'PUBLIFICATION' / The U of T blocked an electronic bulletin board devoted to the forbidden details of the trial, but since anyone with a modem can still obtain the information, it's too late to put the brakes on the electronic highway
The electronic village has a lot to say about the Karla Homolka trial.
Information banned from publication in Canada is spreading like wildfire across myriad data networks around the world, from wire services to specialized bulletin boards and electronic mail - all available to anyone with a computer and a modem, the device allowing a computer to communicate over phone lines.
The University of Toronto yesterday became the latest university to stop carrying a bulletin board on the Internet system that specifically includes information and discussion about the Homolka case.
But users of computer services say it is impossible to stop the electronic exchange of such material.
"The jungle drums are going overtime," an Internet user said.
[...]
Internet's primary function is to allow users anywhere in the world to exchange electronic mail. Users can also start up their own "newsgroup" - a discussion group for people with interest in a certain subject.
There are currently more than 5,500 individual newsgroups, covering subjects from Chinese cooking to cannabis growing to computer programming, subscribed to by an unknown number of users, most of whom use pseudonyms when they "post" new messages.
Major happenings, such as the collapse of the Berlin Wall or a court case, often spark the creation of new newsgroups. The Homolka case newsgroup, called alt.fan.karla-homolka, includes not only discussion of the case but also evidence presented at the trial in which Ms. Homolka was convicted of two counts of manslaughter in the sex slayings of Ontario schoolgirls Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.
Mr. Justice Francis Kovacs of the Ontario Court's General Division banned publication of such evidence to ensure that Ms. Homolka's estranged husband, Paul Bernardo (Teale), who faces two charges of first-degree murder in connection with the deaths, receives a fair hearing.
A spokeswoman for Judge Kovacs, when asked yesterday whether electronic dissemination of information is covered by the ban, said she could not comment on the matter.
Since Sunday, 96 different articles have been posted on the Homolka newsgroup, including discussion of the Canadian and U.S. judicial systems, sordid rumours about the case and the text of an article published last week in The Washington Post.
David Sadleir, vice-president of computing and communications for the University of Toronto, directed the university's network operations yesterday to stop carrying alt.fan.karla-homolka. McGill University and Carleton University have also blocked that newsgroup.
"We're trying to stick with the laws of the country," Mr. Sadleir said.
However, the university brings in more than 4,200 other newsgroups, and some of those include the same information as the Homolka one. A newsgroup called alt.journalism, for instance, includes the Washington Post article.
"The technology makes anything possible," one user said.
There are many ways of circumventing the block, including simply renaming the Homolka newsgroup altogether. Internet users who have had it blocked also have the option of receiving all of the information by electronic mail.
"Anyone with half a brain who's on the Internet knows how to get around the block," Dr. Buxton said.
He said the posting of information about the Homolka trial on bulletin boards may not be considered publication. But he called it "publification," because it makes the material public. He compared the posting such information on computer bulletin boards with "pamphleteering" in previous centuries.
[...]
Personally, I was pretty pissed off by the banning of alt.fan.karla-homolka. Since my free Internet access included outbound telnet but no newsgroups, I got an account on the American service provider Netcom to make up for the Freenet dropping alt.fan.karla-homolka. I continued following the story and occasionally posted to the newsgroup, summarizing the occasional news article.
From: sjroby@netcom.com (Steve Roby) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 15:17:38 GMT Newsgroups: alt.fan.karla-homolka,alt.pub-ban.homolka Subject: 1 in 4 claims knowledge -- Ottawa Citizen The Ottawa Citizen of Dec. 29 has a front page story titled 1 in 4 claim knowledge of banned Teale details: Poll suggests judge's legal gag loose in Ontario The article is by Stephen Bindman, Citizen legal correspondent. Anyone with access to InfoMart (and possibly Nexis or Datatimes) can get the full article. One quarter of Ontario residents surveyed say they have learned banned details of the Karla Teale manslaughter trial despite a controversial gag order, a new poll suggests. The Angus Reid-Southam News poll released today found that 14 per cent of Canadians surveyed across the country claim to know banned details of the sensational trial, although another 35 per cent said they weren't even aware of the trial at all. [some background on the trial and the ban appears in the next few paragraphs] The national telephone survey of 1,510 Canadian adults conducted between Dec.15 and 20 found 65 per cent of respondents had heard of the Teale trial, while 58 per cent said they were aware of the ban. Awareness of the trial was highest in Ontario (81 per cent) and strong across the country except in Quebec where only 46 per cent said they had heard about the case. In Ontario, the survey found that 26 per cent said they knew prohibited details of the trial, although across the country only 14 per cent were in the know. "It doesn't surprise me that other parts of the country such as British Columbia or Newfoundland know very little at all," said John Wright, senior vice-president of the polling firm. "The real issue here is that in the very jurisdiction where this trial is going to take place and where jurors are going to be selected from, there would appear to be a significant number of people who have either sought out actively or received information which they deem to be in violation of the ban." Klaus Pohle, a media law professor in the school of journalism at Carleton University, agreed. "The results of the poll seem to support those who have contended all along that the ban has not worked; that it has, in fact, been counterproductive." The poll found that about four of every 10 Canadians (38 per cent) surveyed believe that it is sometimes appropriate for a judge to impose a publication ban to protect an accused's right to a fair trial. One- quarter (25 per cent) said such a ban should never be imposed. But those questioned by the pollsters were fairly divided on whether a ban should have been imposed in the Teale case -- 33 per cent said they disagreed with the judge's order while 28 per cent supported the ruling. (The remaining 35 per cent were unaware of the case.) [Further statistical discussion follows.] Comment from the guy posting this: First, of course, the above is posted without the permission of the publisher. My apologies to them. However, I do recommend that as many of you as possible buy copies of the newspaper or access the full text electronically through a for-profit system, thus reducing my karmic debt to Southam. Secondly, I found the results a bit surprising. 35% have not heard of the case at all? I don't think there will be a problem finding jurors. Even if there'd been no ban at all, there probably would have been a large group of people blissfully unaware of this whole business. Steve Roby -- sjroby@netcom.com ae773@freenet.carleton.ca 76217.1455@compuserve.com "Standing here like a loaded gun waiting to go off I've got nothing to do but shoot my mouth off" -- Black Flag describes the Usenet experience From: sjroby@netcom.com (Steve Roby) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 21:38:25 GMT Newsgroups: alt.fan.karla-homolka,alt.pub-ban.homolka Subject: Libraries and the Ban Michael Valpy's "Streets" column in today's Globe & Mail (93/12/30) has an article on how libraries are starting to challenge the ban. The full text is available from InfoGlobe, etc, for a few bucks. Here are a few highlights. When is a ban not necessarily a ban? Libraries have buckled on the armour of freedom of information and common sense. In Montreal's McGill University library and in the municipal libraries of Halifax and now Regina (with the police watching but doing nothing), U.S. newspapers carrying ostensibly forbidden accounts of the Karla Homolka manslaughter trial have been made available to the public. They are the same accounts published in U.S. newspapers that were confiscated by police and Canada Customs officers from people crossing into Canada at New York and Michigan border points last month. The libraries have had legal advice that they are not in violation of the publication ban imposed by trial judge Francis Kovacs of the Ontario Court. The advice suggests that there are holes in Judge Kovacs's order large enough to drive bulldozers through. [. . .] There are two legal arguments on which the libraries can rely. First, the libraries which to date have put U.S. publications on display are outside Ontario. The extraprovincial authority of provincial court orders of the sort issued by Judge Kovacs is not clear; in other words, there is no strong law on whether the order applies anywhere in Canada outside Ontario. [. . .] The second argument is more intriguing. Judge Kovacs's order was clearly directed at the representatives of specific news organizations who were present in his courtroom for the trial and sentencing of Ms. Homolka. Indeed, one had to be present in order to understand what Judge Kovacs meant. He did not order a ban on the publication of all evidence or all legal argument. His order was much narrower: a ban on publication of the "circumstances of the deaths of any person referred to during the trial." [. . .] We come to the libraries. What is clear with Judge Kovacs's order is that there is a lot you've got to know in order to know whether you're complying with it or in breach of it. The libraries' representatives were not in the trial court. Their representatives did not hear the evidence presented during the trial. They were not directly given the order; it was received only by the news-media representatives allowed by Judge Kovacs to attend the trial. The libraries would not know precisely whether the U.S. publications were in breach of the order. Thus, they -- the libraries -- would not be capable of forming guilty intent to violate the order. The legal advice given to McGill's library spoke to that point: "It is virtually impossible for the library to monitor the content of each and every periodical and newspaper it receives every day." [. . . .] -- sjroby@netcom.com ae773@freenet.carleton.ca 76217.1455@compuserve.com "Standing here like a loaded gun waiting to go off I've got nothing to do but shoot my mouth off" -- Black Flag describes the Usenet experience
Though the media generally represented the newsgroup as a source of disgustingly graphic rumors and speculation, there were frequent debates about the newsgroup, about the trial ban, about differences between the Canadian and American approaches to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. During one of the discussions about the group itself, Justin Wells, who'd created the group, provided some insights into the creation of alt.fan.karla- homolka.