~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ eye WEEKLY March 31, 1994 free every Thursday Toronto ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A WALK ON THE WIRED SIDE U.S. Mag Fails to Grasp Finer Points of Homolka Press Ban by K.K. Campbell Last week, Rolling eye reported how Wired, a slick, ultra-hip computer lifestyle mag, goofed on what should have been an ignorable little story on how the Internet and computers in general have made mincemeat of the Karla Homolka trial publication ban. Wired apparently still doesn't get it. Last week, it issued a press release just as ill-formed -- and rather insulting to Canada, to boot. The press release is entitled "Cyberspace Cannot Be Censored". But, unfortunately for Wired, the news story is now "Wired _Can_ Be Censored". And Wired publisher Louis Rossetto (louis@wired.com) says he's out between $50,000 and $100,000 (US) because of it. "The article does not reveal details of the case," the press release claims. Here we go again. Wrong. I call Wired in San Francisco to find out what the hell is going on. The press release was written by Wired publicity director Taara Eden Hoffman (taara@wired.com). I call her, but she is in New York. Rossetto is also unavailable. So I end up talking to a Jesse Scanlon -- listed as "editorial assistant" in the Wired masthead. (Poor Jesse was filling in for Hoffman, clearly out of her element, and clearly unhappy about it; at one point, she responded to my question with a long, agonized: "I don't knowwwww.") It's Utterly Chilling Up Here In The Third World After I explain I want clarification on Wired's clarification, Scanlon repeats the official line: "We haven't revealed any of the details of the case -- as in what they did, what happened, etc. All we've done is state her plea." Disclosing Homolka's plea is unequivocally forbidden by the July 1993 publication ban issued by Judge Kovacs. I read Scanlon the relevant section. "Oh," she says. "I didn't know that." I ask her to scan further down the press release, where it quotes publisher Rossetto: "Banning of publications is behavior we normally associate with Third-World dictatorships. This an ominous indication that the violation of human rights is becoming Canadian policy." "Is Rossetto equating Canada with a third world dictatorship?" I ask. Scanlon excuses herself for a few minutes then comes back. "No," she replies. "No, no. No, Mr Rossetto's saying the banning of publications is behavior normally associated with Third World dictatorships." Uh huh. But, since that is happening here, I say, it would seem he is calling Canada a Third World dictatorship. "Wellll, I _guess_ you could draw that parallel, could possibly read that into it." The press release then quotes Wired president Jane Metcalfe. "That Wired's criticism of the ban has itself been banned is supremely ironic and utterly chilling." The only thing "utterly chilling" is what a terrible time an American publication is having understanding this story. I tell Scanlon the Wired article is _not_ "banned" because it criticizes the Homolka trial ban, it is banned because it mentions Homolka's plea. It is one thing to oppose the ban (and most all Canadian newsmedia do, just like Wired) -- but at least oppose it by comprehending the issue at hand. Metcalfe appears to be misrepresenting facts to make Wired look better. Scanlon asks me to "hold on a sec". In a minute, publisher Rossetto comes on. At last. "When we ran the story, we hadn't seen the banning order itself," Rossetto explains. "I only saw it yesterday. And now I see that is one of the _specific_ things banned." Rossetto says Wired editors depended entirely on the free-lance reporter, Anita Brenner. They haven't contacted her yet. "It just might have been an over-sight on her part. It certainly was an over-sight on our part. If we had the banning order, we would have structured the story in a way that wouldn't have violated that section. Talking about how Homolka pleaded didn't strike me as the very thing they would be banning. It's not transparently obvious that you can't say how the woman pleaded. Chain Reaction Interestingly, Rossetto blames his financial set-back entirely on East York's Joe Baptista. When Baptista heard about Wired's breaking the ban, he alerted most of the province's politicians, police and press through a massive email/fax campaign. (The article's breach of the publication ban was actually first noticed by a Montreal professor.) On Wednesday, Mar.23, Rossetto sent Baptista private email, complaining about that campaign -- and Baptista quickly released that email to the world through a second campaign. "I hope you're happy, because I'm certainly not," Rossetto opens the letter. "I don't know exactly what you expected to accomplish. If it was to tweak the nose of Canadian authorities, you undoubtedly failed. They could give a shit." Rossetto sighs when I read that back to him. "I may have over-reacted. In a fit of pique, I wrote back to him. I shouldn't have done anything, should have just let it go." (And therein is the danger of email -- so immediate and easy to send mail whisking away before one takes a deep breath and considers the consequences.) "But who the hell is this Baptista guy, anyway? The only person in all this who has done anything proactively is this guy Baptista. We weren't stopped by Canadian customs, the Crown attorney hasn't done anything against us, there are no police taking magazines off store racks. The only thing that is happened is that this guy alerted some news outlets, who alerted some bookstores, who called their distributors, who called their lawyers. It's no skin off the lawyer's ass to say, 'Ban Wired, pull it'." I call Baptista, who responds, with heavy sarcasm, "Hey, I'm just enforcing the law." Baptista has made a name for himself by terrorizing Queen's Park by fax and email. Baptista has stridently opposed the Homolka ban all along. In his little war with government, Wired just happened to be a pawn. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This article is copyrighted by its author. In the spirit of the info age, it may be retransmitted freely in cyberspace. Contact eye at 416-971-8421 or eye@io.org for re-print details.