Maggie's Farm

It is interesting to see that the three involved want far more than what the general public normally gets from Macleans: they don't want just their letters printed, but want full editorial control over a piece and as much space as they deem necessary.

They want that via court ruling.

Say what you will about the rest of their argument, but the point of taking editorial control of a piece away from a privately owned magazine should be chilling to anyone who believes in freedom of speech. As Steyn points out the piece of his in question got lots of letters coming in, and only at the three month mark do these three take any notice of it... does or does not Macleans have the freedom and right to say 'we have covered this topic enough'?

Utilizing an organ of the State to remove control over privately held property is something done only in the extreme for such things as common use roads. These three want that extended down to editorial control of a magazine. That should be extremely worrying for anyone in Canada and those covered under the basis of Common Law. That is a direct attack on the basis of English derived Common Law, and should be a horror to anyone watching this happen. If the State can utilize eminent domain to go after the freedom of speech, then there is, literally, nothing to stop State from taking everything under its control.