COLBY COSH WRITES on Canadian publication bans:

Under the metaconstitutional Oakes test, any infringement of individual Charter liberties, such as a publication ban, must have a “rational connection” to the intended benefit and must be the most minimally restrictive measure that can bring about the benefit. The argument here is that if a ban doesn’t work in practice–say, because American webloggers are all printing the mind-blowing stuff Canadian ones cannot–it can’t meet Oakes. With due respect to the ban, which I consider myself to have observed herein, it would actively help free the hands of Canadian webloggers and reporters if our foreign cousins were to be aggressive about “publishing” the substance of the Brault testimony outside the reach of Canadian law.

The Belmont Club has more. And more here.

For more on the Canadian scandals, check out this post from Winds of Change, and Kate McMillan notes that Canadians are flocking to foreign websites to learn what their own government doesn’t want them to know.

UPDATE: More on these events here, with reports that Canadian bloggers may still be charged for linking to this stuff. Jeez.

But we will not be silenced — er, except that Ed Morrissey is developing laryngitis from being interviewed by Canadian media outlets about his willingness to ignore the ban.

And here’s more commentary from Damian Penny.