Further to my initial notes, what follows is the letter I have sent to the Chief Electoral Officer.
---------------

April 18, 2001

Mr. Robert Patterson
Chief Electoral Officer
1055 Pendergast by fax only to 250-387-3578
Victoria, BC

Dear Bob,

I am writing to ask for a written retraction of the unfortunate, harassing letter by way of email that I received from Nola Western of your office.

You are well aware of the weakness in constitutional law of all of Part 11 of the Election Act. The letter from your Director, Electoral Finance, appears to be an attempt to extend that Part of the Act to the Internet. Such an attempt is not only lacking the necessary legal foundation, but it also demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the Internet.

Ms Western's letter states "…this letter is to advise you that if the website is maintained during a campaign period, it will be deemed to be election advertising…" That is a rather grand statement. As of April 17, 2001, the date of Ms Western's letter my website consisted of more than thirty two separate pages. Clearly, the posting of my resume could not by any stretch of the imagination be captured by the Election Act. Similarly, my resource page which provides links to the physics of string theory is probably a bit beyond the gambit of the Act. And I don't think that my article on "spin vs public relations" is really the substance the drafters of the Act had in mind with any regulatory scheme.

At the very least, our disagreement should be confined to those elements that Ms Western seems to think fall within the Act. Perhaps she doesn't like my political cartoon of a grizzly bear hold a sign that says "Vote NDP". If your office seeks to extend its regulatory authority over political cartoons, then you should be prepared to demonstrate how the cartoons on my website differ from the political cartoons found in any newspaper.

The Internet is populated with many different forms of communication. Newsgroups such as bc.politics are full of expressions of political opinion that are much stronger than anything one would find on my website. The number of people downloading such messages far exceeds the number that would visit my website. How do you intend to defend in law any argument that my site is captured by the Act but my posting to bc.politics with precisely the same message is not?

Rather than waste anyone's time and effort on an attempt to regulate free speech on the Internet, could you please simply retract your Director's letter?

Sincerely,

David D. Schreck