Cornwall Standard Free Holder Doesn’t want public discussion of Seaway International Bridge Crisis on their Website AKWESASNE

L I N K NOTE:   “The Standard-Freeholder has chosen to disable the comments feature on this story because reader comments have often shown the potential to be legally problematic for the newspaper as it pertains to this issue, particularly as they pertain to libel law. If you would like to share your thoughts about the issues discussed above, start a free blog at”

All I can say is wow.    Stunning.   I feel for the reporters there as I’m sure they can’t be too happy about that.   We will continue to allow posts to our site.  We are aware of potential legal issues and of course do our best to insure no comments are posted that are of that nature.

Sadly; most of the comments made on the Free Holder were really great at advancing discussion and informing the public of perspectives other than those that I guess certain folk wanted presented to the public.

Again, local media is something every community should have and needs to be nourished and cherished.

“On Saturday, the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service requested the Cornwall Community Police blockade all traffic originating in Cornwall from getting onto the bridge for several hours after an Akwesasne resident threatened to take money from the toll booths at the base of the bridge. They are set up beside the temporary customs and immigration plaza.”

I have heard comment that Chief Swamp reputed ever giving the request to close the bridge.   We’ll attempt to verify this with him by Friday.

I think the public needs to know the exact facts.   Who called for the closing of the bridge and why?  If it was because of a single person collecting money they should be penalized and possibly lose their job for impacting thousands of people for nothing?  IE, a single person in this instance should not be grounds for closing of the bridge.

Who gave the order to reopen the bridge and why?  Especially after the meeting between CBSA and Akwesasne and MCA reps resulted in no actions or decisions.

What do you think Cornwall?  You can post your comments here still.

please visit our sponsors:


  1. Honestly, I think that’s the easy way out and with that they do not have to give the *Real Reason* as to why they disabled comments.

    I have yet to get a reply back from the freeholder, Emails have as of now gone unanswered.

  2. It doesn’t make any sense. Discussion increases traffic which is good for ad revenue.

  3. Write a letter to the editor if you want to gripe bonehead.

  4. I find the action of cutting off the comments to be deplorable. Again, we are supposed to have freedom of expression and I thought news agencies and reporters fought for exactly that? I don’t know what could be said that could be held as a problem, unless it ticks someone out there off to have any valid information posted. Is a higher power trying to silence the masses becoming the real reason why commentary is disabled? cannot talk about National secrets? Hush Hush stuff going on now? Censorship? How about not wanting to listen to a ticked off public that have a problem with the way things are going on?

    I thought Canada was the land of the True North and the Free? I guess someone out there stands too much on guard for we? In fear that we may know too much? I don’t know. But I find the actions deplorable none the less.

    I agree with you Jamie, if a media outlet is going to post an article, and a commentary, then it should not be cut off. As well, obviously biased situations like allowing commentary on one subject, but not another, should also not be allowed and thus all commentary should be disabled from the beginning!

  5. The Freeholder can indeed be held liable for hate sppech, which seems to flow quite easily from the fingers tips of a small group of ignorant Cornwallites.

  6. Author

    Yes, but just like I have to approve all comments for a sensitive subject or issue so can they. Or they can simply remove comments that go over the line. That smug suggestion that people create a blog surely was not needed.

  7. If people wanted to comment on the articles that are written that would be fine, but it seems the same posters over and over, would rather just spew their bile than to educate themselves. My mother always told me if I had nothing nice to say, then shut the hell up. I think the Freeholder is trying to politely tell those posters to shut the hell up.

  8. I agree that a few post over and over.. And it is sickening, Ohwell, Funscape, Cornwaller77 to name a few. But the freeholder can not be help liable if you read the disclaimer when you register.

    Another simple way to safe face is add to the bottom of the page , that The Comments made do Not REFLECT the Standard Freeholder Views And the FreeHolder does not Necessarily agree with comments made.

    I have offered to Moderate postings in the past and its fallen on deaf ears, Much like my emails

  9. Author

    666577 they really do have a legal liability, as we do here, but the reality is that even if someone sued, they’d have to prove actually monetary damages. Legal costs are the biggest threat and of course aggravation.

    That being said they really should decide their policy and that tail end of their notice about suggesting people start their own blogs is just silly and nasty.

Leave a Reply