Cyberlibel Damages Awarded In Canada

mszeto writes "The Globe And Mail is reporting that an Ontario judge has awarded an archaeologist 125k$ in damages after someone smeared her using email. According to the lawyer: 'People seem to think there is a level of anonymity to e-mail and the Internet. And that it's a lawless area. And clearly it is not, nor should it be.'"

Comments

Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[brxndxn]

I hope the spammers don't all sue me for sending out millions of emails that say all spammers are evil and that spam should be ignored!

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[steveha]

The basic defense against libel is: if it's a true statement, it's not libel.

Since spammers are evil, you should be in the clear... ;-)

Note: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and please play nice with the other kids.

steveha

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[DigiShaman]

I'll play devils advocate...

Would be evil to sell a product to someone that is stupid? Shouldn't the problem rest on personal responsibility? If your smart enough to earn money in a free market, then surely your smart enough to spend it wisely.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[Thangodin]

The problem with spam is not that people might buy the product. The damage to me has nothing to do with that. It's the time I waste and the bandwidth I pay for that they steal. It's also the fact that spammers are the money behind most of the viruses, spam relays bots, etc, which are jamming the web and costing us billions of dollars. A lot of the large cyber-criminal organizations got their start by working for large spam operations.

And stuff like the Nigerian scam is a crime. The letter itself is evidence of fraud, if they can catch those that sent it.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[clambake]

I hope the spammers don't all sue me for sending out millions of emails that say all spammers are evil and that spam should be ignored!

I hope they ALL do, that way we can find out who they are!

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[tomstdenis]

Speaking as someone accused of libel [and successfully backed the person off in one fell swoop of the CCC] I know what constitutes libel [at least in Canada].

The jist of Libel is [around section 297-8 of the CCC]

s297 - In sections 303, 304 and 308, "newspaper" means any paper, magazine or periodical containing public news, intelligence or reports of events, or any remarks or observations thereon, printed for sale and published periodically or in parts or numbers, at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days between the publication of any two such papers, parts or numbers, and any paper, magazine or periodical printed in order to be dispersed and made public, weekly or more often, or at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days, that contains advertisements, exclusively or principally.

s298 - (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

However, my defense [IIRC section 309] was

s309 - No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.

In my case I was outing a crypto troll in sci.crypt ;-)

URL for these sections http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42515.html

Tom

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[AstroDrabb]

Shouldn't the problem rest on personal responsibility?

I agree with that to a certain point. There needs to be _some_ limit to the "free" market. Should the "free" market be allowed to take advantage of someone with lower intellegence? Why? It is their fault they don't have the brains of you or I. Also, there are the different generations. Down here in Sunny Flordia, land of the retired Snow Birds, we get a lot of seniors who grew up in a different generation. A generation that was not filled with a bunch of "get rich quick scammers". Shouldn't they be protected? Or do we just say screw it and every man/woman for themselves? If we do that, then why not just outlaw all laws and go for anarchy? In that world, if I don't agree with you, I can just shoot you. Not a very good world IMO.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[Ohreally_factor]

There needs to be _some_ limit to the "free" market. Should the "free" market be allowed to take advantage of someone with lower intellegence? Why? It is their fault they don't have the brains of you or I.

So, you're basically saying, "No advertising in the Red States." While this is an excellent idea, I don't know if it's practical across the board. Maybe, just as we prohibit advertising tobacco products to minors, we can create specific prohibitions for the less intelligent, such as prohibiting political advertising in the Red States. Such a prohibition would prevent the less intelligent from becoming a threat to themselves or others.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[Ohreally_factor]

Just don't make the mistake of suing yourself. That can get very expensive, so I hear.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[DigiShaman]

Uhhh... that comment about "Red States" was totally condescending, arrogant, and incorrect. Basicaly, pure fallacy.

Second, you've never worked in customer service have you? I've met many many dumb people, and I mean really stupid people! Honestly, I would say that intellegence has no correlation to political leanings. If anything, politics is motivated by feelings and pride of social association. It's all about taking sides in any dichotomy as a "them vs they" mindset.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[uss_valiant]

Since spammers are evil [...]

[bush]You mean they are on the axis of evil, they are terrorists?
And what are the spammer harboring countries? Should we bomb them?
Or do they have enemies? You know, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

to be continued

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[Ohreally_factor]

Relax, it was a joke. A totally condescending, arrogant joke. =)

Here's another joke. =)

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[Tim C]

It's also the fact that spammers are the money behind most of the viruses, spam relays bots, etc, which are jamming the web and costing us billions of dollars.

Now, I'll agree that I've heard rumours that they've paid for some viruses and similar, but "most"? Do you have any figures and references to back up that claim?

For that matter, this is the only place I've actually read that spammers are paying for these things to be written, but it certainly makes sense that they might, so I'll give you that one; it's the use of the word 'most' that I'm queying (especially in relation to viruses, which generally serve little or no purpose).

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[nilenico]

This plays so nicely into the recent Dilbert theme of selling 40 000 calorie, shard-filled ultra-donughts to the masses...

(See strips for about a week or so before the one in the link)

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[Sj0]

...we get a lot of seniors who grew up in a different generation. A generation that was not filled with a bunch of "get rich quick scammers"

There's one born every minute. :P

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[Sj0]

There's more than one kind of evil you know.

After all, GWB got elected for a second term, didn't he? :P

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident..

[realityfighter]

Actually, Libel technically would have to be targeted against a single person. Defamation of a group of people is considered "hate speech."

IANAL, but I think you could libel a specific corporation, too.

Lies!

[Anonymous Coward]

"People seem to think there is a level of anonymity to e-mail and the Internet."

Ha!

Re:Lies!

[ilyanep]

So people are as stupid as they look...

Re:Lies!

[Saeger]

Dear "Anonymous" Coward,

We logged your HTTP POST packet enroute to slashdot.org as it hopped across our "PATRIOT2 blackboxes", which are installed at the border of most ISPs, as required by anti-terrorism law.

Your IP is 149.101.1.32 and our reverse records indicate that your name and address is none other than ... oh, sorry, we didn't know it was you Sir. Excuse the intrusion and consider your logs erased for "national security" reasons.

Sincerely,
Stormtrooper #98562
New World Order, SubFloor 145

--

Re:Lies!

[Hal The Computer]

[Darth Vader Voice]
The power of this Orwellian monitoring network is insignificant compared to the power of the force.
[/Darth Vader Voice]

*Chokes annoying stormtrooper who interupted porn surfing session.*

Except that email can be forged

[Gothmolly]

SMTP headers can be forged. Windows machines can be 0wn3d. Any Tom, Dick, or Vladimir can set up a rogue SMTP server, claim to be Yahoo! mail, and start spewing email.
You can't nail someone to the wall until you have a means to prove that they did what you claim.

Re:Except that email can be forged

[iii_rjm]

So can papers and signatures. What is your point?

Re:Except that email can be forged

[ZuperDee]

This is EXACTLY why I have been saying for a long time now that we NEED to add authentication to SMTP, as this guy is trying to do.

This case merely proves what I've been saying for YEARS now: sooner or later, anonymity cannot be used as an excuse for lawlessness. At some point, you MUST draw the line between anonymity and the need to hold people accountable for their actions and abuses of the email system.

Re:Except that email can be forged

[Peyna]

That's why they have neat things like trials and juries that determine what the facts are and make decisions based on that.

Re:Except that email can be forged

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't nail someone to the wall until you have a means to prove that they did what you claim."

If only that were so.

Scott Peterson

sweetcheeks@sanquinton.cdc.ca.gov

Re:Except that email can be forged

[kentmartin]

Or what about simply SPF.

Seriously, there has been enough noise made about it lately. I jumped on to set up SPF in all of about 10 minutes, it really was that simple.

Since then I have been using the Thunderbird Extension for Sender Policy Framework as a quick and easy way to see which and how many domains publishing SPF records and have noted a few interesting things.

Namely, depsite the fact that MS wants their own standard to be thrown out into the marketplace (namely Sender ID), they are publishing SPF records on both Microsoft.com and on Hotmail.com. If I was the kind of guy who used the word "kudos" I would say "Kudos to them". I am no more of a fan of MS than anyone else here, but, those two domains alone represent a not insignificant percentage of spam floating around that can be fairly simply removed with a mail server reconfig. AOL is also publishing, so well done there.

Gmail are as well of course, but would you expect any less?

Yahoo are not, which amazes me - I realize they want to push DomainKeys, but, I see no reason for them not to be publishing SPF records as well.

The one that absolutely staggered me though was Citibank.com. I recall reading somewhere (no link sorry, but a quick google illustrates the point) that something like half all the phishing emails floating about are aimed at Citibank. For the sake of a few minutes, they could at least give people who want to, a surefire way of rejecting all phishing emails at MTA time. They must have among the crappest DNS admins on earth, or some very bad policy makers.

I shall end this spiel with a request. If you administer a DNS, and you relay, or can easily relay through known machines every time (which would be about 99% of us), then please publish SPF records. You don't have to use other people's records yourself to reject mail - just publish your own records so that other can reject mail that is purportedly from you, but isn't.

The nice thing about all this from the running a receiving MTA perspective, is you can phase it in. Pretty soon, I will be rejecting all mail that is fails SPF checks, but still accepting for people that don't yet publish records.

So please, do it now, jump over to the SPF link at the top of this mail - there is a webform there which dumbs down creating your SPF record as much as it can be dumbed down, and actually gives you a line to paste into your zone file.

Spam could be all but gone in a week for those who want to reconfigure their mail servers to reject it if those records are publish. Imagine that - effectively wiping out spam almost instantly!

If you won't do it for me, do it for the children, oh won't somebody please think of the children.....

Re:Except that email can be forged

[lachlan76]

It is harder to make convincing forgeries than it is to setup an SMTP server.

Re:Except that email can be forged

[Carrot007]

See this is the problem with the legal system, you have to put trust in juries to come up with the right answer.

Juries contain people, hence the problem.

Maybe juries could be a 2nd resort after getting the defendent so drunk they forget what they are doing and admit if they did it, trial by alcohol.

All praise our new alcohol based legal system.

Re:Except that email can be forged

[Peyna]

If the Judge believes the jury decided in a manner completely inconsistent with the evidence he can grant a motion to set aside their verdict and decide the case for himself.

This is rarely granted; but it is an option available.

Re:Except that email can be forged

[Oligonicella]

"If you won't do it for me, do it for the children, oh won't somebody please think of the children....."

We do. That's why we ignore anyone claiming they're "doing it for the children".

Re:Except that email can be forged

[Proaxiom]

While I'm sure pretty much everyone on Slashdot would agree with you, I'll bet there are a great many scammers and con artists who believe the opposite is true.

Re:Except that email can be forged

[mzwaterski]

The problem with the legal system is that a group of people decide the verdict? I can imagine what your suggestion would be: Maybe all of the evidence should be fed into some artificial intelligence algorithm and if the output is greater than 1 the person is guilty, less than 1, not guilty, and if the output is 1 its a hung algorithm and the evidence must be reformatted and reinput. Seriously, how else could a case be decided than by a group of people making a decision. Certainly one person is just as fallible as a group of people.

Re:Except that email can be forged

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you've got a point.....

Re:Except that email can be forged

[Archangel_Azazel]

--All praise our new alcohol based legal system.--

I, for one, welcome our alcohol-swilling justicars!

Re:Except that email can be forged

[lachlan76]

You can teach a scammer or con artist to setup an SMTP server in a couple of hours, (well, less if they have Linux experience) but how easy is it to teach a slashdotter to forge signatures perfectly?

Canada has loose libel right though?

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't the British commonwealth have some kind of crazy overzealous Libel laws where the burden of proof is on the defendant?

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[nomadic]

Yep. Both Canada and the UK have ridiculous defamation laws; bring that up the next time a Canadian or Briton sneers at the American legal system.

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[twoshortplanks]

Yes and no.

The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove what they wrote was true, but obviously this only happens after the plaintiff has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did indeed write what they are accused of writing.

This is obvious. If someone libels me by writing that I committed a crime, then I don't have to prove that I didn't commit that crime in order to sue them - before they throw around accusations like that they have to be able to prove what they said (or I'd be considered guilty until proven innocent.)

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[twoshortplanks]

So in the US it would be legal for someone to go around saying that a respected businessman whilst he was alone working late in the office went though all his colleagues desks and stole all their secret plans? Even though he couldn't possibly prove he didn't (after all, no one else was there), and saying that might have a detrimental effect on his career? Or to put it another way, it's okay to say something about someone if they had the opportunity to do that thing and can't prove that they didn't?

In the UK if you accuse someone of something in a way that could have harmful sideffects for them then that's slander/libel unless you can back up your accusations. Is this not true in the US?

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[belmolis]

Actually, I think that Canadian defamation law is not that different from American defamation law anymore. English defamation law is more pro-plaintiff in part because the requirement that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted with malice is purely nominal. For practical purposes there is no such requirement. In contrast, in the US a public figure must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice", which is interpreted as meaning that he or she knew that the statement was false or spoke with flagrant disregard for the truth. In US law it is easier to prove libel if the plaintiff is not a public figure, but even then the requirement of malice is taken more seriously than in England.

IANAL, but I have read up on the law of defamation.

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[nomadic]

In the UK if you accuse someone of something in a way that could have harmful sideffects for them then that's slander/libel unless you can back up your accusations. Is this not true in the US?

The main difference is in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant. So you can use libel laws to prevent something getting published if the person who's going to do the publishing can't afford to contest it, and that happens a lot. And since the burden of proof is on the defendant, they'll have to have ironclad proof of what they're saying.

Secondly, in the US you generally have more latitude about what you can say about someone. Truth is a complete defense for libel, but it's not the only defense. Even if you say something untrue the other party still has to show damages and in some cases malice. Plus if the person's a public figure they get even less protection.

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[teh*fink]

In the UK if you accuse someone of something in a way that could have harmful sideffects for them then that's slander/libel unless you can back up your accusations. Is this not true in the US?

yes, it is this way in the US; however, the difference is that here the law is written "did" instead of "could" (afaik, ianal). the burden of proof of potential damage to business or character is upon the supposed victim.

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[sylvester]

Uhh...

Libel is generally (always? IANAL) a civil matter. Like the US, the standard of proof in civil matters is "on the balance of probabilities", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is reserved for criminal matters.

-Rob

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[Anonymous Coward]

What don't you get?

This way is better, so the sneers will continue, nigger.

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called the concept of res ipsum loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. In this case, if it is obvious that the defendant wrote the allegedly libellous article, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. Res ipsum loquitur applies to all civil cases.

If the defendant shows on balance of probabilities that they are not the author, then the court will find them not liable. If the defendent shows that on balance of probabilities the article is true, then they will be found not liable.

If the defendant is found liable, it is still up to the claimant to show that they suffered loss as a result of the libel, and quantify it. Damages will then be awarded as appropriate.

Re:Canada has loose libel right though?

[goatan]

The main difference is in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant. So you can use libel laws to prevent something getting published if the person who's going to do the publishing can't afford to contest it, and that happens a lot. And since the burden of proof is on the defendant, they'll have to have ironclad proof of what they're saying.

actually in a libel case the person being "libelled" is the defendant as the writer is accusing them of something. As the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty it is up the author doing the accusing to prove them guilty. The author is not the defendant as they are making the accusations the other person is taking them to court to defend themselves, remember courts are not just there for criminal law they are there for civil law and to mediate disputes. The author will be asked to prove his accusations just like any other court of law.

So you can use libel laws to prevent something getting published if the person who's going to do the publishing can't afford to contest it, and that happens a lot

Most newspapers and easily afford libel cases and individuals that cant can get legal aid, money is no barrier to representation you can often get legal even if you can afford a lawyer yourself. If the writer believes what they have written they are usually keen to go to court so as the publicise the incident.

Even if you say something untrue the other party still has to show damages and in some cases malice. Plus if the person's a public figure they get even less protection.

So I could say something completely untrue about anyone in America and so long as it doesn't cost them anything I can carry one? That's quite amazing. Isn't lying about someone pretty malicious anyway?

Mental Note:

[mekkab]

Use anonymous re-mailer before slandering colleagues. Also, remove personal sig with my name, tele number, and address, too.

Mr. Gates is a big fairy!

-- /s/

Robert M. Shankely
348-8347
234 Niam St.
Provo, Utah.

Yay for the courts

[metalhed77]

I don't see anything at all controversial about this ruling.

Re:Yay for the courts

[Anonymous Luddite]

Doesn't anyone think the fine is a bit excessive?

I do not condone his actions one little bit. I can understand a fine, or even jail time, but I think $125,000 is pretty steep. let's put it in perspective a bit:

these guys got fined the same amount

Re:Yay for the courts

[belmolis]

I think that a pretty severe penalty is called for, for two reasons. First, the impact on Cheryl Ross was quite serious. Universities generally take such ethical issues very seriously. She could have lost her job and been made unemployable as an archaeologist. Furthermore, native bands are very sensitive about anything to do with human remains. Even an unproven allegation could have interfered with her ability to do research. In other words, this was not simply calling her a bad name; it could have ended her career. Secondly, according to the article Holley didn't just spout off in a moment of anger. He actually went to the trouble of falsifying evidence. In other words, what he did was premeditated and unquestionably dishonest. If somebody deliberately falsified evidence in an attempt to destroy your career, I bet you'd think they should pay a pretty severe penalty.

Remember kids:

[Anonymous Coward]

Always state the facts. Don't make shit up. You can say a product is crap or that you disagree with a company, but have proof to back up your opinions.

Re:Remember kids:

[Frogbert]

Microsoft is shit.

Re:Remember kids:

[arose]

I have to prove that I disagree?!

Re:Remember kids:

[jd]

No, that's libel, as it's defamatory and untrue. Shit can be used to fertilize the soil, adding much-needed nutrients, recycling the waste productively. Rose gardeners, especially, benefit from shit.

Re:Remember kids:

[goodie3shoes]

From an email offer I recently received: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 03:36:28 -0600 From: B#*&%$#@zipmail.com Subject: Microshit Plus 98 clearance Evidently someone agrees with you.

Re:Remember kids:

[kfg]

Making the statement: "Microsoft ain't good for shit," a simple fact.

Yes, I know. That sentence, constructed in the colloquial, is ambiguous and can be interpreted in two ways. Microsoft ain't good for shit that way either. Try it, you'll see. But don't say I didn't warn you.

KFG

Re:Remember kids:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's libel, as it's defamatory and untrue. Shit can be used to fertilize the soil, adding much-needed nutrients, recycling the waste productively. Rose gardeners, especially, benefit from shit.

Microsoft does produce shit, but it's usually flushed. This may explain Microsoft Bob. They don't officaly have a shit product, if so i'm sure it would be called Microsoft Shit(tm) - where did you go today?

This is wrong.

[zerguy]

I think that "cyberlibel" punishments are wrong for one very simple reason:
It is exceptionally easy to frame someone. I could easily send you an email with a return address of Bill Clinton. It's as easy to forge as the return address on regular mail. If someone claiming to be me went and slandered a bunch of people, should I be punished? Absolutely not. That is why this sort of thing should not be allowed until we have a reliable method for tracing emails (which we almost certainly never will.)

Re:This is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Refusing to deal with a crime because it 'It is exceptionally easy to frame someone', seems like a pretty poor solution to me. That's why crimes are investigated.

Re:This is wrong.

[zerguy]

But it is not trivial to frame someone for other crimes. Seriously, how hard is it to set up an SMTP server and start forging emails? If it were this easy to frame people for every crime, the justice system would not exist, because anyone who just plain didn't like you could get you thrown in jail.

Re:This is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, moron.

If I get an email with headers purporting to come from you, it could have come drom anywhere. However, it does give the cops probable cause to search your computer and look for evidence that the PC in your house sent the mail. That's probably good enough evidence.

Re:This is wrong.

[dirk]

But the same can be done with pen and paper. I can write a letter and sign your name at the bottom. This is why it is determined in a court of law where all the facts can be shown and weighed.

The other option is that anything can said on the internet, no matter the truthfulness or intent of it. I could put up a website about how zerguy is a child molesting crack addict and make sure everyone you know reads it. I could ruin your life with allegations I know are false, and there would be nothing you could do about it.

Re:This is wrong.

[zerguy]

No, it doesn't.
If I tell the cops you are secretly plotting to kill the president, but I show them no evidence, other than a piece of paper that says, "My name is Anonymous Coward and I plan to kill the President", does that give thim probable cause to search your home? No, it doesn't.
Please don't call me a moron.

Re:This is wrong.

[zerguy]

Yes, you could do that. But that is easier to trace than an e-mail. How does it even pertain to this discussion?

I think the question on all our minds now is...

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the Star Wars kid sue?!?!?

Re:I think the question on all our minds now is...

[MikeXpop]

He already did

Re:I think the question on all our minds now is...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Actually, his parents did, and I think they have a case, myself; they claim to have ICQ (or some other IM) logs showing that the guys who found the tape planned to distributed it across the Internet specifically to hurt SWK.

A scary prescedent?

[thewldisntenuff]

Hmph....Does this mean me saying "CmdrTaco sucks*" on a /. discussion mean he can come sue the pants off me? A scary prescendent to be set indeed....There are a hell of a lot of websites, and a lot of personal pages out there that probably slander people left and right...What about them?

*I've never met Mr. Rob Malda, so I can't attest or unattest to his personality :)

-thewldisntenuff

Re:A scary prescedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because it's true and the truth is an absolute defense (in theory).

Re:A scary prescedent?

[LurkerXXX]

You better be careful, or he will sue you. Then in a few hours, he will forget he'd done it, and he'll sue you again. Dupe lawsuits!

Re:A scary prescedent?

[twoshortplanks]

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it that's "fair comment" - at least under my (UK) law anyway. By that I don't mean that I agree with you, I mean that saying that is fine (as it's an opinion and could only be said as.)

For example, you could say that CmdrTaco does a crap job at running slashdot (that's fair comment, some people might agree, other's might not) but saying that he's crap because he's never had any computer training would be libel (after all, he majored in computer science.) In short, you're stating a fact that isn't true. Like saying someone robbed graves when they did not.

In short, you can mouth off, but if you say something that isn't true....well, google is always watching.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[a.different.perspect]

Made me laugh.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[leathered]

No, because stating that CmdrTaco sucks is an opinion and the law protects your right to make your opinions. If however you said that Mr Malda is the Goatse man and eats live kittens for breakfast and those statements are implied as fact, and you would indeed be guilty of libel.

Unless of course you know something we don't :)

Re:A scary prescedent?

[grqb]

The difference is that CmdrTaco's job doesn't exactly depend on his reputation. If you're a researcher publishing papers, credibility is one of the most important things to have, otherwise people won't beleive your results and the end result is that you won't be able to publish. This persons boss put it a good way in the article: "We need to jump on this soon as it could effect you professionally at least in Canada."

I wonder if the same award would have been given if this person wasn't a researcher who has to come up with crazy ideas in the first place.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[Peyna]

The decision was made in Canada, so it has no bearing at all on courts anywhere else.

There is also a lot more to libel than saying someone sucks; however, I'm too lazy to bother researching what the elements to libel are right now.

You'd probably have to show intent and actual damages as a minimum; and there is probably some measure of the type of statement made as to whether or not there is actually libel.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[Spad]

Correct, you can claim that CmdrTaco is an asshole without any legal worries. However, if - for example - you claimed that he was an asshole because he was using the Slashdot subscription money to fund his drug habit, then you would open yourself up to a libel lawsuit.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[Comsn]

'cmdrtaco sucks' is an opinion
'cmdrtaco sucks cock' would be an insult
'cmdrtaco killed my sister' would be libel.

ianal of course.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[blue trane]

But if I said it without malicious intent, as a joke, and if no one believed me anyway (without further evidence), so no one unsubscribed and new subscriptions did not drop as a result of the statement, it shouldn't be actionable.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

CmdrTaco is an asshole because he's using the Slashdot subscription money to fund his drug habit.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[bi_boy]

That's because only saying "CmdrTaco is an asshole" is just an opinion. Where if you say he uses the subscription money to fund his drug habit you're making claims on his actions/actions had/actions to be had?

Re:A scary prescedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if I said it without malicious intent, as a joke, and if no one believed me anyway (without further evidence), so no one unsubscribed and new subscriptions did not drop as a result of the statement, it shouldn't be actionable.

That's like saying "But if I point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, and it doesn't go off, I shouldn't be prosecuted."

That's why the law has this idea called "recklessness". The bottom line is that what you are responsible for is your own actions. "What happens next" is always, to a large extent, beyond your control; your culpability is determined at the moment when you act, not when the final consequence becomes clear.

Re:A scary prescedent?

[aussie_a]

So it's okay if I say his an asshole who fucks his mother every night? The first being an opinion the second being true?

Re:A scary prescedent?

[aussie_a]

He killed your sister too? What a co-incidence :o

Re:A scary prescedent?

[16K Ram Pack]

Does context matter too?

Like if you said "SCO are on crack", you don't have to prove that they are actually taking crack, because no-one believes that you literally meant they are taking crack.

The new get rich quick?

[Johnny Fusion]

I could use some money! Quick! Somebody say something mean about me! Call me names! Make sure it is untrue. Looks like "grave robber" is worth $125k (Canadian) I bet I can get a few of those or worse here....

Re:The new get rich quick?

[Anonymous Coward]

Johnny Fusion once kicked his three year-old nephew's puppy's head clean off just to see if he could.

Re:The new get rich quick?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're an idiot.

no, wait, that's true.

Re:The new get rich quick?

[HeliumHigh]

You insensitive clod!

Sucks to be poor, even on the internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

While the article really diden't delve into any of the facts, I was able to glean that they just sued some poor guy for all his money. The article then mentioned some legal victory of suing a homeless guy for insulting a corporation. I think this really just shows that you are only safe in the legal system from slanderous comments if you have money to back you up, if you are poor, Internet or not, you will be f'd sans reach-around.

Re:Sucks to be poor, even on the internet.

[AndroidCat]

I think it shows that being a wacko internet kook doesn't make you "judgement proof" against against someone rightfully suing your ass.

He claimed she stole human remains from his driveway. I want to know if he explained what human remains were doing on his driveway in the first place.

What are the facts of the case?

[mekkab]

If the "alleged" author actually admits to writing the e-mail, then cyber-libel becomes regular, boring, plain-ol' libel.

This article doesn't give us enough detail.

However if you are being "framed" it should be trivial for even the most junior of lawyers to cast enough resonable doubt on the e-mails authenticity.

Re:What are the facts of the case?

[zerguy]

I agree. That is why I am not specifically talking about this case. I am referring to the general situation.

Re:What are the facts of the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

However if you are being "framed" it should be trivial for even the most junior of lawyers to cast enough resonable doubt on the e-mails authenticity.

Libel is a civil offense. Here in the US, the standard of proof in civil cases is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but rather a "preponderance of the evidence". In other words, it's which side the jury believes the most.

A voice from 1982...

[Baldrson]

From a 1982 white paper concerning cyberlibel:

For example, if a libelous communication takes place, corporate lawyers for the plaintiff will bring suit against the carrier rather than the individual responsible for the communication. The rationalizations for this clearly unreasonable and contrived position are quite numerous. Without a common carrier status, the carrier will be treading on virgin ground legally and thus be unprotected by precedent. Indeed, the stakes are high enough that the competitor could easily afford to fabricate an event ideal for the purposes of such a suit. This means the first legal precedent could be in favor of holding the carrier responsible for the communications transmitted over its network, thus forcing (or giving an excuse for) the carrier to inspect, edit and censor all communications except, perhaps, simple person-to-person or "electronic mail". This, in turn, would put editorial control right back in the hands of the feudalists. Potential carriers' own lawyers are already hard at work worrying everyone about such a suit. They would like to win the battle against diversity before it begins. This is unlikely because videotex is still driven by technology and therefore by pioneers.

The question then becomes: How do we best protect against such "legal" tactics? The answer seems to be an early emphasis on secure identification of the source of communications so that there can be no question as to the individual responsible. This would preempt an attempt to hold the carrier liable. Anonymous communications, like Delphi conferencing, could even be supported as long as some individual would be willing to attach his/her name to the communication before distributing it. This would be similar, legally, to a "letters to the editor" column where a writer remains anonymous. Another measure could be to require that only individuals of legal age be allowed to author publishable communications. Yet another measure could be to require anyone who wishes to write and publish information on the network to put in writing, in an agreement separate from the standard customer agreement, that they are liable for any and all communications originating under their name on the network. This would preempt the "stolen password" excuse for holding the carrier liable.

Well, something like this is now happening in Finland.

I don't see how you can stop this

[Omniscientist]

I do not see how you can prevent someone forging an SMTP address. Its pretty easy, and any idiot can do it. Its as easy as just putting in someone elses email address in the Reply To Address field.

Of course then it'll list your true identity or IP in the header, but its not like most people who are just browsing around look at an email and question its validity. They'll see the email address and be like, ooh, I hate that guy now.
The only way we can stop that extremely easy method of identity theft is to change every single mail service to automatically use the same address for the Reply To that's being used as the incoming email address. Ain't going to happen anytime soon...but hey I hope someone defames my name around the internet so I can get a couple grand in damages :). Of course its deserved if it damages your professional reputation, but I got nothing professional about me, so defame away!

The ruiling didn't throw out reasonable doubt...

[Senjutsu]

So don't get your shirt in a knot. All the ruiling did was establish that, yes, if you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that John Smith sent the message, "It was just the internet" is not a reasonable defence against Libel charges.

easily circumventable?

[wrinkledshirt]

IANAL, but I had to read up on this stuf in journalism classes. Couldn't the person have created one of those free anonymous web pages hosted in a foreign country with the libelous accusations, and referenced it with a hyperlink?

"Cmdr Taco eats babies" -- libelous

"Cmdr Taco eats babies, says Scandinavian Web Page" -- fair game?

Re:easily circumventable?

[Anonymous Coward]

But he does eat babies...

Re:easily circumventable?

[wrinkledshirt]

But he does eat babies...

Heh, actually, there was (still is?) a provision in Canadian libel laws that said it didn't matter if you were reporting facts, but whether or not you were using those facts in an attempt to maliciously defame someone. Hard to prove that you're NOT doing this, and worse yet, the burden of proof that this was not the purpose of the published story relied upon the publisher. Good for curbing tabloid-style trash journalism, not so good for (eg) pointing out illegal practices by big Canadian-based companies in other countries.

Libel chill was (still is?) a big factor in Canadian media. It didn't matter if you were reporting a valid, newsworthy story. If the person being reported upon had deep pockets, and sensed that a story could hurt their image, they could lean on you to make sure that the story didn't come out. Worse yet, some smaller newspapers with intrepid reporters might have to have stories killed at the editorial level because the editor could sense what would or would not end up with a lawsuit landing on their doorstep.

Re:easily circumventable?

[david duncan scott]

I was just surfing through some pages on UK libel law and found this:

"It's not us saying it - we're just quoting him." One of the most common causes of libel actions is repeating statements made by people you interview and not being able to prove the truth of what they told you. In the early 90s newspapers had to pay damages to the Birmingham Six after they quoted former members of the West Midlands police as saying: "In our eyes their guilt is beyond doubt."

So, at least in the UK, maybe not such a good idea.

Re:easily circumventable?

[PerpetualMotion]

Heh, actually, there was (still is?) a provision in Canadian libel laws that said it didn't matter if you were reporting facts, but whether or not you were using those facts in an attempt to maliciously defame someone.

How does anyone get elected?

Re:easily circumventable?

[hyfe]

"Cmdr Taco eats babies, says Scandinavian Web Page" -- fair game?

Considering how strict Scandinavian libel laws are, thats probably the worst example you could have selected.

Here in Norway, its illegal for companies to make claims in commercials they can't back up even.

Re:easily circumventable?

[bigsteve@dstc]

How does anyone get elected?

As a rule, politicians don't sue people because it tends to lose them votes ...

Re:easily circumventable?

[CaptainCheese]

any good caveat will do.

"I believe Cmdr Taco eats babies" -- safe as long as you never admit lying, and that CmdrTaco cannot prove that you know he's allergic to babies.

Re:easily circumventable?

[CaptainCheese]

That's quite reasonable legislation, but the ad execs are waaay ahead of you.

I recently saw an advert where they had added clay to soap. This not an isolated incident.

Dirty Soap! These people can sell anything!

Re:easily circumventable?

[Zeinfeld]

. In the early 90s newspapers had to pay damages to the Birmingham Six after they quoted former members of the West Midlands police as saying: "In our eyes their guilt is beyond doubt."

This is a bad example to use. Ordinarily reporting conviction for a crime is not libel under English law. The exception is when the person making the statement had reason to believe that the conviction is false. There were a whole heap of circumstances in that case, the newspapers were actively campaigning against review of the cases - a very different matter.

US law is not very different when it comes to reporting rumor. The big difference is that public figures are subject to a much stricter standard. When Matt Drudge published a blatant libel against Siddney Blumenthal, passing on a GOP smear that could have been checked in minutes and found to be untrue Blumenthal was unable to bring a case.

The point about publication of rumours being libel is that if some crank comes in off the street and says that George W. Bush is a member of a secret society that worships a pagan goddess called Eulogia and the rumor is not generally known then publishing it in Time magazine or Newseweek would mean that millions now know about it. Fortunately it is safe to say it on Slashdot because it happens to be true.

Re:easily circumventable?

[david duncan scott]

Ah, but they weren't reporting their conviction--that happened in 1975. The reporting must have been in reference to their (succesful) 1991 appeal.

The point of the article was simply that, in reporting the opinion of the cop, the paper was not safe in saying, "We didn't say it--he did."

I didn't find confirmation of it, but I've slao read that the truth is not an absolute defense in the UK. In other words, saying that Tony Blair killed Ghandi, without being able to back it up, may not be a defense even if it is later shown that he in fact did kill him, because you nonetheless made a statement that you couldn't at the time document. I'm not at all certain of this, however--INAB, INAS, and INAL.

OMG! This is all Bush's fault!!!

[pdpTrojan]

I am just going to move to Can.. oh, wait.

Ooooh Guess what folks...

[Richard_at_work]

The internet is NOT immune to law, this person was libeled, and proved it in court. The judge did as he would do in any other libel case and awarded damaged to the victim, just because this is involved the internet does not make it any different to any of the other thousands of cases that go on each year in courts around the world.

Now, people will say 'oh, but email is notoriously unreliable for purposes of tracking down the origionator', but in most cases that isnt true. You can track email back to the server that sent it, and in this case the victims lawyer managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this message origionated from the defendant. And the fact that the defendant didnt even bother turning up to defend himself isnt a plus point in my humble opinion.

Re:Ooooh Guess what folks...

[Tsian]

Not to be pedantic, but, I'm guessing you didn't read the article:

"In a decision released this week, Madam Justice Wailan Low of the Ontario Superior Court sketched out a rough hierarchy of what she called "cyberlibel.""


She did what she would do in any circumstance. Interestingly, the last two appointments to the Supreme Court have been women, meaning that women comprise four of the nine justices.

About the Supreme Court: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/

Re:Ooooh Guess what folks...

[Richard_at_work]

I did read the article actually, but i was looking for more saliant points than the sex of the Judge in question.

Re:Ooooh Guess what folks...

[gad_zuki!]

This is a good ruling and its a shame there arent more (or any?) like it in the US. Its this "lawless assumption" that lets spyware writers get away with what they do. Like "pay us 19.95 to secure your computer, now we'll open your CD tray for you! Look!" That's trespassing and extortion.

The harassment issue is a serious one and the less petty vindictive fuckers out there using email or the web to smear someone the better.

Re:Ooooh Guess what folks...

[aussie_a]

And you call yourself a male. Pfawh.

Re:Slashdot editors are going to be rich now!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a very good point. Do trolls break the law without knowing it at times?

Re:Here in America

[kazoosandinstruments]

Don't mod parent down, (s)he was trying to be funny in referring to the notation of the dollar amount as "125k$" compared to the american notation, "$125k".

Caveat Lector

[Doc Ruby]

But maybe it should be different. Libel in a signed, reputable publication is much more damaging than in anonymous email, as long as the readers can tell the difference. Which we still can. Email is likely to remain 99% crap, like everything else, so this victory really belongs to the old media, which now are judged according to the lower bar of email.

Re:Caveat Lector

[Anonymous Coward]

Libel in a signed, reputable publication is much more damaging than in anonymous email, as long as the readers can tell the difference.

Unless it's a journal like the Journal of the International Defamation Society.

Re:Caveat Lector

[Anita Coney]

Why do you have a desire to post about things you know NOTHING about?!

There is no element of libel which requires it to be "signed" or in a "reputable publication." Liable can occur via the mail, via the TV, via flyers left on someone's car or from someone yelling out in public. The internet is no different from any of those other means of transmitting information.

Re:Caveat Lector

[Lehk228]

from someone yelling out in public

actually spoken word would be slander

Re:Caveat Lector

[damiangerous]

Liable can occur via the mail, via the TV, via flyers left on someone's car or from someone yelling out in public.

That would be slander.

Re:Caveat Lector

[spectecjr]

But maybe it should be different. Libel in a signed, reputable publication is much more damaging than in anonymous email, as long as the readers can tell the difference.

No, actually, it's not.

Google Groups means that, for example, newsgroup posts will now last forever.

So if you go for a job interview, better hope that there's nothing slanderous about you on Google - or they will bring it up. And possibly not hire you because of it.

If the 'net was transient, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, it is now a problem.

Re:Caveat Lector

[Doc Ruby]

Why do you have the nerve to add empty insults to your own weak arguments? Specifically, "libel" is printed words, "slander" is spoken words, and generally "defamation" is representation to damage a reputation. They differ in their media, and conmeasureately, their damage. That damage is the subject of legal remedy. Anonymous emails don't damage as much as a NY Times front page headline. Unless they somehow do, as proven in court of justice, in which case of course they're just as serious a crime. Since they don't, they're not.

BTW, smarty, it's spelled "libel". It's a lot easier to ignore your criticism when you obviously are such a weakminded reporter of your message (typical of Slashdot) - my point, exactly. You're welcome to learn a lot from these posts - caveat scriptor.

Re:Caveat Lector

[Anita Coney]

I'll say it again, there is NO element of "signed" in libel. If you know of any statute or case that says otherwise, please let me know. If you don't have any such law, then do us a favor and stop ranting about things you know nothing about!

Re:Caveat Lector

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, it is: much more damaging to be libeled in a national newspaper, even in a paid ad, than in a Google group, though the latter is more searchable. Readers expect more accuracy from reputable, signed publications, so negative info in them is more damaging than in anonymous email (though the difference is probably exagerrated). If they bring up a slanderous Google Groups reference, by definition untrue, you should of course easily defend yourself from it. If you aren't hired nevertheless, that's less a function of Google than of the potential employers: fools. And much more rare than those who'd be fooled by libel in something like the NY Times, or even the (less popular) NY Daily News, or even the (less reputable) NY Post.

I'm not claiming Internet defamation isn't a problem. I'm claiming that Internet defamation, particularly my example of anonymous email, is less damaging than libel in a signed, reputable publication. YMMV, but, if so, you're driving the wrong roads. In general, therefore under a just law, there is a difference between libel, slander, and Internet defamation.

Re:Caveat Lector

[Doc Ruby]

Let's ascend the scale from your ridiculous errors, to your mundane errors (though I won't harp on your spelling again, in the context of your criticism of my intellect). Your monotonous cries about my "ranting" about "things [I] know nothing about" are delivered with ALL CAPS SHOUTING, and excessive exclaimation points! Slightly more serious is your demand for a "signed" component to libel law, a strawman argument when I merely contrasted newspaper libel (the paradigmatic example) with the anonymous email mentioned in the story summary. Then there's your inability to understand my relatively simple comparison, possibly clouded by your rude attacks on some invented or distorted statements in my posts. Somewhere in these mistakes are floating your snotty remarks about my knowledge of issues that I have defined better than you, reasoned more carefully than you, and presented more civilly than you.

And finally, asking for favors for some self-inflated "us" just makes you look stupid enough that I'll have to explain the little joke I had, at your expense, in my last post (and thereby your last post, too). When you say that I know nothing about libel, as I distinguish it from slander and other defamation, you are defaming me, though it's hardly libel when a twit spews barely coherent outrage on Slashdot. As I so clearly demostrate in my reasoned responses to your venom, such defamation is meaningless, and boring. Wake me when you've taken out an ad in a newspaper, and I'll call my lawyer. Caveat idiot.

Re:Caveat Lector

[The Cornishman]

Most people here would sing a different tune if an incriminating but otherwise "crap" email from, say, a Utah software company CEO were to turn up. Personally, I want email to be as respected as any other medium in both personal and corporate communication.

Re:Caveat Lector

[Doc Ruby]

If SCO sent a defamatory email that showed up on Slashdot, we'd all turn on the credibility of the sender. Some of us would probably care that it couldn't be authenticated. So email's current state lets it be less defamatory of the target, than of the sender, or just noise. That's the point of my original post in this subthread.

Personally, I want both email *and* traditional media to change. I want authenticated, moderated email. And I want more cross-referenced, moderated traditional media. I want the moderation to be P2P, with each user choosing whose moderations have influence. In short, I want media to *be* mediated by people at least as much as it mediates us. But until then, people will take print and other centrally broadcast, reputable, authenticated publications more seriously than email, with all its uncertainties - often to our double detriment.

Re:A scary precedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

No - if he sues your pants off, he ought to be doing some sucking; therein is created a paradox.

Internet = Communisim

[spankey51]

I've been allocating a bit of my thinking time to internet phenomina like this and something recently occured to me: The internet (to me) seems like the perfect rendition of communisim... Not evil, McCarthy communisim, but rather the way it's supposed to function; it's adacemic, ideal form.
Everyone is the same. There is no perceived rule over the information that flows through it. Heck! even the physical infrastructure that makes the internet possible is just a suggestion; a group of standards that people aggree upon to make things work properly. I enjoy imagining a society not unlike the matrix, where I can patch in and exist in a digital way (I guess you can already, but this would be more profound) I would have millions of other people in the same universe, no rules, no private economy, just suggestions to live by... Look at how well it works right now... there is no problem with the internet asside from the fact that it interferes with life in the (excuse yet another matrix allusion) "real world"
I sincerely hope that someday, this generation will be able to experience something akin to Neil Stephenson's "Metaverse" in his CyberPunk novel: Snow Crash... Damn cool stuff if you ask me!

Re:Internet = Communisim

[16K Ram Pack]

One area that it is really level is web sites.

Try and get your story published in a newspaper. If no-one will take it and no TV stations will touch it, how does anyone see it?

Publish it on the web, and it might just spread by word-of-mouth.

Stores are the same. At one time, to get people to your store, location was very important. People bought holidays from a travel agent, and the way to hear about a travel agent was via a physical presence, and location was important.

Still haven't learned

[ducomputergeek]

People seem to still think the internet is somehow "different", new, and it is not. It is just an innovation using an electronic medium to tranmit information as opposed to paper and ink. Cyberlibal is no different than had this man made flyers from his computer and posted them around town. It is still defamation in written form. As for faking stmp headers, etc. etc., that is why there are courts and burdens of proof.

Slashdot got one thing correct using the term, "Anyomous Coward". It takes just as much courage to write and stand behind those words as it does to face bullets in battle. And sometimes standing up for what you write involves facing bullets.

Re:Still haven't learned

[david duncan scott]

So can I find you in the phonebook under "ducomputergeek"?

Re:Still haven't learned

[realityfighter]

Um.....

Innovation = something somehow "different", new.

Re:Still haven't learned

[ducomputergeek]

technically, new and different would be an invention. Innovation is an improvement on an exiting medium. Creating a tabulating machine is a basic mechanical computer. Using transisters instead of vaccum tubes, while a giant leap, would be an innovation.

Cluetrain

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not specifically about one email - the email in it's entirety were posted on a website, and asked that it be redistributed. The point of defendent's legal representation is to show the holes in prosecution's arguements - no representation, this is what you get.

$175 K is assumed to be a significant portion of his net worth - would you even bother if you were in similar circumstances?

The precedent will be overturned when proper representation happens.

Re:Cluetrain

[Anita Coney]

Why do you have the desire to post about things you know NOTHING about?!

It was a CIVIL action, not a criminal action so there was no prosecutor. You have no civil right to representation even in Canada.

The reason he was not represented by counsel was because he failed to appear. In other words a default was entered against him.

Re:$125,000?

[LurkerXXX]

Dear Mrs. Rottencrotch,

If he throws your bones away and takes the jewelry you were buried with, he's a grabe robber. If he puts your bones in a museum, he's an archaeologist.

Ooooh Guess what folks...Peek a Boo.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The internet is NOT immune to law, this person was libeled, and proved it in court. The judge did as he would do in any other libel case and awarded damaged to the victim, just because this is involved the internet does not make it any different to any of the other thousands of cases that go on each year in courts around the world."

Of course, but we live in a world were people don't want to face the consequences of their actions. That's why some P2P programs obscure your identity, and location(1).

(1) Note the irony of that, and people's attitudes towards ACs (you're nothing without a name).

Most insults don't count

[rumblin'rabbit]

Saying someone sucks, or is a jerk, or has their head firmly embedded up their backside, is not defamation. You have to make some kind of substantial statement of fact (we all understand that the head comment is not meant to be taken literally). These insults are too general and meaningless to qualify.

Saying someone drinks too much, or enjoys the services of prostitutes, or has their hand in the company till, now that's good ol' fashion defamation.

So which one applies to the commander?

Link to article print

[a.different.perspect]

Here is the print version of this article, and alternate news coverage.

From TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before this, there has been very little case law in the field of cyberlibel, although a June Ontario Court of Appeal decision was instructive. In that case, a homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.

I wonder if he paid by cash, check or credit card?

Re:From TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's some job creation scheme: Superuberultramegacorp sues the poor for a $zillon knowing that their rich stockholder judge friend will find in their favor and the government will give the poor slob a job so he can pay their corp buddies the awarded damages.

God bless the wealthy elite for thinking of us!

Yeah, but those are Canadian dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's not such a big deal. $125,000 Canadian is only worthy about $47 US or maybe 12 Euros.

On the other hand, it's close to 100 million Uruguayan pesos, so it's people from Uruguay that need to be worried here.

Re:Yeah, but those are Canadian dollars

[udowish]

hhha nice try. Look at the american pesco!!!

Re:$125,000?

[belmolis]

In this case, as far as the article tells us, there is no evidence that the archaeologist did anything at all with human remains. There are real disputes about the handling of human remains, but this doesn't seem to be one of them - Holley just made up allegations that Ross was a graverobber in order to damage her.

I know for a fact that

[Anonymous Coward]

Zerguy is a witch and so zerguy must be burned at the stake. I saw Zerguy doing unspeakable acts worshipping Satan.

Zerguy is a communist spy and so must be locked up to protect our great country.

Oh yeah, Zerguy is linked to a terrorist group.

You may choose to ignore one or two of these facts, but you'd be blind to ignore all this unrefutable evidence.

The sooner we get rid of zerguy, the sooner your kids can be safe.

For god sakes, think of the children!

Re:I know for a fact that

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw it too. I was afraid to speak up, but now that it's come to light I realize it is my duty to tell the frightening truth about Zerguy. I only hope it's not too late.

Re:I know for a fact that

[zerguy]

That made even me laugh. If I had mod points, I would mod you funny.

Article's last sentence...

[Sebby]

should be changed from:

In that case, a homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.

to

In that case, a now homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[Peter La Casse]

if it's a true statement, it's not libel.

Note that this is not true in all jurisdictions.

News?

[Nomeko]

Me and a friend sendt out a mail in 97, where we pretended to be the local police.

It was all ment to be a joke, telling another friend that their network account had been temporarily suspended due to illigal activities on the net. We thought it was hillarious as she had to be on the net to read it, but our friend didn't get it and really freaked out. Suddenly police got involved, and it was our time to panic.

Anyways, we were young back then, as well were the net.. Lesson learnt I should say. Nothing ever happened, but it put a good shock in us.

I liked this line...

[farmhick]

From the article:

It asserted that she "robbed" human remains from his driveway, in conjunction with one of her supervisors at the university.

Why is this guy keeping human remains in his driveway?

I know some families have their own burial plots on their land, but usually they don't put a driveway over it.

Re:I liked this line...

[jd]

When you add the fact that, metaphorically, he'd be running said relatives over every day, it would suggest a less-than-friendly relationship...

I notice he also didn't say if said relatives were alive or dead at the time he buried them.

Re:I liked this line...

[farmhick]

Exactly.

I had this mental image of the guys from CSI, or even Cold Case Files, figuring out how the bodies got there in his driveway.

Look out Bill Gates...here comes Michael Sims!

[Anonymous Coward]

The new 'world's richest man'!

Oh wait...it's not libel if it's true, right? ;-)

Yeesh

[g0at]

Do we need to cyberinvent new cyberterms whenever an event occurs that has to do with computers?

-b

Re:Yeesh

[Anonymous Coward]

Cyberyes!!!

What are the odds she never collects?

[Proudrooster]

I am not from Canada and don't know the legal system there and was wondering what are the odds the plantiff will acutally collect the damages? In America you can sue and get a judgement, but collecting the judgement is a whole different matter.

In fact, the Goldman's still can't get O.J. Simpson to pay up the 33 million dollars they won from him in a civil trial after the death of their son. I know that a judge can issue a bench warrant or declare someone in contempt for not showing up or paying, but that never seems to amount to much since the police don't actively try to find and arrest the person.

Re:What are the odds she never collects?

[DarkKnightRadick]

Well considering all of his old estate, including his Heisman trophy (which I thought was wrong of the judge to force him to sell), was auctioned off. If that didn't get them the $33 million (which I think is hella excessive, but that's another story entirely) then too fucking bad.

Re:What are the odds she never collects?

[belmolis]

Collecting a judgement is much the same in Canada as in the US, so yes, it could be difficult for Ross to collect. In this case an additional factor is the fact that the defendant is native. If he is a status Indian living on reserve, there are further complications. For instance, the land his house is on does not legally belong to him but is technically held in trust for his band by Canada. It cannot be sold to satisfy a judgement.

Re:What are the odds she never collects?

[Anonymous Coward]

He murdered two people, and it was "wrong" to make him sell an old trophy to pay damages?

He brutally stabbed to death two human beings, and it's wrong to attempt to bankrupt him for life?

You, sir, are a piece of shit.

Re:What are the odds she never collects?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

Re:What are the odds she never collects?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure YANAL, so can you prove that?

Re:What are the odds she never collects?

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar to the US. However, there are some things that can be done in Canada (I have no idea if they are done in the US). His bank accounts can/will be frozen, and the proceeds forwarded to the courts. They do this great thing, where money can enter the account, but nothing leaves. In Canada there are very few banks, so it is very easy to locate someones cash assets. You only have to contact about a half dozen organizations to shut this guy down. His wages can/will be garnished as well. Another poster mentioned the house, and whether this guy is a status indian on reserve or not. That would complicate things. All that I do know is, if the guy can use his house as security for borrowing, it will have a lien added to it. If not, then nothing much can be done. What it really does, is make his life a mess until he pays her out.

The biggest difference, is that the judgement is of a size that is collectable. You are in way worse shit if you are hit with a 125,000 tab, than you would be if the figure was 100 million.

anon.penet.fi

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh how I miss thee, anon.penet.fi

So sad that the "terrorists" have spoiled the anonymous remailer party.

Control-freaks everywhere; very happy.

Whistleblowers and freedom-lovers; mostly gloomy.

--Anonymous Poet

Re:anon.penet.fi

[Anonymous Coward]

You suck. I can tell that you never went to college.

Re:anon.penet.fi

[bokkepoot]

xenu be gone.

Re:The ruiling didn't throw out reasonable doubt..

[Peyna]

Beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil trial? What are they smoking up there in Canada?

Usually the standard of proof in civil cases is "a preponderance of the evidence" or "more likely than not."

You also need to be worth something

[leonbrooks]

Reading between the lines, neither Mr You Made My Wife Leave Me nor the other "homeless man" defendent were worth squat. I fail to see the point in fining someone who has no money. I also wonder about the publicity damage which would accrue from a gold company suing a homeless man. Sure, they're erratic dimwits, but there's not exactly a world shortage of same, and you can't go suing every derelict who abuses you or you'd never get any work done. AFAICT, there's 100% meatheads on both sides of the fence.

Re:You also need to be worth something

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in the archaeology world, such a claim from an aboriginal group/person IS EXTREMELY damaging.

Even if no one can prove it, it easily has the potential to cause severe harm to the defendant. She more than likely would be refused permission from all other aboriginal groups to work with them, likely her University would refuse to allow her to represent them on any project she does manage to work on, and basically if she bases a lot of her career on aboriginal projects her career would be ruined.

Aboriginal rights vs. "white" archaeology is a very sticky subject with very high tensions on either side. A seemingly small thing could make a big impact.

While I agree the fine was excessive, the defendant had no choice but to press charges if she wanted to safe guard her career as much as possible (it's probably tarnished too much already).

Though now she has to look out for further backlash from Aboriginal groups. Yes, he was in the wrong. But now she's pushed a man into poverty. Not a good thing if you're doing your work at the leisure of these groups.

Re:You also need to be worth something

[Ohreally_factor]

Reading between the lines, neither Mr You Made My Wife Leave Me nor the other "homeless man" defendent were worth squat. I fail to see the point in fining someone who has no money.

You don't need to read between the lines, you need to read for comprehension. The plaintiff was awarded damages that were approximately equivalent to the defendant's net worth. Secondly, this wasn't a fine, it was damages.

Mr. Holley did not appear in court to defend himself. Judge Low agreed that the e-mail was malicious, defamatory and untrue. General damages were pegged at $75,000 plus another $50,000 in aggravated damages.

The judge did this, knowing it amounted to hitting Mr. Holley for all he was worth, or very close to it. In her decision, she said the damages amounted to "equivalent to all or a significant portion of the defendant's assets."[emphasis mine]

Lastly, your characterization of all homeless people as erratic dimwits is, to put it bluntly, stupid.

Re:You also need to be worth something

[Sj0]

In canada it's not hard for a person to get assistance if they're homeless. I know a guy who had completely fucked his life up, but applied for welfare and ended up in an apartment not far from the college I was going to.

(bastard. Apartments in downtown Ottawa are not cheap! I'm "lucky" to be in winnipeg now, where rents are reasonable)

yeah, because "framing" people is a new concept

[SuperBanana]

I think that "cyberlibel" punishments are wrong for one very simple reason: It is exceptionally easy to frame someone.

...and did it occur to you that the entire concept of "framing people" is not new to the justice system? That we have standards of evidence and guilt? Granted the case was in Canada, but in the US, the burden of proof is quite high, at least in criminal cases- in civil cases, it's lower, but you've still got to prove well beyond, on average, what one of us would consider good enough proof.

It's one of the reasons computer crimes are hard to prove, and I think the system has dealt with it quite well. Methinks you've been watching Hackers too much.

Libel is libel.

[wilhelmgoetz]

I don't quite understand why this is cyberlibel other than it isn't quite slander (spoken 'transitory medium') and isn't quite libel (printed word). Maybe I answered my own question.

Essentially, the guy sent a chain email falsely impugning the professional character of the anthropologist. This was felt to negatively affect her character/professional outlook, and he was awarded damages. From the power of email, he was able to tell a lot more people, but it isn't really all that different from calling a thirty people and asking them to call 30 more ... with false information.

For big corporations, it would be very hard to disprove statements you made about them if you say something general, like they suck. However, if you say 'Company X kills to make use of zombie labor', they might have a case against you.

Re:Libel is libel.

[Anita Coney]

It's not. Libel is a false statement that is printed, published, or broadcast about an individual which tends to bring that person into public ridicule, contempt, hatred or inflicts injury to his or her occupation or business. Merely because it's placed on the internet makes no difference.

The only reason this is a story because those in charge of Slashdot obviously have no legal training whatsoever!

Re:Libel is libel.

[wilhelmgoetz]

The fact that this made the news, though, as opposed to most libel cases, makes it worthwhile to discuss ... at least to say it shouldn't have made the news.

Re:$125,000?

[AndroidCat]

If he digs you up in a thousands years, puts you in a museum, and you call him a grave robber, then I'd call him a necromancer.

how to respond to psychos

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you RTFA, this guy's obviously a raving loon who can't even type properly, libeling people over the internet. So, it would seem, was the homeless man referenced at the end of the article. This happens CONSTANTLY, and anyone who knows anything about online culture can tell you that the proper response is to issue one public, civil correction, and then let their brain damage speak for itself. Dragging the matter to a court only demeans you and the justice system, unless your innocence was really in question, and people with neither money nor sanity deserve pity, not fines.

Re:how to respond to psychos

[jd]

I'd tend to agree. Nobody is likely to collect, so it doesn't benefit the victim of the slander, and the person who did the slandering is still ill so is likely to do the same thing again, with little to no understanding of the consequences.

The suggestion you made (refutation) still doesn't correct the underlying problem that the person doing the slandering/libelling is likely ill and needs help. It might correct the problem, it might not, but it won't stop it recurring.

Although this would be much more expensive, on a per-case basis, it might be cheaper (and ethically sounder) in the long run to place the person under observation for a while, maybe do a range of tests, see if the person has a treatable disorder that hasn't been detected or treated.

This gets into a different grey-area, though - who defines what is a disorder? And does society have the right to impose even such observations, never mind the treatments (if any)? Different generations have used different standards and accepted different degrees of interference.

However, I can't help but think that if society had a greater overall level of clarity of thought, it would be better equipt to figure such nasty conundrums out. If it continues to spend all of its resources fighting within itself, it's never going to figure out anything at all.

Re:how to respond to psychos

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy isn't ill. He is one of those wonderful natives, that live their lives with their hands out. The guy probably doesn't work, certainly pays no taxes, and says that "whitey" ruined his life, and owes him (where the fuck do they think all their money comes from? From selling banock?). Despite free education, as far as he cares to go, and hundreds of other perks, paid for by those who work, this guy probably didn't take advantage of it. Most don't. If they can't spend it at the LCBO on beer, its no benefit. That is also our fault. As are cars, unless they want one, rifles, same, roads, tv, satelite, electricity, etc.... These assholes really piss me off.

Before this gets modded down as a racist post, let me fill you in on a few things. My brother is native (adopted). Because of privacy laws, he is not eligible for any of these native benefits. Thanks god for that. He learned how to work his ass of, went through school (on his dime), and passed his CA (same as CPA in the US). I would be willing to bet that he is one of a VERY few from his band to do ANYTHING other than get drunk, dabble in heroin, and do time. Any westcoast cree from whiterock care to tell me how wrong I am? Maybe I should stop before his birth parents figure out who it is and try to sue for parental support so they can go out drinking this weekend.

In short, this guy is not sick. He is under educated, sure. He is a professional complainer, sure. Will he do it again, if he can gain from it, sure. Rest assured, this whole thing likely started over money that he expected would be paid to him, for doing nothing.

Jurisdictional problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the bigger issue for 'cyberlibel' or defamation actions online is the obvious jurisdictional issue. The internet knows no borders but the law does. Libel laws vary greatly between countries. For example in Australia in some jurisdictions (Qld?) you can still be sued for defamation even if what you have said is true!

It is hardly fair if someone says something which is not libelous in their home jurisdiction but is libelous in another jurisdiction. Nonetheless courts (in Australia at least) are not being very realistic on these sorts of questions. Dow Jones recently had to settle a libel case brought by a Melbourne business man for information defaming him being uploaded onto a server in the U.S. and downloaded by a handful of news service subscribers.

Personally I think most people should get over themselves. Sticks and stones people!

Re:Jurisdictional problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

For example in Australia in some jurisdictions (Qld?) you can still be sued for defamation even if what you have said is true!

Duh. You can sue anyone for anything at any time.

Winning the lawsuit is another matter.

Re:Slashdot editors are going to be rich now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do trolls break the law without knowing it at times?

Perhaps some are unaware that their behavior is unlawful, but many must know that the crap they get up to is on the wrong side of the law. I guess they're aware that in the vast majority of cases nobody in authority gives a rats ass.

I was a regular on a family-oriented message board which was eventually closed down due to the actions of a single persistent troll. He posted some of the nastiest things I've seen anywhere, and his behavior (with full log info) was reported to the various relevant ISPs, agencies, etc, numerous times.

Freebie! Zero. Zip. Nada...

The "authorities" appealed to eventually told us to quit bugging them and call the FBI!

Precedent or President?

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost expected another Anti-Bush remark when I saw the title.

Gold bars, perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

All that glistens is not gold.

No, This Is Right

[reallocate]

So long as the person bringing suit can show that the email at issue was actually written and sent by the person whose name is on it, the possibility of bogus addresses is not relevant. In other words, I only need to prove one email is authentic. I don't need to prove that it is impossible to send a forged email message. If I can't prove who wrote that one email, no one will be punished. (Actually, a suit is not a criminal action. It is a civil case in which people who lose pay damages to the person who brought the suit. It is retribution, not punishment.)

Similarly, a prosecutor has no need to prove that anyone of the billions of people on the planet did not shoot and kill the murder victim. A prosecutor only needs to prove that the plaintiff did the shooting.

Re:No, This Is Right

[zerguy]

Yes, but proving that one email is authentic can't be done. Also, suits do punish people via punitive damages.

Re:No, This Is Right

[AndrewRUK]

It is entirely possible to prove an email is authentic. For example, any PGP signed email was signed by the owner of the key that signed that message. And, as other posters have pointed out, the issue of dealing with alleged forgeries is one the courts have been dealing with for a long time - fundamentally, the fact that someone can forge email in your name is no different to the fact that someone can forge paper documents in your name. Why does everyone think that something being on a computer, or online, suddenly means that all similar past situations and experiences are irrelevent?
Or, of course, the author might admit they wrote something, in wich case the question of proving the authenticity is moot.

Re:No, This Is Right

[zerguy]

Well, if you are stupid enough to PGP-sign a document, you're screwed.
Even so, how can the courts verify your PGP key really belongs to you?

Re:No, This Is Right

[bigsteve@dstc]

Even so, how can the courts verify your PGP key really belongs to you?

If you want to see if a paper signature is a forgery, you compare it against other examples.

Similarly, you can verify that a PGP key belongs to someone by looking at other emails of theirs signed with the PGP key in question. Does the writing style match? Are the email headers similar?

Of course, this isn't absolute proof, but a judge or jury only needs proof "beyond reasonable doubt" ... based on all of the admitted evidence.

Re:No, This Is Right

[reallocate]

>>"Why does everyone think that something being on a computer, or online, suddenly means that all similar past situations and experiences are irrelevent?"

Good question. When I've dealt with lawyers about Internet issues, they've made it very clear that the mode of transmission or broadcast, or the mode pof publication, have no bearing on issues like this, or on copyright cases. E.g., a known lie remains a known lie whether it is published on the front page of your local newspaper or posted on your blog.

You can't handle....

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the truth is not always a complete defence in a libel action...

In Australia in New South Wales you must also show a
public interest in the publication of defamatory material.

Huh?

[SetupWeasel]

Lying about someone and smearing their image is libel in Canada? We call that "Politics" here in the states.

Um

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting slanderous remarks on a popular website, where millions of users might pick them up and circulate them, might be one the more egregious uses of technology.

The judge clearly doesn't read Slashdot.

Re:Um

[jd]

The requirements of slander include that the statements are untrue. Slashdot readers, being highly cultured, well-read, and mannered enough to RTFA before commenting, are obviously incapable of slander.

Well, apart from those who marked me as a foe. They're just nuts, though.

Re:Here in America

[Pxtl]

Actually, that is odd notation - I don't see it here in Canada either.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[damiangerous]

Considering that defamation in the form of libel/slander is defined as "issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm" I don't see how that could be the case. There are perhaps jurisdictions where saying harmful but true things are actionable but those are, by definition, not libel/slander.

Re:Here in America

[JustOK]

Probally the french version. They use a comma instead of a decimal too. Plus, its like they have a different word for almost everything.

jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all used to Slashmorons spouting off about legal matters which they obviously know nothing about. But to confuse criminal law with fucking common law is completely over the top. Guilt? Innocent? Reasonable doubt? Remind me again what any of this has to do with COMMON law?

Sucks even more to be stupid, even on the Internet

[Arawak]

Please, cry me a river. According to what was reported, the guy ran a scam with the intended effect of ruining someone's career -- surely easily equivalent to $150k in real damages -- and we are supposed to somehow feel that it is and injustice when he gets punished in kind?

BTW, someone who had $150k in clear assets was not *that* poor. NOW, he's poor.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[tomstdenis]

In Canada the "truth" has to be in the publics best interest as well.

So yes, technically outing a co-worker because they were actually a bed-wetter in the 9th grade could be libelous even if it's true and well documented.

Tom

but

[Trepidity]

What if he was using the Slashdot subscription money to fund his drug habit? Then you'd be okay.

(Also, is posting a comment like this insinuating that said claim might be true libel, despite the fact that it does not outright assert it?)

Re:but

[Anonymous Coward]

No, and it shouldn't be even without the "what if", because if taken in context, it's obviously not a serious allegation. However, sadly it seems that sentences taken out of context can be used for serious allegations (Keith Hansen, Scientology, "Tom Cruise missiles", terrorist threats...uhh).

Re:but

[Tim C]

What if he was using the Slashdot subscription money to fund his drug habit? Then you'd be okay.

Only if he didn't sue, or sued and you were able to prove your case. Something being true doesn't automatically win you the lawsuit, unfortunately.

Lawrence Godfrey anyone? Cyber-libel in 1994.

[whoever57]

A simple search on Google shows Lawrence Godfrey's libel cases going back to 1994.

So how is this news?

Re:Lawrence Godfrey anyone? Cyber-libel in 1994.

[Etrigan]

Godfrey settled out of court with Demon (after a key part of Demon's defence was struck down) so nothing binding in terms of judgement took place in court.

Also, different juristictions. Godfrey took place in the UK.

Re:Lawrence Godfrey anyone? Cyber-libel in 1994.

[whoever57]

Godfrey settled out of court with Demon (after a key part of Demon's defence was struck down) so nothing binding in terms of judgement took place in court.

IIRC, his 1994 case did result in a judgement, not a settlement. Furthermore, the later case against Demon Internet was rather different: it was against an ISP for not removing the libellous articles, both the 1994 and the case in the story were cases where the defendent was the person who authored the libelous articles.

Also, different juristictions. Godfrey took place in the UK.

What's your point? The story was about a case in Canada -- depending on where you live, that would also be a "different jurisdiction". Furthermore, don't Canadian courts take into account British decisions?

The Ideals of the Internet Have been degraded

[lzygenius]

"People seem to think there is a level of anonymity to e-mail and the Internet. And that it's a lawless area," said winning lawyer Berkley Sells. "And clearly it is not, nor should it be."

Re:The Ideals of the Internet Have been degraded

[lzygenius]

Oops sticky tab key here is what I meant to post:

"And clearly it is not, nor should it be."

Whatever happened to the ideal of the internet as an area of self-sovreignty? The internet should be an area where opinions are openly expressed no matter if you disagree with them or not; that is the basic premise of freedom of speech.

Re:The Ideals of the Internet Have been degraded

[Anonymous Coward]

Opinion != libel

ontario where is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

i forget ontario is a subset of FREE QUEBEC or not?

Whatever... don't listen to this guy

[Ghostgate]

He stole human remains from my driveway last night! Tell your friends!!

IMHO

[nFriedly]

well, IMHO, most or all of what he's worth seemed a little harsh punishment. half i could understand though.

also the last paragraph seemed a bit off:

"Before this, there has been very little case law in the field of cyberlibel, although a June Ontario Court of Appeal decision was instructive. In that case, a homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings."

Now, if this guys homeless, hows he getting online? Does he have dial up to his cardboard box... maby in a library, but it still seems a little strange to me

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[AstroDrabb]

In Canada the "truth" has to be in the publics best interest as well.

Man that sucks. So truth is only good if it "is in the publics best interest"? An just _who_ gets to decide whether something is in the "publics best interest"?

A scary prescedent?-Kingpin.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...you claimed that he was an asshole because he was using the Slashdot subscription money to fund his drug habit..."

He is? I'm always the last one to know.

Re:Sucks even more to be stupid, even on the Inter

[kannibal_klown]

I agree (with the first part). This guy deserved what he had coming. Ruining a career is major. I can't understand why some people are saying it's "outrageous." It's not like it was a stupid prank or he was just being annoying, this was an extreme act.

As for the last part, that's "assets." A nice decent house can easily clear $150k. Sure, he's not poor, but that doesn't make him rich. But, then again, after paying this off he's probably not that well off anymore.

149.101.1.32

[Anonymous Coward]

OrgName: US Dept of Justice

wondering if there is any real precedent here

[Aropax20]

Depends where a libel suit is (allegedly) committed...

IIRC, the truth is NOT a defence in some places, for eg the state of New South Wales in Australia (but it can be a defence in other Aussie states)

Of course, when you're talking something like email, which spans (and ignores) international and other geopolitical boundaries, there's a whole can of worms there just waiting for a tin opener...

What happens if someone say, in Italy, is accused of libelling/defaming someone in, say, Kenya - using the internet, where the damaging material passes through servers in knows how many other countries?

Thinking about what parent said, about suing trolls on /. for libel, the other thing to consider is that J. Random /.-er tends to use a nick, and never their real name.

The folks in the libel suit in the article were using real names, making the (allegedly) injured party very indentifiable to the public, especially as they were in the same town.

I'm not sure if a person using can sue for libel, if neither party is truly identifiable.

Thoughts on the matter, anyone?

I wonder if a can of worms could make good food for thought...

In American money

[Dorsai65]

that would be $1.59 (just kidding, Canada!)

Re:In American money

[Lorean]

Please go educate yourself on the current state of the U.S. Canadian exchange rates.

Re:Here in America

[shufler]

Neither do I, and it's not like it came from the article, since it clearly states it as $125,000.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[shufler]

Obviously me, the Self Proclaimed King of the Public.

ugh, screwed up the link

[Ohreally_factor]

Here's another joke. =)

Keep this up!

[Rsriram]

Keep this up and Cmdr Taco will soon be a rich man:-)

Re:Keep this up!

[Anonymous Coward]

But on the other hand, Slashdot will have headaches since they now have to deal with a lot of libel complaints when the Moderators are accused of being on Crack, and I guess that Moderators don't find that very nice...

I have a reasonable sample to work with...

[leonbrooks]

...since

your characterization of all homeless people as erratic dimwits is, to put it bluntly, stupid.

I occasionally help a soup fan to feed same. Dimwits, only a few. Erratic, yes, many.

When you're off your moral high horse, let me know the basis for your objection.

Re:I have a reasonable sample to work with...

[Anonymous Coward]

A soup fan?

I guess that's expedient, but doesn't it end up wasting a lot of soup and causing a big mess?

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[aussie_a]

Since when did Canada become a jurisdiction?

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[Sj0]

Considering the amount of made up information regarding canadas laws in that respect, could you please point me to the part of the legal code where that is the case?

I don't remember seeing anything to that effect in the laws I've read first-hand regarding the truth. In fact, the laws I recall give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and say that if there's reason to believe that they thought they were speaking the truth in good faith, they're still off the hook.

Not quite "rich"

[DongleFondle]

Yeah, but you're forgetting, $125k Canadian is roughy equivalent to about 15 bucks US or 10 GBP.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself, eh.

Re:Not quite "rich"

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats funny as hell! BTW, have you opened a newspaper in the last couple of months? Notice the US dollar falling into the shitter? Here are your conversions as of today.

125,000 CAD = 104,825 US
125,000 CAD = 56,512.50 GBP
125,000 CAD = 80,837.50 EURO

Here http://www.bankofcanada.ca/fx/iexe0102.gif is a link to the bank of canada, showing a graph of the CAD vs USD. To summarize it for you,

Aug 13 04 1.33CAD == 1 USD
Nov 12 04 1.19CAD == 1 USD

I would guess that looking at the US economy, fiscal policy, and budget, the US dollar is in a world of trouble (would that be a "New World Order" of trouble?).

thats my 0.02

Re:The ruiling didn't throw out reasonable doubt..

[fishwallop]

The Canadian civil stadard is "balance of probabilities", not "reasonable doubt". The grandparent poster is misinformed.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[tomstdenis]

Sections 309 through 315 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42515.html

The jist of it

- Always must be reasonably true
309 - public interest
310 - public conduct in public affairs
311 - past public interest
312 - if it was invited
313 - you were asked for it
314 - relevent character reference
315 - "righting a wrong"

So just because something is true doesn't mean you can always publish it. For example, a company can't legally black ball you unless it's relevent to the employement.

For example, if you make for a bad waiter the company can't then turn to your next employer [who is seeking a reference] and say "he's a lousy candidate for taxi driver because he can't wait tables". [ok admitedly far fetched example but ...]

It wouldn't be relevent to the new job and therefore the "contempt" shown and saught "section 298" would be libel.

Tom

Re:The ruiling didn't throw out reasonable doubt..

[Peyna]

I figured it wasn't "reasonable doubt." I was just making a point that most people hear, "beyond a reasonable doubt," on TV and assume that is what the standard is in every trial.

Read the Article for Pete's sake

[DarthVain]

Unless you were just trying to be funny...

1) Guy is Native
2) Lives essientally on Ancient grave yard (I assume related)
3) Guy being slandered is Archologist (a la Indiana Jones)
4) So what he was saying is that the Archologist was 'grave robbing' on his property.
5) looks like they have dissagreement
6) guy tries to ruin others professional life
7) guy sues and judge agrees in favor making dammages equate that of most the personal wealth of the other guy.
8 .

Maybe he should sue for libel.

[realityfighter]

Court documents indicate that Mr. Holley has long acted erratically, especially as he came to blame the archeologist for the breakdown of his marriage.

Ummm....as long as we're talking about libel, why is this paper reporting on the man's personal life? It looks to me like this is a malicious attempt to make the defendant seem mentally unstable and to devalue his free speech rights by justification of his (vaguely reported) "erratic" behavior. Newspapers aren't supposed to do this, guys.

Notice that there seems to have been no investigation into the man's claims...it's just assumed that he made them up (since, of course, he's mentally unstable.) So the question becomes one of "how can we set a precedent to punish this guy?", not "Are these allegations true or false?" That may not be the way the court heard the case, but that's certainly the way this paper is reporting it.

Personally, I'd sue the pants off the newspaper for libeling me. In fact, since they put this article online I should sue them twice!. Ohhh...except the newspaper has a big fat wad of money and probably a lawyer on staff. It's so much easier when the defendant can't spell and owns so little property that one lawsuit is going to bankrupt him.

The kicker, though, is that when this "carreer-damaging" email actually made it to someone who gave a damn (namely the plaintiff's boss), it was completely ineffective. The boss assumed, as it was natural to assume given that the source had a history of erratic behavior, that the email was a lie. He then encouraged the lawsuit just to make sure that no one else accidentally believed it. This means that at no point did the offending message convince anyone of import that the plaintiff really was a grave robber.

Still, even ineffective libel is libel. Libel just means saying something intended to harm - it doesn't actually have to harm anyone. We should punish all cases of this behavior with equal force of the law. But I've got a few targets we should go after first. News Corporation, for a start. Both political parties in this past U.S. election. SCO would be a good target too, as would Microsoft. These companies libel each other, and whoever else stands in their way, without any legal repercussions. Maybe we should go after them first, instead of that guy with the mean chain letter.

Facts

[phorm]

The problem with facts is that they aren't "truth" unless all the facts are presented.

I could write a big blurb about "CmdrTaco walks around naked," and make it sound like he is a flasher or something similar... when in reality he does walk around naked but only in the privacy of his own home.

I could see reasons for such a law, I just hope it's clear enough that it isn't abused.

Destination

[phorm]

It depends also on the destination though. While an front-page article in the local newpaper might be particularly damaging, sending emails to a person's co-workers going into details accusations of something such as child molestation, for example, can have disasterous consequences. The gravity of the accusation would quite likely leave some wondering as to whether or not the accused individual is guilty. I've often wondered about this and slander though, as it's not uncommon for divorced/divorcing mothers and fathers will use the "my spouse molests children" tactic to smear the other or try to win custody.

Re:Destination

[Doc Ruby]

Just as "truth" is a defense against libel charges, however grave or reputably sourced either the nonlibel or the libel charges, so too is "incredible" a defense against slander itself. People are free overreact to serious lies, but the liability is in the credulous believer as much as in the incredible liar. Internet publishing can be much more nuanced in effect than mass media publishing, or physical speech in physical public places. But the fundamental justice principle of damage, remedy, and reasonable people remain.

Yup, that's part of my head-scratching...

[leonbrooks]

...she didn't exactly pave the way for future research.

Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent..

[Peter La Casse]

Considering that defamation in the form of libel/slander is defined as "issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm" I don't see how that could be the case.

That's not the only definition of libel. It can also be defined as "A malicious publication expressed either in print or in writing, or by pictures, effigies, or other signs, tending to expose another to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule." (from dictionary.com)

My understanding is that in some legal jurisdictions, truthfulness alone is not enough to exempt someone from charges of defamation/libel/slander; for example, some places might require that the statement(s) also be free of malice.

When I wrote my post, I was treating "libel" as a legal term that is defined and punished differently from place to place. The term you used, "defamation", is a better one for that use.