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

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:Except that email can be forged

[iii_rjm]

So can papers and signatures. What is your point?

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?

[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.

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.

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?

[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.

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: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

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.

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

[MikeXpop]

He already did