Slashdot Mirror
Media Organizations Join Forces to Fight Canadian Ruling
csaila writes "Some of the world's big media outlets (including CBC, CNN, Guardian, The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, Reuters, and -- as well as Amazon, AOL, Google and Yahoo) are appealing a Canadian court ruling threatening both free speech and the Net. The ruling stems from a former UN employee who successfully sued the Washington Post in Ontario for libel, arguing that because the Post's Web site carried the story. his reputation had been "damaged" in that province."
Perhaps this ruling might threaten the US' part of that thar intarweb, but I don't think the rest of the world's 'free speech' on the web will be too affected.
Washington Post in Ontario for libel, arguing that because the Post's Web site carried the story. his reputation had been "damaged" in that province.
Talk about poor journalism. Isn't that supposed to be a comma after story?
Just goes to prove, when it comes to court rulings, we can be just as brain-dead as our beloved American cousins!
If VISTA is the answer, you didn't understand the question
For once, I hope the CBC can be part of something good here.
I'm a Canadian, so this partially affects me. I think it's good that we have corporations and organizations at our back defending our right to say what we want to say on the Net.
Even though they don't really give a rat's ass about us personally (they probably somehow see this is as potential harm to their revenue) I'm glad they're stepping in and doing something about it.
Mr. Bangoura said, "I have total confidence in our system of justice." So do I.
The newspaper moved to have the case dismissed and argued that if it were allowed to proceed in Ontario, any news organization could be sued anywhere over material posted on its website.
Their defense doesn't appear to be "What we posted that got him fired was truthful", but rather that if you allow the lawsuit to proceed that you could hold anyone responsible for what they post on the Internet anywhere in the world.
On the one hand, how do you protect true speech if someone who posts it can be sued everywhere in the world, but on the other hand how do you protect everyone in the world from people posting false speech?
I'm a big tall mofo.
What's with the "quotes" around "damaged"? The Post lied about this poor guy, and damaged his reputation: in Toronto and everywhere else people could read it. The Washington Post has a responsibility to check their facts before publishing them. Why are they not accountable for their lies? What about all their other lies? When they damage your reputation in a place, they should pay the price there. These other global media giants are getting behind the appeal because they don't want to be accountable for their lies. Freedom of the press doesn't include freedom to lie, just like freedom to swing my arms doesn't include freedom to punch you in the nose. The damage occurs at your nose, not at my fist.
--
make install -not war
protection against libel is the truth.
Was the media telling the truth about this guy's character or action or whatever?
I think this is ridiculous. I just can't see how they can try and use internet access as an excuse to make more money out of a court case.
If this were the case, Paris Hilton could sue for every province that her video was accessible from the internet. In fact, all celebrities could sue someone on these same grounds.br>
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --
From the legal documents it looks like the plaintiff sued for libel, and the motion was suspended, but the plaintiff was granted the right to recover costs of around $7,500 (Canadian, one supposes).
Not at all clear how this affects free speach one way or another.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
... the internet is an anarchy - this is inherant in the design it is totally unreasonable to expect companies to police what someone else posts on a very large website, its simply not cost effective.
Server restart. Look at the uptime sidebar.
One of the things that I wonder about, not being a lawyer, is how this would actually impact the individual. Let us say that you live in Europe and the Washington Post issued a story on their website (viewed in Europe) that was incorrect, and you wanted to sue for libel. Should you then have to file in the United States - and have to pay charges to go there, legal fees in the US, etc?
I'm not saying one is better than another, because I can see some benefits to the 'consumer' in both instances. I'm just curious what the law is now, for a newspaper. If the newspaper was sent to Europe and someone sued for libel - do they have to file in the US?
I guess my concern would be that internet companies based in countries with different laws or other sort of barriers to suing for libel would make it so that they could print anything - or is that already the case?
I'm just not sure how companies standing up to defend themselves against being sued in a foreign country for publishing rumors and innuendo is a 'free speech' issue. It sounds like they just want to make anyone suing them have to do so in the country where they are hosted.
because it's an American company being sued by a former UN official, just remember who has the largest arsenal of lawyers in the world.
If this decision is upheld on appeal, watch conservative groups target "liberal" newspapers when they print bad things about Bush and company.
"Some of the world's big media outlets (including CBC, CNN, Guardian, The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, Reuters, and -- as well as Amazon, AOL, Google and Yahoo) are appealing a Canadian court ruling threatening both free speech and the Net.
Freedom of speech, doesn't implement the freedom of publishing a lie.
In the US the plaintiff has to prove that what was said was false, and in a case such as this, that there was malice. In the UK the defendant has to prove that what was said is true, which can be much more difficult, especially if off the record sources are used.
Best Slashdot Co
This can be compared to Tim Paterson suing over the "paternity" of MS-DOS. I don't know why no one made any issues about journalistic freedom over that case (even on slashdot).
UN workers are at the forefront of child care in the Congo.
Consider also the swift and effective response of the UN regarding the non-problems in Darfur.
I, for one, feel safer because of the UN.
They publish an uncomfortable truth, and it's read online in a country where that particular truth is illegal to express?
Best Slashdot Co
It would be much easier to know whom to side with after reading what the newspaper wrote.
So, what's going to happen here?
I mean, imagine tha WaPo failed to defend itself. Would the judge be able to forbid the sale of the WaPo in that province? And then forbid the viewing of the WaPo web site in the province?
Are we going to see judges impose PRC-style blocks on national internet access, based on a given country's laws concerning libel?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
IIRC, libel is where whatever is being sued-over is untrue. So what's the big deal here? Most newspaper web sites carry stories from their print versions. Just because something is stored on a web server does not mean that it can be a lie. Or have I misunderstood?
Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
This is a question about the limits of local laws have over content available from sources outside of their domain.
Yes the post maligned this guy. They may have even lied about it. It does look like they reported what they had without researching it completely. This type of stuff happens all the time.
The key issue here is that this guy is sueing in Ontario, where he did not live at the time the article was created. Worse he is sueing because the article is still available through archives.
Bad reporting should be identified but it should never be removed from the public's access. The slippery slope is that if you start to curtail the availability to erroneous documents because they damage someone how long before truthful stuff gets edited or restricted in distribution?
The only way to prevent offense to people in this persons situation would be to expunge the story from all sources accessible from the net. That is not a solution that I even believe is possible.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
the lawyer named Roach. That's priceless.
Note that there is no "Ruling" as suggested by the article here. The only decision that has been made is that the man's case can be heard in an Ontario court. Hold those knees back for now, folks.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
This is nonsense.
Firstly, he is suing 8 years after the fact.
Why did he not sue the paper at the time he got fired by the UN.
Why did he wait for 8 years, move to another country, and then sue?
Secondly, if having access to an archive, in this case on-line, makes the publisher liable for libel lawsuits, then what is to stop people moving to other jurisdictions and suing a publisher over and over again, just because the archive tarnishes their reputation in their hew home town.
I agree that what the paper did was wrong, it initially cost the guy his job, but that was 8 years ago!
This does not really affect free speech directly.
You should be able to sue anyone for libel if you can prove being adversly affected by the lies made.
But it does affect freedom of information.
This will mean that anyone maintaining a publicly accessible archive of old articles will be liable for any lies said in those articles, even if they are later repudiated.
The judge needs to exert that Canadian common sense and realise that if a person looks in an archive and finds some information they should have the sense to check it's validity.
[Should I sue ietf for maintaining obsolescent RFC's?]
This decision is likely to make organisations, especially news organisation and caching services [like google et. al.], less likely to open up their archives.
Which is a bad thing(TM).
watashi wa bengoshi dewa arimasen!
So, in a nutshell you are saying that they (the court) need both Subject Matter Jurisdiction (location of the tort of defamation), but also Personal Jurisdiction (the power to enforce the court's will upon the defendant).
And, that while the court may have Subject Matter Jurisdiction, they will only rarely have Personal Jurisdiction (unless you have business assets or physically travel to the country).
I'll add fortunately we don't have a World Government with a "Full Faith and Credit" clause. So, judgements in the UK are rarely enforced within the US and vice versa.
(mmm, I seem to Like Capit[a|o]l Letters Today)
Leela: Hey look, that's William Branigin's court case.
Fry: Wow, the William Branigin?
Leela: Uh-huh.
Fry: Who's the William Branigin?
Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
It's an epitaph right?
I think the Bush family should sue CBS! Hi oh!
Seriously, run an article saying "oops, our bad, sorry man" on the front page. There, problem solved.
"The UN fired Mr. Bangoura in 1997 after two articles in The Washington Post accused him of sexual harassment and financial improprieties. A UN tribunal later found the allegations baseless and said he should be compensated and reinstated."
Canadian law means the Post has to justify why publishing information which was insufficiently investigated and found to be untrue but caused the guy to be fired is not cause to pay damages. It's hilarious that all manner of stupid stuff can be sued for in US courts but slander and defamation are almost impossible to pursue.
They can restrict their site to US IPs if they don't want to be sued elsewhere. As the ruling noted, no-one made the Post create an internet site, it was a marketing decision. There are consequences, and now the Post realises that.
Out of anger, I once referred to a fellow poster as a 'buttlord' on a showbiz-related web forum.
If this prevents him from ever finding work again in straight porn, can I be sued?
Mr. Bangoura, a Canadian citizen, sued the Post for libel and argued that because the newspaper posted the story on its website, his reputation had been damaged in Ontario.
The newspaper moved to have the case dismissed and argued that if it were allowed to proceed in Ontario, any news organization could be sued anywhere over material posted on its website.
Moral of the story do some proper journalism check your facts don't lie and don't moan at others for your mistakes.
Freedom of speech is not a right to lie.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
He didn't evene live in Ontario at the time of the publications which tarinshed his reputation... I under stand sueing the paper, even winning a suit for defamation of character (based on the fact that the allegations have no foundation). Winning the suit because "Those who publish via the Internet are aware of the global reach of their publications, and must consider the legal consequences in the jurisdiction of the subjects of their articles"... that's just insane.
I better go check my website and tear down and defaming thing that I've ever said and anyone... oh my god, the insanity of living in Ontario!
The ruling essentially boils down to the observation that, when you post on the Web, you post everywhere. I don't see recognition per se of this obvious fact as a threat to free speech or the WWW.
The problem seems to be that in some parts of the world it apparently is possible to be sued for reporting the fact that *someone else* has made allegations, the subject of which finds them unwelcome. Your average USian finds that a very strange definition of "libel" and it's not surprising that people at a U.S. newspaper would have difficulty thinking in such terms.
Notice also that this is not the end of the case, but rather a ruling that it may begin. The judge is willing to decide whether libel was actually committed, regardless of the fact that the defendant's offices are in another country. The final dispostion of the case could still be a disaster for the plaintiff. The judge hasn't said how he's going to decide, only that he's willing to listen to the parties' arguments.
If there's a threat to free speech, it was there in the law all along, Internet or no. By this ruling the Post would have been just as liable (or not) if it sells a significant number of physical papers in the province. The threat, if any, applies equally to local news media, since it lies in the local definition of libel. If it really is true that it is illegal in Canada for newspapers to print anything about a citizen that that citizen doesn't like, *that* is what should worry champions of free speech.
... that our laws stop at our borders.
I totally agree that journalists should be exempt from libel lawsuits without a showing of malice.
But that doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree with us. They are free to set their own laws and to ignore ours.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Suppose the ruling is thrown out?
I could move to a country where libel isn't illegal (or perhaps considerably more lax). I could set up a website there, and slander people, government and organizations all I want. It wouldn't matter that 90% of my readers are in Canada or the United States, I'd be free to publish what I want.
This ruling does not say that you can be sued in Canada for posting something on your website in New York. It says that the Washington Post can be sued in Canada... because they do business there!
If your company does business in a country, it should be suable in that country. Freedom of the Press should provide protection under the substantive law of a country... but it just goes way too far to give complete protection from any jurisdiction.
Basically, the Washington Post wants a sort of diplomatic immunity for the press... which is absurd.
>arguing that because the Post's Web site carried the story. his reputation had been "damaged" in that province."
:S
and
>threatening both free speech and the Net
Yeah, his reputation must be restored after doing that.
"...it's good that we have corporations and organizations at our back defending our right..."
It's Twilight-Zone Slashdot!
"PoprocksCk was an average soul, then one morning he thanked big money for upholding his freedom of speech. He's entered: the Twilight-Zone!"
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
This sentence would fit into what my wife, an editor, would call "Can be corrected, but needs rewrite".
Correctly rendered as written, it ought to be:
The ruling stems from a former UN employee who successfully sued the Washington Post in Ontario for libel, arguing that, because the Post's Web site carried the story, his reputation had been "damaged" in that province.
Better:
The ruling stems from a former UN employee who successfully sued the Washington Post in Ontario for libel. He argued that his reputation had been "damaged" in that province when the Post's web site there carried the story.
Never confuse volume with power.
There is an important line in the article, "the Post had seven subscribers in Ontario when the article appeared", I believe that by accepting Ontario subscribers they would be considered as doing business in Ontario. If they do business in Ontario they have to abide Canadian libel law.
This isn't a freedom of speech on the internet case. This is news agency doing business in a foreign country and not wanting to abide to their laws.
Just a hypothetical question,
If a media outlet prints, online or otherwise, something which is libelous and goes on to sell and profit from that libelous story, why shouldn't they be held accountable in the location they sold that information?
Indeed, the Washington Post does sell subscriptions in Ontario. Why should media outlets be any different than any other product with respect to liabilities in the place of sale?
Since it's only Libel if it's not true, then I say yes. Make the newspapers ensure that they are publishing the FACTS not the guesses. Make them responsable for what they write sinc if it's true no court would punish them for writing it anyway.
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
Well, let's be honest here. While I'm often eager to point out that the world and the net is bigger than any one country, there's an important principle of solidarity at stake. When individual countries' freedoms are eroded like this, it tends to put more pressure on the remaining countries to cave-in too. It's never good when freedom is lost, no matter how insignificant it seems at the time.
The plaintiff probably isn't suing due to the damage to his reputation in Ontario, Canada with stronger libel laws just provides a convenient way to to take revenge on the Post.
Most of you who aren't Canadian aren't aware of the severe restrictions on free speech in Canada. For one, "hate" speech is restricted, i.e. you cannot disparage a particular identifiable group. This is why Ernst Zundel was just deported to Germany for spreading "hate" and Jim Keegstra was convicted of spreading hate. The reality is that, while they should have lost their jobs, they shouldn't have been arrested and convicted for saying what they did.
/.ers the most welcoming place for free speech lately, there are other places that are far worse.
Even more significant is the freedom of the press, where journalists had their personal files seized unilaterally by police who were trying to investigate a "leak" in their department due to corruption. At least those reporters in the US who refused to identify their sources probably still have what they have.
The reality, however, is that the only cure for the negative aspects of free speech is more free speech. As long as someone is not specifically attempting to incite violence or other acts of crime against an individual, or is commiting libel, they should be able to say whatever they want. A great article on the erosion of free speech rights in Canada is available here.
One thing is certain - even though the US may not be to many
This is the part that really sucks about this. It wasn't even a crime in Ontario when they published this. He moved there afterwards, and then got upset. This should have been thrown out as ex post facto the moment it was filed. Instead some stupid judge ruled for him. This has got to be overturned, and hard. Otherwise the court is basically claiming that The Washington Post should have been able to see into the future and known he would someday move to Ontario and be libeled at that yet to be reached time.
If it was true libel, he should have been able to successfully sue them at the time of publication in their home city or state.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
We got slopes on the wire, man! Slopes on the wire! You hear 'em?
yeah.
WELL BUST 'EM!
If the Post had printed a decent apology after the tribunal reinstated him, his lawyer would probably have advised him against pursuing the action as the Post would be able to show they acted in good faith and did their best to correct the error. Instead it looks like the Post wouldn't do that.
From TFRuling - he was looking for:
(a) An order directing the Post to cease and desist in the publication of certain false and injurious communications concerning the plaintiff that have appeared on its web page continuously since January 1997.
(b) An order directing the Post to prominently publish a retraction of the false statements made about the plaintiff commencing in the articles of January 5, January 9 and January 10, 1997 and continuing to the present time on its website.
So now we go to trial, where the Post has an opportunity to defend its coverage. It will possibly assert that the UN tribunal reinstated him but that is not proof their allegations were untrue. So they can still win, they just have to prove the veracity of what they printed and if they can't why they wouldn't pull the story from the website and apologise.
What if the report had been broadcast on AM radio from DC, and picked up in Ontario via a skip off the ionosphere? Could the guy still have sued then? The radio station obviously would have known that the signal could be picked up virtually anywhere in the world. The same logic could be applied here as with the internet publication.
I don't get this one. Media organizations want to, what, limit the venue here?
The damage occured in Ontario, the Post is international. It has an office in Toronto, and subscribers, and an INTERNET site that continued to publish the material.
There is no connection between most of the defendents and Ontario, but they don't have a connection with Washington either. It's a push.
The damage, however, occured in Ontario. And so Ontario gets jurisdiction.
Of course, the ruling may not be enforced in the U.S. But it isn't about money, its about reputation. The Post may well find themselves in contempt of Court here in Ontario. Wouldn't be good for their reputation. ("Blame it on Canada")
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Except that an American mulinational is affected?
If people don't want to be affected by foreign laws maybe their goverments should get together and agree that their laws not have extra-territorial scope.
One one hand, if you can claim damage from any jurisdiction, freedom of speech gets reduced to essentially nothing (remember that your reputation may be damaged in a country that is neither the source of the claim, nor yours). On the other hand, if you have to sue in the originating country, you can "shop around" for libel laws.
For instance, let's say I have a corporation here in Norway, but doing business in scandinavia. An US newspaper makes a libelous statement about me, can I then sue in Norway, Sweden and Denmark? Sounds wierd, and would reduce free speech to nothing (not by those three countries mind you, try replacing with China + a few other)
On the other hand, it sounds equally wierd if I were to sue under US law. Would you calculate the damage based on local (i.e. US) law? Suddenly it pays off to make the libelous statement from countries with the least possible libel protection and penalties.
Distribution over the internet is user-initiated. It is kind of the same as if the Canadians drove to the US, bought a paper and brought it home. Should the Washington Post be sued for that too? I don't think so... At the same time, it feels really wierd to be able to place it on a server abroad and present libel against your neighbor. I'm glad I don't have to decide this one, don't think I'm comfortable with it either way.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
To what extent does a company need to do business in a country in order to consider "they do business there!"
Don't get me wrong. Your post is the most interesting that I've found on this story; but does (do, for you wacky Brits)The Washington Post have a headquarters in Ontario? Do they own a Canadian newspaper as a separate company? I don't know; but consider this:
I custom build and ship Aster*sk boxes for SOHO. I ship about 5 boxes/month across the border, and sell 40/month here in the states. Is that enough for me to "do business there"? Other than the clients that purchased from me, would anyone be able to sue me in Canadian court for something they thought was libel on my website?
What about a northern competitor that doesn't like that I'm taking a part of "his cut" of the SOHO PBX (Small Office/Home Office, Private Branch Exchange, check digium.com if you don't know what Aster*sk is.) market? Can he start forcing me into Canadian courts with frivilous false advertising claims or whatnot? That's a pretty scary thought for anyone trying to do business on the web. Although I suppose I could be safe and refuse those few orders each month, making me much less profitable.
put the what in the where?
I don't understand how this guy can cite damages in Ontario. Who reads the Washington Post in ONTARIO?
I might start, though, depending on how good their comics section is...
In Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (July 11, 2002), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Katherine Griffis could not enforce a default judgement from Alabama on a libel suit filed against Mariane Luban, a resident of Minnesota, for Luban's allegedly libelous comments about Griffis on Usenet News, because Ms. Luban has no presence in, and does not do business, in Alabama and the mere publication on the Internet did not give the courts in Alabama jurisdiction over her. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on appeal, so the case represents the law as it stands now in the U.S. From the syllabus (summary) of the case:
This is further bolstered by other cases, of which someone posted a list, include Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F. Supp.2d 717 (E.D. Pa.1999); English Sports Betting, Inc. v. Tostigan, 2002 WL 461592 (E. D. Pa. March 15, 2002); Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F. 3d 256(4th Cir. 2002); Pavlovich v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 58 P. 3d 2 (Cal. 2002).
This goes along with the general rule that a person should only be expect to be subject to suit where they maintain some presence. To provide otherwise would be manifest insanity as you couldn't defend yourself from thousands of lawsuits filed in courts all over the country where you have no involvement and no reason to expect to be sued. Now this would, of course, be a big problem if you're in an accident in your home town and the guy who hit you lives 1,000 miles away; you might not be able to afford to sue them for damages if it's minor. But they solved that one. When you operate an automobile, and you are involved in an accident, under the Drivers' License Compact, you agree to allow the administrator of the Department of Motor Vehicles or equivalent agency of the state where the accident occurred to accept service on your behalf if you are not a resident of that state. Thus if you are involved in an accident, you may be sued in the state where you reside or in the state where the accident occurred, but you can't be sued in the state where the plaintiff lives or anyplace else because there is no jurisdiction.
The Washington Post does not do business in the Province of Ontario, has no contacts with it, and its article wasn't targeting Ontario specifically, thus under U.S. Law there is no grounds for them to be sued in Ontario for what they wrote in a newspaper and a website which are published in the District of Columbia. Even if the plaintiff wins, they can't get a judgement enforced here because of lack of jurisdiction, so it's a pyrrihic victory if they can even prove it to be libelous.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
I believe in some jurisdictions - and I think the U.K. is one of them - even truth of the statement doesn't necessarily provide protection against a successful suit for libel.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
1. The ruling on the case seems to be correct. This was a libel case and the evidence seems to clearly support libel. He was accussed of some nasty things by the Washington Post and an investigation proven them to be baseless. No problem here.
2. As to the jurisdiction, the ruling on the forum clearly shows the reasoning. There are only two potentially relevant forums for this case. There are a variety of considerations for the correct forum. It was in D.C. that the story was actually written and the authour resides. However, it was in Ontario that the damage was done to the plaintiff's reputation. The plaintiff has no reputation in Washington (never lived there, no job, no family, etc.). Furthermore, though written in Washington, the Post is available world-wide and especially through the internet where this set of articles was published. As far as witnesses, they're in several places but no more in Washington than Ontario. Case law states that if no better forum can be found then the plaintiff's choice of forum should be left undisturbed. There was no argument to show that D.C. was better than Ontario, so it was left in Ontario.
While the plaintiff did not permanently live in Ontario at the time of the first posting of this article, he was moving around a lot and spent much of his time in Ontario. Plus the libel continued for years including the time since he's become a permanent resident of Ontario. Put another way, there's no other forum that would be more appropriate for which damage was done to his reputation.
In short, the court made a fairly solid argument for keeping it in Ontario. It also noted, with references, that the chosen forum rarely affects the outcome of the case. Even if this had been heard in D.C. it should have come out with a similar ruling. This all seems well researched, documented, and argued. I'd appreciate it if someone could find a flaw in the reasoning (after reading the whole thing, since Slashdotters are known to make arguments against things they've never actually read). I'm always open to hear good objective debate on these things, so if his reasoning is flawed I'd like to see where.
3. The claim that this is harmful to free speech seems baseless, and almost propaganda. The Washington Post did break the law, whether Canada or the U.S. The result would be the same regardless. Libel isn't free speech and this ruling doesn't affect free speech. There are also many cases prior this where a person breaks the laws of one country from outside its borders. There's a whole field in international law. In fact, the plaintiff had a doctorate in international law. This is not new.
In short, this is blown way out of proportion. The Post did something wrong and got spanked for it. End of story. No new law, no bizarre rulings, despite the wild claims of the media (who have an obvious bias in this case, in additional to their natural tendancy to sensationalize things). Move along, nothing to see here.
"it's with them being found to be liable in Canada for something they said in Washington DC."
This is the sort of thing that NAFTA ushered in*; We canucks have to worry about breaking american law, it's about time the converse has become recognized as a problem.
It's the sort of problem that trade deals with china will usher in with both the US and Canada. Wait for it; It will be illegal to say anything "libelous" or "defamatory" about anything specific in the PRC;
*I'm pretty sure. NAFTA was a very difficult read--if I'm mistaken please correct me
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
the crackdown on potheads came way before this guy got deported.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
There are reasons why corporations and public figures who would like to suppress true and embarrassing stories try to sue in the UK. Is Canada going to be the next mecca for that sort of crap?
Tech Public Policy stuff
I can't believe I get to do this twice in two days! Since this sentiment is always echoed in reverse whenever our government does something stupid like this: "Thank God I live in America, where this kind of stuff doesn't happen."
This has happened before. A few years ago, a businessman based in Melbourne, Australia successfully sued the New York Times for defamation as their website was available in Melbourne (where his reputation was damaged).
/. at the time. Do a google search for Joe Gutnick and you'll probably find some links to the case.
I don't have a link available, but this was covered extensively on
For the past several years, according to the judge's decision, case law has clearly stated that online publishers cannot feign ignorance of the global reach of their publications.
Is this decision really threatening free speech and the gloabl dissemination of information? If that information is libelous, I surely hope so. Sounds to me like some companies that benefit from glabalization aren't liking some of the effects. For a $7000 (Canadian, even) judgement, there sure is a lot of heavy lawyering going on.
Everything everywhere. Wasn't that the point?
Gutnik versus Dow Jones
/.ers should consider these: most nations have nothing like the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights. In Australia, support for a bill of rights is confined to the political left with the (conservative) National Party and the Liberal Party both adamantly opposed to the idea and the Labor Party being lukewarm at best. This is a common attitude worldwide.
The Canadian ruling is based on a precedent from Australia. In 2002 Joseph Gutnik sued Dow Jones for defamation based on a report on its Barrons website casting doubt on administration of his companies. Dow Jones maintained that their publication was in New Jersey and was protected by US laws and free speech principles. Gutnik claimed that the damage done by publication was in the Australian state of Victoria, where his operations are headquartered.
The Australian High Court (equivalent to the US Supreme Court) ruled in his favour. The Canadian court has now extended that judgement to Canada. My prediction is that the Australian ruling will now be used as precedent world wide.
US
In practice, free speech on the web is unaffected, unless and until a government, or a powerful individual (these days "powerful individual" == "local capitalist") takes against a particular publication. Even then there's mirroring, archiving etc, so individuals might eb able to slip between the cracks.
But US media outlets are in for a surprise. Defamation laws in Australia and Canada are similar to those in many other nations and our courts view US media as irresponsible. They seem to be able to publish exaggerations, character assassination, half truths, assumptions, fictions and deliberate lies and claim protection under "freedom of speech". There's not much sypathy for that with juries.
Expect similar decisions as time goes by.
No, it's not an undue burden of care. Such corrections need be made only when an affected party provides one. No harm, no foul.
The Post seems to be arguing that it should not be required to clean up its own messes. This is really no different from expecting Microsoft to patch a security hole after being notified of its existence. Failure to do so is irresponsible and shows reckless disregard for the impugned party as well as the Post's own credibility.
Mommy ... [ Insert your country here ] called me names. They are not playing fair ... I wanted to rule the world so everything would suck !!!
OH ... wait ... am I going to get sued now ... or maybe held on treason ??
I think that the movie "Team America World Police" could be a documentary.
Michael.
Linux: For those able to think out side of a window