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."

Comments

Re:The only

[QMO]

According to the article, the Post published allegations about sexual harassment that got the guy fired. These allegations were later found to be baseless, but the Post has never printed a retraction or made any attempt to make ammends.

Is this article (in Globeandmail) more trustworthy than the ones (in the Washington Post) that got the dude fired? I don't know, but that's what I get from it.

Depends on the libel laws

[wiredog]

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.

Re:Depends on the libel laws

[Pxtl]

While I don't know for sure (IANAL) I know that Canada, being a British colony, actually uses caselaw that predates Confederation - that is, Canadian courts use British caselaw that exists from before the time that Canada became a soveirgn nation. So, if the British policy on libel predates Canada, then yes, the same law will apply.

Re:Depends on the libel laws

[legojenn]

Standard disclaimer: I am not a constitutional lawyer, or another kind of lawyer, so this is not legal advice.

Canada is not a British colony. It was one and uses British common-law as its base. I am not a lawyer and I can't say which year Canada ceased to be a colony 1982, 1931, 1867, 1848-1849. I would assume a combinaton of the middle two. Anyow, you pick. Each of those years marked some sort of devolution of power to Canada to manage its own affairs. Nevertheless common-law is just that, common. Canadian courts do rely on foreign precedents and so do US courts. Use a search engine and enter the search criteria of: use of foreign precedents.

In any event, all federal laws pertaining to libel and this provincial law have been written or amended since 1982, so the issue of UK law applying to Canada is moot.

I am still shocked that an Ontario court would hear this case. If the Post had contracted banner ads to direct people with IPs known to be in Canada to their site and that article, then I could see how the plaintiff has could have standing in an Ontario court, but the action was performed in DC, for the DC/MA/North VA market, maybe the US market. I dunno, what are the US newspapers of record? Regardless, the libel occurred in the US. I agree with the mob; the case should be tried there.

Re:Depends on the libel laws

[ikegami]

I wouldn't put much stock into the parent post. Laws change a lot over 100s of years, and not all of Canada uses a law system based on the British system. Some parts (Québec) use a law system based on the French system.

Re:Depends on the libel laws

[WGR]

Wrong. Canada did not become independent in 1867, it just became one colony of four provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) instead of four separate colonies. Its foreign policy was still determined by the United Kingdom and the British appointed Governor-General could strike down any law.

Canada (as well as Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and South Africa) did not become fully independent until 1931 under the Statute of Westminster, in which Britain renounced all of its claims on any Commonwealth "Dominion". Newfoundland later went bankrupt during the depression and reverted to being a colony, which it was until 1949 when it joined Canada as the 10th province.

Re:Media Lies Protection Appeal

[gillbates]

being found to be liable in Canada for something they said in Washington DC

So their website was only accessible from DC?

Anything posted on the net is basically said everywhere. One has to keep in ming the net makes no distinctions regarding geographical or national boundaries. You can't really fault the judge in this case, because the libel did occur in his jurisdiction . Even though the Post was physically located in DC, their internet presence extended to every place with internet accessibility. If they were concerned about not breaking Canadian laws, they should have blocked Canada from accessing their web site.

Yeah, it is kind of chilling. But the net is an international medium; you can't assume that just because something is legal in your country that you can posted it on your internationally visible website.

Of course, you shouldn't be allowed to lie about anyone - and the Post is lucky he wasn't allowed to sue in America (home of the *Big Money* *Cash Prizes* legal firms...)