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."
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'm a little embarassed too, but if the ruling is upheld, I will gain more confidence in the system than ever before. Everyone makes mistakes, I guess that's inevitable. But if the mistakes can be fixed with few or no repercussions, then there's no point in holding a grudge I suppose.
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.
Not sure I get it either. It does seem suspicious that the suit was able to be successfully filed in Ontario instead of DC, but other than the venue, this is just a plain old libel suit.
;)
Arguing where the suit is allowed to be filed is just what you do when you're uncertain of your ability to win on the facts
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).
> Make him pay a fine? His money's not in the UK. They'd have to get these things from the US, and the US would refuse.
Isn't it interesting how they indeed refuse such things, yet demand from other countries that they extradite their citizens to the USA so the USA can apply its own law abroad? In a specific case they went to the point of taking military action even (tho the guy in question no doubt deserved it)
If people wonder why outsiders consider the USA bad and hypocrit, think about those things again maybe.
I too am embarassed, by your ignorance. You do realize the Post published lies right? The press has ruined many a life over the years, it's about time someone bit back.
Freedom of speech is about the freedom to state opinion or fact and when stating facts the onus is on the speaker to backup those facts.
You should be able to sue IF the publisher knew for a fact that the charges were baseless OR if the publisher levied the baseless charges. You should not be able to sue someone because an article that REPORTS on the charges remains in an archive that only one person has paid to see.
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?
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
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?
The Washington Post did break the law, whether Canada or the U.S. The result would be the same regardless.
If so, fine, run the case in the country where the act was done. Hell, that would be quicker cheaper and easier than an appellate battle in the wrong country. The fact that the outcome is "correct" does not make it valid. It's still wrong and it simply sets president for more broken cases across the globe where the result *will* be wrong.
There was no argument to show that D.C. was better than Ontario, so it was left in Ontario.
How about the fact that the publishing was done there? When someone does something they should be subject to the law where they do it. The fact that this post can be seen everywhere on earth does not mean I should be subject to every law on earth.
If I say Allah does not exist, well the "damage" may be in Iran, but there's no way in hell I'm supposed to know Iranian law nor should I be subject to Iranian law.
Just because I say the judge in this case is an idiot does not mean I should be subject to Canadian law when I post it. Just because I mention someone else does not mean I am supposed to reseach and be bound by the law where THEY are. Is teh Post supposed to be suject to Chineese law when they write about the head of the Chineese government, or when they write about Taiwan? Are they supposed to be subject to Cuban law when they write about Castro?
Should Canadians be subject to US law when they write about Bush?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.