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
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! --
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
... 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.
Who modded this insightful? Do you think GWB and Co. are going to cross the border to sue in an Ontario court? What's their basis for jurisdiction gonna be? This guy actually lives and works in Ontario, for starters.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?