Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Media Organizations Join Forces to Fight Canadian Ruling

Posted by samzenpus on from the if-you-don't-have-anything-nice-to-say dept.

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."

10 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Not sure I get this one. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Not sure I get this one. by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > 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.

  2. Media Lies Protection Appeal by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Media Lies Protection Appeal by Aim+Here · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem isn't with the Post being found to have libelled someone, it's with them being found to be liable in Canada for something they said in Washington DC. The right course of action for this libel victim is to have sued them where the infringing actions took place, which is where the website is, and which is in the US.

      If this sort of thing is allowed to continue, how long before I can be convicted under some foreign dictatorship's censorship laws for something I said a thousand miles away?

    2. Re:Media Lies Protection Appeal by gordo3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The post didn't malliciously lie about this guy. They didn't decide to go after this man by destroyin his reputation(like the McCarthy trials). There was, at the time, some proof that he was involved in illegal activities and the post reported on it. By your exact logic, President Bush could sue almost every media outlet in the world(especially those that post online) because of those false documents about his military record or OJ simpson suing every news outlet that called him a murderer.

      People shouldn't have their hands tied from reporting based on the facts available. Its why we call them reporters and not detectives. I hope this gets struck down simply because if we want to have a society where we are kept up to date we have to allow for these people to report based on bad information once in a while. As long as it wasn't meant to crush the man's reputation out of spite, its fair game(ie. they had a good reason to believe at the time of reporting that this is true).

      Now I will say it would be the responsibility of the Post to probably directly link to that article another article about how he was found not guilty of the crime. But I won't say they need to actually be 100% certain every time they report something that every fact is accurate.

  3. Re:Speaking of which... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congrats of being the first Slashdotter arguing over no less than two pixels of inaccurate text.

  4. Depends on the libel laws by wiredog · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  5. Re:Speaking of which... by S.O.B. · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have you ever heard of a dependent clause?

    Is he related to Santa Claus? :D

    --
    Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  6. This is not a bad ruling... by spiritraveller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Not a surprise - this happens a lot in Canada by StandardCell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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 /.ers the most welcoming place for free speech lately, there are other places that are far worse.