Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada's Wayne Crookes Sues the Net

Posted by kdawson on from the shotgun-doesn't-begin-to-cover-it dept.

newtley writes "Wayne Crookes, the Green Party of Canada's ex-financier, is in effect trying to sue the Internet. He's going after the Wikipedia, Google, and openpolitics.ca (run up by federal Green Party activist Michael Pilling) claiming he's suffered, 'an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress' over postings. Some 15 others may also have been targeted. "Mr. Crookes seems to be 'trying to unwrite history,' Pilling says. 'He was a central figure in the growth of the Green Party. His actions were highly controversial and if we have freedom of speech in this country, people should be allowed to talk about them.'" Newtley adds in a posting submitted 121 minutes later: "Literally 15 minutes after I posted [the foregoing], there was a knock on my door. It was a writ server telling me I, too, have been named in a lawsuit launched by Wayne Crookes..."

5 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. submitter's conflict of interest by bhouston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The submitter of this post is in a position of conflict of interest and appears to be using SlashDot as a means to denigrate the individual behind the lawsuit. As it is clear from newtley's post, newtley himself is highly been involved in whatever shenanigans that are going on here. It is unfortunate and dishonest that newtley is using this forum as a platform to smear his opponent. Just from newtley's egregious behavior here, I can imagine that aspects of this case have more merit that he is portraying.

    1. Re:submitter's conflict of interest by bhouston · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The submitter is trying to "warn others" about what exactly? The case is about libel, the spreading of false information that is designed to cause harm to a person's reputation and their ability to conduct themselves in society. Being able to libel someone is not a right, it is not about freedom of speech, it is not about the truth. Whether this is in fact libel is not for me to decide, since I don't have the facts, but if it is this libel, Crookes is within his right to sue those that are purposefully trying to cause him harm for damages. I don't think he'll have much success with Google, but the individuals behind it should be held accountable if it is indeed libel, even if they are trying to be anonymous here or on Wikipedia.

    2. Re:submitter's conflict of interest by bhouston · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do realize that this is formally a "libel case" as per the G&M story. This means that Crooke is alleging and will have to prove in court that the material in question is of an untrue nature. Thus from Crooke's perspective, this is not a case about "negative information" but about untrue information. Of course Crooke could be wrong, if he is, he sure will be wasting a lot of money on these suits.

      You also claim that this lawsuit is a SLAPP. But typical SLAPPs lawsuits differ from this one though in an important way, Crooke has sued two very large firms that have more than enough money to defend themselves: Google and Wikipedia. SLAPPs, since they are based on intimating people who can't afford to defend themselves, usually are targeted only against small folk, not the big guys. Google and Wikipedia are unlikely to fold simply because the lawsuit was filed, and thus I do not believe this particular lawsuit of Crooke can be classified as your SLAPP.

    3. Re:submitter's conflict of interest by lordmatthias215 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm calling BS on this statement. Nothing in this guy's post could honestly be taken as smear- not any more than any other /. article. The fact of the matter is that this Crookes man doesn't like what is being posted about him on open forums, and is suing the editors of said forums for comments that not only did they not make, but that they disavow any ownership of in their legal disclaimers, as does any open forum. Furthermore, Michael Piling, head of OpenPolitics, even edited the offensive material, only to have the original material reposted by the user. How is Piling deserving of a lawsuit for something that is not only not his fault, but that he tried to correct to the wishes of Crookes? It'd be one thing if the lawsuit was for refusing to release the names or IP addresses of the users commiting libel, as that could be (mis)construed as aiding and abetting criminals, but even that would be a pretty weak case. Furthermore, I notice that the lawsuit against Wikipedia was made April 16, though Crookes' entry on the site was cut to a stub and protected nearly a month earlier, on March 19. Besides, he will need to prove to a court that the statements made on these sites were not only false (which shouldn't be too hard) but made with malignant intent something that will be nearly impossible to prove against anonymous users, and absolutely impossible to prove against the hosts of public forums who have made efforts to edit, remove, and block said harmful statements from appearing on their sites.

  2. Self defeating strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I had never heard of this guy before. Now I have heard of him and I think he's an idiot. He has found an amazingly effective way to destroy his own reputation.