Slashdot Mirror
Can a Blogroll Be Defamatory?
An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation, has added Michael Geist to his hit list. Geist is a well-known Canadian law professor and blogger. His offense: linking on his blog to site that links to another site that contains material allegedly of a defamatory nature. (Others would characterize that material as historical facts about Crooks's tenure at the helm of the Canadian Green Party.)
One of the differences up here from the American system is that if (and I hope, when) Mr Crookes loses this case, then he can look forward to paying the costs of the defendants.
Usually that acts as a strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits. I guess it doesn't always work, but it'll be nice to see the big fat bill forthcoming.
An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation
Yeah, well, things have really gone down the tubes lately, if you know what I mean.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
it's made of paper after all!
Oh wait, you asked if a Blogroll can be Defamatory.
I thought you asked if a Bogroll can be Inflammatory.
Summation 2
Crap, I'd better take down my links to Google.
everyone repost the articles in question. lets see him sue everyone. douche bags like him need to be taught the lesson that the courts are NOT there to shut people up who simply don't like you or disagree with your world view.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I once had the misfortune to work for a company where the CEO was a litigious [noun censored]. This is not good when you are (in my case) Company Secretary. Basically he used to put together a convincing sounding scenario of what he claimed had happened, consult a lawyer, be told we had a good chance of winning. The lawyer would then ask me, as CS, to submit the documents in the case and I would have to tell him that they said something different or did not exist. The lawyer would then tell the CEO to forget it, and the CEO would vow never to work with that bent lawyer again, especially when the bill arrived. This happened with increasing frequency after he actually won a case which, in fact, was really the other side's fault and was clear cut. The one thing he never for one moment considered was that he might be wrong.
The simple fact is, and I take no credit for saying it because any CS would have done the same, without intervention he would have bankrupted to company and not cared, because all he was interested in was having his own way.
I've since learned it is not an uncommon personality type. I think it has much in common with compulsive gambling and drug addiction.
Not, of course, that I would for one microsecond suggest that it has any bearing on this case, except to demonstrate that you cannot assume that losing cases and paying costs will deter litigious people.
Pining for the fjords
The disadvantage to loser-automatically-pays is that it's extremely risky for an injured individual to sue a large corporation, even if he's right, because the corporation can afford much better lawyers (and therefore has an unequally high chance of winning, even if they're wrong), and usually has much higher legal costs. So if you lose you're not just out your own legal costs and the court's costs, you're out the legal costs of the corporation that had injured you.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
No-one link to http://google.com/ - they've got links to all sort of dodgy stuff on there.
I don't know about Canada, but in Denmark the accuser has to pay what the judge estimates the defense ought to cost, not the actual cost. So if your lawyer is any good, you will have to pay most of his salary yourself, even if you win.
I thought it was the same way in American Courts as well?
I seem to remember it used to be.
But then again, I was stopped at a stoplight in broad daylight and got hit by a lady in a very nice new cadillac. She not only didn't see me and just failed to stop in time, she never had the brakes and hit me so hard I slid forward as she bounced off my Jeep's rear spare and managed to hit me again. All of this was of course in front of a hospital. So the ambulance arrived and they insisted my neck was tender enough I need to get it x-rayed. So as the police arrive late, I leave my license, registration and insurance on the seat while the EMTs take me away on the board. The cop stops us at the ambulance and says my insurance isn't there. The EMTs push me back over and the wind blew it over onto the passenger seat, where I can't reach because I'm taped down. Plus the EMTs are pushing me to get to the hospital ASAP because I have a history of pain complications making me barf. So I point at it and he says "sorry lady, you have to hand it to me, i'm citing you for failure to prove insurance". He tickets me and sticks it under my neckbrace. I'm like wtf silently? In the ambulance the guys explain to me that the lady who hit me is the widow of a fireman. They tell me that its a loyalty thing, cops and fireman stick together so he has to give me attitude.
Three weeks later in court with my letter to prove I had insurance. I'm sitting up front waiting for my turn, its the time I was given to show up. The DA calls a familiar name. Its the lady that hit me. (She never bothered to get out of her car to see if I was alright, btw.) I'm in a freaking neck brace because she herniated a disc. So she goes up to the DA and starts crying about her former husband, and tells him she didn't see me at the stop light because the sun was too bright. BS she coming at me from under an overpass. She is only 4 feet tall though. She might not be able to see over her caddy's dashboard. The DA hugs her and says he won't charge her because of her husbands loyal duty to the city of Aurora. He then asks her if she can afford her court costs of $60. She starts crying and tells him no, that since her husband has been gone, she can't make ends meet. (except for that fancy loaded Caddy out there) and firemen get a pretty good pension in CO too, so I think she was just greedy. The DA says ok, don't worry, we'll work it out, you go home and rest up. Then he calls my name.
His demeanor changes. He tells me that I was driving without proof of insurance and will have two points removed from my license for a year unless i have a letter to prove otherwise. I show him the letter and he begrudingly accepts it. He lectures me that leaving a license, registration or insurance card on a seat for a police officer to pick up is not allowed. I must hand them to the officer. I interrupted to explain the situation with my injury, and he said that doesn't matter--you are still obligated to hand all three to the officer. So I asked the DA, if I'm unconscious and bleeding to death shall I have someone staple them to my hand? He got pissed but so was I at this point.
I said, I read the police report, I went and got a copy of it under the freedom of information act. The lady that hit me has a record of several reckless driving warnings recently and she failed to prove any insurance at the scene of the accident. The police officer not only didn't ticket her for that, but he let her off for reckless driving because she's a widow of a firefighter. Now, I respect what her husband did for Aurora, but I don't think she should get treated differently than I do. Especially if she is endangering other's health with her careless driving, and has no insurance to help pay for damages she causes. She has no insurance. He agreed to that. But then he said. She is on a fixed income, whereas Ms. XXXXX you are making a generous income and so I am going to require you to pay both parties court costs
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
So, he would sue Kevin Bacon?
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Why stop at six, maybe there's life out there...
Isn't that called a countersuit when you are the defense, and you want the other side to pay the costs if and when you win?
If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
The solution to this was worked out some time ago.
The loser should pay a value based on their own costs to the winner. This means that both sides have a vested interest in only spending as much on legal fees as neccesary.
Mr Crookes [removed to avoid potential liability], however [removed to avoid potential liability] and [removed to avoid potential liability]. So, in fact [removed to avoid potential liability] and to be honest [removed just in case].
Have a nice day. DISCLAIMER: The author of this post does not guarantee that your day will be nice. Moreover, the author of this post is not responsible for any damages resulting in your trying to have a nice day.
If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
I'm not sure if its called a countersuit, I'll ask my sister who is a DA and reply.
And I agree, It was stupid to sign it, because yes, it basically admitted I was less financially burdened than she was. I didn't sign anything saying I was at fault for the accident though or that I wasn't insured. Who knows, maybe the car she was driving was some rich friend's car. Maybe she is burdened and her firefighter husband didn't get his pension because of some other factors I don't know of. I made my point to the DA in very loud voice in front of a court room full of people that were bored and several of them were paying attention. No thats not an excuse for fighting the system, but in truth, I was working half time because I suffer from severe treatment resistent depression. That makes it hard enough for me to stand up for what I believe in.
I chose the easy path because most of the time its all I can do to make it through the day and get my job done before falling apart and going to bed. I spend so much time fighting my disease I didn't have enough fight left to do what I would have done before the disease changed me.
Your points are important none-the-less. Even though I couldn't make the difference, I don't think everyone takes the attitude that "why bother, I'm only one person". My sister certainly didn't, she went and got a law degree. She became part of the system in the hopes to change it that way. And I admire the hell out of her for that. She's darn good at what she does.
When I finally get well enough from this disease to start functioning better, I will stop putting up with crap like that, because I agree full-heartedly with your final statement. If I happen to get chosen to moderate in the next 12 hours I'll mod your post up as insightful too.
Thanks for the info and insight and reading my dang long post. I'd send you a cyber Guinness or drink of your choice if I could.
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
The only thing you achieve by submitting to corruption, is encourage it. Yes they deserve respect for their jobs, but that doesn't give them the right to trample over your rights in the process.
Saying that, reality can be pretty harsh on ideals, but if it was me, i would of done everything in my power to make that officer regret ticking me. But perhaps thats just me, as my friends know i go off like a cracker over corruption/abuse of power
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
Section 298 and onward defines Defamatory Libel in the Canadian Code.
So far "linking" to a page that links to a page that publishes libel isn't illegal. So Geist is very safe provided he doesn't publish [or cause to be published] anything libelous on his own.
The paper analogy would be like suing the corner store that sells a newspaper that happen to have carried a libelous story. That wouldn't hold up in court, neither will this.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Even if your costs cannot be justified as required to support your case?
In the UK both sides have a requirement to mitigate any losses incurred, which INCLUDES legal fees. For example, hiring 100 expert witnesses which do not really have a bearing on the case would get those costs removed as frivolous.
PLus, we have a great small claims court system - for up to £5k claims a filing fee of about £35 gets you a hearing in front of a magistrate. Costs are capped and in general no lawyers are involved - in fact a magistrate is likely to look ill on a company that brings a horde of lawyers to defend a case brought by a member of the public. As a result most companies settle - it costs them too much to want to go through it unless they are 100% sure they'll win.
As poignant as your story is, I don't understand your subject title. And this all has to do "with this administration" in.... what way? Like the same thing wouldn't have happened during the Clinton admin., or the whoever-comes-next admin? C'mon... the system is corrupt on all sides.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
You can't take the sky from me...
sue sue sue sue sue sue
But then again, sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue
sue sue sue sue and more
sue sue sue suesue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue Crookes sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue wacko sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue 1310 people sue sue sue This thing is getting a little out of hand, dontcha think?.
And the really funny thing is, I'm a lawyer.
You just didn't prepare well enough. Almost the same thing happened to me so when the DA got on his high horse I began to read the police report in open court in a very derisive tone. The DA objected and then told me that he's drop all charges if I would pay court costs and I very loudly asked him if he was soliciting a bribe. He got very angry and said then lets take this to trial. At this point the judge intervened and reamed the DA a new one and loudly proclaimed "Case dismissed."