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.)

Comments

Well, it's Canada

[phorm]

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.

keep on truckin'

[User 956]

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.

Well of course it can be

[Rik Sweeney]

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.

Not much use in this case

[Flying pig]

Crookes clearly has plenty of money.

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.

Awarding legal costs to the successful defendant

[billstewart]

Sometimes a US judge can do that too, without a lawsuit.

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.

Not the *real* legal cost

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

In America, with this Administration, who knows...

[WannaBeGeekGirl]

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

Re:Six degrees of separation

[gbobeck]

This friend of a friend says that if Wayne was a real litigous bastard he'd use a full six degrees of separation.

So, he would sue Kevin Bacon?

IANAL

[archeopterix]

I am not a lawyer, so before posting I consulted one. Here's what I have to say:

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.

Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows

[DreadfulGrape]

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.