Slashdot Mirror
A New Libel Defense In Canada; For Blogs Too
roju writes "The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has created a new defense against claims of defamation, allowing for reporting in the public interest. They specifically included bloggers as eligible, writing: '...the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets.' and 'A review of recent defamation case law suggests that many actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media. ... [I]t is more accurate to refer to the new defense as responsible communication on matters of public interest.'"
This doesn't help when you can be sued in England for blogging in Canada or anywhere else for that matter.
--
BMO
More details on the CBC site(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/12/22/supreme-court-libel-responsible-journalism-citizen-star.html?ref=rss), including the actual checklist: Excerpt from Supreme Court ruling The defence of public interest responsible communication will apply where: A. The publication is on a matter of public interest and: B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to: * The seriousness of the allegation; * The public importance of the matter; * The urgency of the matter; * The status and reliability of the source; * Whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported; * Whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable; * Whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and * Any other relevant circumstances.
Michael Geist also covers this, writing "This is crucial decision for all publishers both big and small. It represents a major win for freedom of expression in Canada and should remove some of the libel chill that arises far too frequently."
I'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough rather than these days where anything published online gets archived forever.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
So truth as a defense doesn't count?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
We (USA) missed the chance to sue Canada. Seriously I'm a legal clusterfuck but at least i know the difference between Defamation and Libel. Sometimes I feel like I should be deported because I no longer conform to the you hurt my feelings now I'm going to sue you mentality. Can they yank my citizenship because I'm not totally patriotic to the USA legal system yet?
Sounds like I need to incorporate myself just for my online presence. That way when I get sued for pissing everyone off I can just close my business down. The idea's and expressions are solely that of Legally Inept Inc. a subsidiary of Betcha Can't Sue Me. Please forward all complaints to our legal department trash@inbox.com
How about doing the sane thing and limiting libel to only really -damaging- things that were intentionally untrue.
For example (using examples from all over the world and not just Canada), the woman that was sued for libel after tweeting that their may have been mold in her apartment ( http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html ) is not damaging. Twitter, Facebook, etc. should not be grounds for libel unless it was clearly meant to influence a large group of people against something and had no proof. Basically, Twitter, Facebook and even some blogs are akin to people talking in a crowded room, the comments may be untruthful, insightful or just plain random. They aren't meant to be taken seriously.
Truth also should be taken with a grain of salt. The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
If they're subject to the same laws as established media outlets, does that mean that they basically get all of the benefits without any of the risks? Because there's no standard for blogs to fact check their work.
Derive Politics
I mean there really shouldn't be some special exception saying "It is ok to slander/libel someone in certain situations." No, it shouldn't be allowed. I think the US has pretty sensible libel laws. In particular, there are three defenses:
1) The truth. If what you wrote was true, no matter how damaging, it's not libel. Libel is only untrue statements. So as long as you are telling the truth you can post it for whatever reasons you like, regardless of the harm it causes and have no worry about a successful libel suit.
2) Belief that it is true. If you reasonably believe what you are writing is true, that is also a defense against libel. So if a newspaper publishes a story based on good information that turns out to be false, it isn't libel. They reasonably believed it to be true.
3) No intent to cause harm. The final defense against libel is if you didn't intend for the statements to cause harm. This is generally in the case of satire and the like. If you are writing something you know to be false, but doing so in a way as to poke fun at someone, it isn't libel.
So the only way something is libel is if it is false, you know (or reasonably should know) it is false, and you write it anyhow with the intent of causing harm to your target.
To me, seems pretty reasonable and doesn't seem like any special protections are needed.
I don't know Canadian law, but if satire is protected, couldn't someone put a small disclaimer on the website?
Remember that this new ruling only assists journalists and bloggers whose story about someone is false.
If the story was true, there is no libel, under existing law.
I think it will be easy to put a patina of professional responsible diligence on acts of deliberate
character assassination using lies and incendiary innuendo.
All you have to do is say that you got it from some sources, and tried to reach some sources
to contradict it but couldn't get hold of them by publication time etc. etc.
The media is already manufacturing opinion and making and breaking kings, and this
just allows them to do it using false stories with impunity.
Scary
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Now for the benefit of Joe Six Pack, someone should create a flowchart outlining all possible scenarios to the point of acquittal or guilt in cases like this. How about that?
This is very convenient. Now, not only do I have a girlfriend in Canada, but my civil rights are located there as well. Shame about actually living in the US...
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
... and not just "traditional journalists."
Hopefully someday they'll get around to granting everyone (even ordinary citizens) free speech protection.
That's not the meaning of this ruling at all. Because this is a defence, you would have the burden of proof. It's your job to show that you did try to contact them and they refused comment. Furthermore, the tests effectively establish that you must have enough information to justify the possibly-defamatory claim as much as is reasonable given the urgency of the issue. You have to prove that you did everything reasonable to determine if then rumour was true or false and then (and only then) went forward with publishing a report of an unsubstantiated allegation.
In theory, you could concoct a large amount of fake evidence to prove this to the courts, but a) it's not easy b) you'd have to convince them that the other plain was lying when he says you didn't contact him c) it's highly illegal (in Canada, the maximum prison term for perjury is fourteen years) d) the same would be possible without this new defence.
I'm thinking that traditional print media looks a lot more ephemeral than blogging to me. Something about the business model of selling advertising on four day stale news stamped on a dead tree in toxic ink, versus "profit is coming out. I'm a Twitter advertiser." and "Here's phone camera video from the scene of the incident." After all, it's difficult to print a 3D island of multimedia presentations of your products in a magazine ad.
They had their clue with CueCat, and lost it with hubris. They could have it again with 2D barcodes scannable by cell phone cameras to link print stories to commentary, multimedia and updates. But they won't because they're stupid.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Long story short: prove someone defamed you (defamatory, towards you, published), they're presumed guilty, with onus shifting. To defend themselves, they must prove either 1) the statements were absolutely privileged (from court or parliamentary testimony or documentation); 2) the statements enjoyed qualified p
The Porky Pie is a lie!
Can they yank my citizenship because I'm not totally patriotic to the USA legal system yet?
By definition, everything we do is sort of inherently "yank".
-=Steve=-
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
I've been praying for something to make sure morons with a public be responsible for what they say, but now that it's there I realise it's also a means to make morons shut up people with things to say.
This new ruling does not mention who has to prove
that the defamatory statement is true, or prove that it is false.
The ruling says: Even if the statement is proven false
(i.e. not corresponding with reality i.e. made up),
the journalist or blogger can just shrug it off by saying,
in effect:"meh, I thought it was true at the time."
That is encouraging irresponsible, and sometimes deliberately
irresponsible journalism.
We are talking about the (proven unjustified but nonetheless effective)
ruination of reputation here.That is a serious crime, causing
serious and irreparable harm to the libeled individual.
All the old law said was: If you are going to raise a hue and cry
telling a story about someone that is going to ruin their reputation
and possibly their financial wellbeing, make sure the story is true,
because if you are wrong, you've done a terrible injustice.
Now, in Canada, there is no such caution to limit your publicized
criticism to that which you know to be true.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
So, let me get this straight.
A conservative-leaning judge would probably think it was,
on balance,
in the public interest to remove a left-leaning political
leader from office.
So if some conservative journalist "slips up" and
slags the leftie using untrue statements ("for the
sake of the country")
then this is now ok.
Wonderful.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?