Remarkable how so many of the blogs shown on the screen in the video are Blogging Tories…
Many bloggers are standing up to those who would bully political (and other) bloggers. Mark is one being sued.
S.B. kindly demonstrates how a clueless commenter can unleash a can of worms if there is a libel-chiller in the pack reading (with a lawyer on speed-dial).
If you’ve EVER left a comment about a Canadian on your blog, you could be sued. Scary stuff, eh? Now please leave a comment about how stupid the law is right now in Canada.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
s.b. | 17-Aug-07 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
I really have no concern about my comments. Libel isn’t criminal in canada. I perhaps should have said, although it was implied, that according to the new piece what was reported was libelous. But even as it stands, commenting on an article is very different then targeting an individual with a criminal allegation on a blog related to how that individual makes his living. Bloggers need to be careful about comments that involve criminal allegations. Other than that, which is wrong, there is nothing to worry about and free speech and freedom of thought are not being infringed upon.
For the record, I don’t think the suits against google et all will go anywhere, or the women with just the link, if that’s the case. Linking isnt publishing or reproducing and if google excercised due dilligence then they too should be fine. If they refused to do anything, then he may have a case. I know blogger will investigate blogs and shut them down if they have complaints they are libelous or if blogger thinks they are anyways.
But again this is just a false analogy, I didn’t say anyone did anything criminal, nor did I name the person, nor was the video up when I posted that comment, and I appologized and clarified it as opinion based on the piece.
Bloggers need to be resonsible but not fear expressing opinions. I am not worried in the slightest and it has nothing to do with anyone’s benevolence.
Dom | 17-Aug-07 at 9:05 pm | Permalink
“Other than that, which is wrong, there is nothing to worry about and free speech and freedom of thought are not being infringed upon.”
With all due respect SB you, as a Liberal, are severely lacking in the necessities to make that call.
I’ve actually seen your fellow Liberals taunt Blogging Tories to say something about your poster boy for SLAPP, WK, that’s how little respect your comrades had for free speech prior to this incident. A man was recently sent to jail for 90 days in Canada for criticizing multiculturalism on the internet; while you Liberals might think that’s cool, we Canadians disagree. See you on election day.
Ken Chapman | 17-Aug-07 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
Bloggers better become familiar with the law of libel and slander. It is not onerous and it is a protective shield against the irrational and the irresponsible.
Reputations are not trivial matters and free speech is not and should not be a justification for publishing untruths and for sure it is not a justification or the republication of them.
Libel and slander or irresponsible publication is not worthy of defending. It ought to be pursued and sometimes prosecuted.
Bloggers are not some super beings who deserve to be defended by some romantic view as a gaggle of avant garde revolutionaries or as some cutting edge culture changing icons. They are merely publishers with a personal podium and that does not put them above the law.
Bloggings is a very important new freedom for speech but that does not justify libel or slander or some passive superiority passing itself off as mere naivety and therefore foregivable.
Learn the law, obey the law and prosper.
Saskboy | 17-Aug-07 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
Ken, even if someone learns and obeys the law, it’s not a guaranteed recipe for prosperity, and that’s how Canada’s law falls down. It’s arranged so that someone with more money can intimidate someone with less money into doing whatever the richer Canadian wants. That’s wrong, and is obviously against the Charter rights of the person with less money.
Ken Chapman | 17-Aug-07 at 11:29 pm | Permalink
Yes there is a potential for unfairness based on differences in capacity to defend oneself. Who said life is fair. Who said one has to sit by and let some blogger besmirch a reputation with impunity because they can?
My point is stay out of the libel kitchen. There is no need to ever go there…to make ones point.
There is no Charter protection for a reckless or feckless insolvent either…nor should there be. It would not add toward a more civil society.
Most Canadian defamation judgement awards are small. The deal is to learn the limits of the law and stay within them…they are there to protect reputations. While cheap shots on politicians on their judgement are fair game so long as the comments are about and within their roles and responsibilities. Why go beyond that?
I am not able to give legal advice because I choose to go on the Counsel list in Alberta when I started my political consultancy business. I only give legal advice to my firm…making me self insured in effect. However, I recall one prof in law school give a nice summary of the how to defend against an defamation action. First position is “I did not say it.” Secondly, “If I said it I did not mean it.” The final position is “If I said it and I meant it, it must be true.”
The truth is always a defence and what is wrong expecting bloggers to reflect and show respect for the truth? Anonymity is a cowardly shield that is all too prevalent in the blogosphere and most of the abusers are anonymous.
I am not talking about pen-names like Saskboy…your true identity is easy to find. I am talking about the real anonymous bloggers who are in effect wearing blogosphere balaclavas and think that makes them immune from responsibility and civility.
Saskboy | 18-Aug-07 at 12:03 am | Permalink
Ken, “The truth is always a defence “.
If you read Mark’s explanation, it isn’t. If a sue-happy moron comes after me, I have to make the effort to fend him off. If they have no money, then I can’t get blood from a stone to get my fees back when I win. And any effort spent defending myself is lost effort/money/time doing something I want to do, or need to do to support myself.
PhantomObserver | 18-Aug-07 at 10:20 am | Permalink
“Remarkable how so many of the blogs shown on the screen in the video are Blogging Tories… ”
Actually, I only counted two: Stephen Taylor’s and mine. (I have to admit, I was rather startled watching the news at my parents’ house and seeing my blog page pop up near the end.)
The others that flashed by were captures of rabble.ca, the Blogging Dippers mainpage, and the Harper Index (created by a left-leaning institute). Hardly a dominating influence.
I suspect that this story must have been in preparation since 15 July, since I recognize the screen capture of my blog entry for that day.
As for the libel issue, I think I’m going to write my MP and suggest that a bill be introduced, to amend the Criminal Code to update the libel laws.
Ken Chapman | 18-Aug-07 at 11:46 am | Permalink
Interesting exchange on an important issue Saskboy. But, I respectfully suggest “a sue-happy moron” is the kind of language and characterization, if applied to a specific identifiable person, that is not subject to the fair comment exceptions of publication, could and perhaps should, get some Bloggers face to face with serious threats of litigation.
There are limits to free speech and they are not onerous in terms of hampering “doing something I want to do, or need to do to support myself.” Main stream media has thrived and prospered under these limits for years. Why should Bloggers be any different? What absolves Bloggers from responsibility for what they publish or republish? How does an ordinary citizen protect themselves and their reputation from abuse in the Blogoshpere other than taking legal action?
A question for the PhantomObserver - why are you interested in amending Criminal libel laws? They are hardly used. Keegstra and Zundel are the kind of names that come to mind when you mention criminal libel and it is very tough to prove. Most defamation actions are within the sphere of civil law with some overriding statutory provisions. What amendment to the Criminal Code in the context of libel would you ask of your MP and why?
Saskboy1 | 18-Aug-07 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
PhantomObserver, you don’t count 2 as being a lot for the CBC? ;-)
==
Ken “Main stream media has thrived and prospered under these limits for years. Why should Bloggers be any different? ”
Think about that a moment. What’s different between the Leader-Post and Abandoned Stuff? Oh, I know! A multi-million dollar corporation called Can-West Global is behind the Leader-Post, and who stands behind me with money and a big legal stick to beat away the sue-happy morons?
Dodos | 18-Aug-07 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
Saskboy,
I have to respectfully disagree here - just because you don’t have money, it doesn’t mean that you can engage in libelous activity. I agree with Ken - before you write something, make sure it’s true. Engaging in slander and libel is wrong in the real world and it should be illegal on the Internet. There has to be some standard of truth doesn’t there?
Saskboy | 18-Aug-07 at 12:59 pm | Permalink
Dodos, I never said that someone should be able to engage in libel with impunity. The problem is that by the time the courts decide that an accuser cried wolf, the victim is the accused.
Ken Chapman | 18-Aug-07 at 2:52 pm | Permalink
There are lots of protections against fivolous and vexatious legal actions and even penalites for initiating them. Wolf criers pay dearly. Filing a defence and swearing an affidavit in suport of an interim application to the courts to show an action is frivolous and vexatious does not take much time or money…so long as one can prove fivolity and vexation.
Damages go to cover the loss of reputation based on untrue statements about someone. It is usually not the amount of money damages that counts. It is the publicatoin of the apology that really matters in most instances.
It is entirely possible that an outrageous libelous accusation by a disreputable Blogger can actually enhance the reputation of the person being targetted. In that case there is a technical libel but the damages are minimal because the loss of reputation is also minimal or non-existent.
It has happened where a libel has been proven and the courts have awarded damages of like $1.00. That adds injury to the insult don’t you think.
It is a pretty simple world. Don’t publish or republish anything that you know is not true about someone and even if you “know” it is true but you can’t prove it the wise course of actoin is to show some discretion and do not publish.
There is lots of latitude in the area of fair comment on public and elected officials that will not impede the political and policy ranting and ravings we all like to engage in from time to time.
Saskboy | 18-Aug-07 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
“There are lots of protections against fivolous and vexatious legal actions and even penalites for initiating them.”
I think Mark and Kate would disagree, as would I.
Ken Chapman | 18-Aug-07 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
There is an ancient curse that says: “May you be involved in a lawsuit where you are in the right.”
Saskboy | 18-Aug-07 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
That is a curse… to be doomed to a room full of lawyers ;-)
Ken Chapman | 19-Aug-07 at 8:32 am | Permalink
I read the Statement of Claim against Google that is part of this allegation of Libel Chill concerns of some Bloggers. It did not seen fivolous or vexatious to me. The allegations are pretty serious especially if the comments in the Action were actually made and cannot be proven to be true.
The ultimate defense to claims of defamation is that the alleged statements, if made, were true. If you are prepared to make serious allegations you better be able to prove them to be true.
It might be informative if some folks rented the old movie “All the President’s Men” on Watergate/Nixon and the Washington Post showing journalism at its finest hour to understand the due diligenece demands required of reporters and publishers - a.k.a. Bloggers. Every blogger is a journalist and a publisher and those roles come with responsibilities.
I think this legal action will be a good thing for Bloggers and blogging - presuming it goes to trial. It will hopefuly set some clear law especially on the inter-relationship of sites and the duties and liabilities of Bloggers using hyperlinking and if it is a further publication of content.
Scott Tribe | 19-Aug-07 at 9:36 am | Permalink
Ken.. if you’re suggesting that anyone can be sued for linking to a link who links to a link that may or may not be a libellous statement, then you’re indirectly in favour of shutting down the whole internet. As the piece said, political bloggers is an endangered species if that occurs.
Canada’s libel laws are very weak compared to the US’s, and shows how out of date they are with the new medium known as the internet. I dont often call for us to imitate much of what is US law, but in this case, I think they have a much more sensible law hen we do. (Though to be honest, I think the lawsuit is oging to be dismissed as frivolous when it finally gets to court. Hopefully the bloggers being sued will still have enough financial resources to get that far).
Scott Tribe | 19-Aug-07 at 9:39 am | Permalink
By the way Ken, this statement from you:
“Yes there is a potential for unfairness based on differences in capacity to defend oneself. Who said life is fair.”
… is rather appalling. I take it you didnt care 1 whit when then COurt Challenges Programme got cancelled by the Tories - which gave some groups the ability to be heard before the Courts when they might otherwise not have been
Pardon me for saying this.. but that doesn’t sound too progressive to me.
Ken Chapman | 19-Aug-07 at 10:07 am | Permalink
Scott - fairness in terms of capacity to defend yourself is not merly a function of the size of your bank account. We have lot of legal aid systems and pro bono work done by lawyers and many of them woul be eager to take a cse that makes new law.
This in an issue about being a responsible commentator within the law and how does the Internet and Blogging impact and get impacted.
As for my stance on the Court Challenges Program - go to my Blog posting of April 21. I value it highly and even helped take a case to the Supreme Court using it resources. Here is the link
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2007/04/dion-wants-court-challenges-program.html
Libel » Blog Archive » Libel tourism update | 28-Aug-07 at 9:35 am | Permalink
[...] SB kindly demonstrates how a clueless commenter can unleash a can of worms if there is a libel-chiller in the pack reading (with a lawyer on speed-dial). If you’ve EVER left a comment about a Canadian on your blog, you could be sued. … …more [...]
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy » Blog Archive » I guess Zorph was right - UPDATED | 16-Apr-08 at 11:44 pm | Permalink
[...] Libel Chill for beginners. [...]