The first casualty of the Conservative bloggers lawsuit has claimed an unlikely victim. The SaskBlogs Aggregator, run by Lance Levsen, has been taken offline due apparently to the likely threat of a lawsuit. The Aggregator contains Small Dead Animals (myself, and 200+ others) as a member, and thus has stored posts claimed as libelous, even though they only LINK to an alleged libelous statement.
I’ll be providing coverage of this story as I can get more information, and will continue to run the complimentary SaskBlogs.ca website where Saskatchewan Bloggers can at least regroup without an otherwise single, central voice in the blogosphere.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
John Murney | 10-Apr-08 at 1:35 am | Permalink
OMG Saskboy, this is pretty big stuff.
Red Tory | 10-Apr-08 at 3:05 am | Permalink
Interesting development.
Blazingcatfur | 10-Apr-08 at 4:42 am | Permalink
Hmmm.
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 6:27 am | Permalink
I suspect when this is all done, Richard Warman and the various Human Rights commissions/tribunals across the country will be taken to the cleaners. But, since the wheels of justice grind very slowly, there is now a chilling pall cast over the blogosphere.
One thing that can be said about it though, is that the US is no longer ignoring us. LOL!!! This is getting lots of attention down there. Good thing, too.
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 6:33 am | Permalink
Free Mark Steyn is the best website for keeping up to date, along with Ezra Levant.
I’m somewhat surprised he found a lawyer willing to take this on. I would think any legal council that suggests to him that he could win must be somewhat of an ambulance chaser.
stageleft | 10-Apr-08 at 6:55 am | Permalink
I think pulling the aggregator was a bit of an over reaction, then again, Lance is affiliated with SDA and these are strange times so maybe caution is the best choice.
Does SaskBlogs.ca auto aggregate?
M
Dr.Dawg | 10-Apr-08 at 7:00 am | Permalink
Sounds like a publicity stunt.
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 7:00 am | Permalink
I wonder who shlemazl could sue. Look at the comments he gets (in the sidebar).
JimBobby | 10-Apr-08 at 7:04 am | Permalink
Whooee! Sasky, I’m a little unclear about yer post. First, you say the aggregator “has stored posts claimed as libelous.” But then, you say the aggregator only has links. What is it? Links or stored posts (or stored introductions to posts, maybe?)
If the aggregator republishes libelous material, it would seem that they are complicit, aiding and abetting. If they only publish links without republishing the libelous material, they are no more guilty than Google.
Publishing, online or in print, is a serious responsibility. Bloggers need to realize that they are publishers and while their readership doesn’t equal the Globe or the Saskatoon Journal, they are still publishing to the entire world and they must exercise due diligence when it comes to making potentially libelous statements.
Aggregator operators may not be able to screen each and every post they link to but if they are republishing libelous content (not simply a link), they must be held accountable. If you run an aggregator, you have the technical ability and the authority to determine which blogs are included and which are not. If you knowingly continue to republish libelous material, you take your chances.
Try sending a libelous letter-to-the-editor to any print newspaper or magazine. They will exercise legal due diligence and will not leave themselves open for a lawsuit. We bloggers like to criticize the MSM but when it comes to the legalities of libel, we need to take a cue from their decades of experience.
JB
JB
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 7:17 am | Permalink
I’m no lawyer, but I pretty sure libel involves actual damage, such as ruining someones reputation to the point where he can no longer make a living or spreading known falsehoods about someone, not just insult and hurt feelings, so I think our friend Mr. Warman will eventually be taken to the cleaners. Do not allow yourselves to be intimidated by this man.
You may note that both the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s case threatening Ezra Levant and the one threatening MacLeans magazine have been stopped, the first one via withdrawal on the part of the complainant and the second by a decision made by the Commission itself, basically saying the accusation had no merit. In the real legal system (courts) the bar is even higher.
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 7:22 am | Permalink
Oh, and I’m not sure the traditional press is providing us with such a great example to follow. To be sure, they will be very cautious about publishing potentially libelous letters to the editor, but the MSM all over the world is caving in to threats from Islamofascists, not out of fear of being charged with libel, but out of fear of offending. And the reason they are fearful of offending is that all too frequently now offended Islamofascists respond with death threats and some of those have been successfully carried out. Wake up folks. Don’t just cave. Fight back! We cannot let our freedom be eroded to the point where we cower in fear of saying something that someone might find offensive.
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 7:26 am | Permalink
Hmmm. My comment #5 has a weird statement following it in bold. Not my words, but they seem to be indicating that my comments are screened, but obviously there it is, so I guess they aren’t. Some glitch, perhaps?
Scott Tribe | 10-Apr-08 at 7:40 am | Permalink
All Lance would have to do is make sure that the potentially libelous material is removed from the site. The removal of the aggregator does sound like a bit of an overreaction.
And Louise, you definitely aren’t a lawyer, since whatever happens, the HRC has nothing to do with Mr. Warman’s libel suit.
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 7:42 am | Permalink
Correction The case against MacLeans was not dismissed because it lacked merit. Read this comment at the link which was posted at Ezra Levant’s blog. The commission did not take the case on because it fell outside their jurisdiction.
Ezra is a defamation lawyer, so I think he probably knows what he’s talking about.
stageleft | 10-Apr-08 at 7:49 am | Permalink
On further thought, and based on JimBobbys comment regarding Google, I seriously doubt that an aggregator would get Lance in trouble.
Jaybird | 10-Apr-08 at 7:59 am | Permalink
WTF? so I guess there is no freedom of speech in Canada? Is the Canadian government going to start blocking access to youtube? or blocking our access to information? Books?
IF we are going to police the internet it should be to, oh say, stop Facebook terrorist groups. NOT blocking people from expressing their opinion.
What I would like to know, is why they would shut the aggregator down because they link to SDA…. but I can still go to SDA right now and it works. Except for the video…. work blocks that.
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 8:02 am | Permalink
Scott, you are definitely not a reader. I didn’t say there was a direct connection. Richard Warman has become a household name because of his dealings with the HRCs. The connection is that the blogosphere has been talking a lot about him and his scam artistry with respect to the HRC in Ontario. It is because of that “talk” that Warman has decided to sue. Got it?
JimBobby | 10-Apr-08 at 8:23 am | Permalink
Whooee! Jaybird, it sounds like yer sayin’ you think the gummint shut down Lance’s aggregator. Lance shut it down due to what might be called “libel chill.” The government had nothing to do with it.
As to whether or not there is free speech in Canada, there have always been legal limits. We refer to those limits as slaner and libel laws. It ain’t anything new. What’s new is that anyone with access to a public library computer can now publish their “opinions” to the world.
Opinions and statements of fact are two different things. If I state for a fact that Jaybird is a child molester and purveyor of kiddie porn, I am guilty of libel. That is an example of the limits of free speech.
If a writer/publisher publishes statements that say a person is a criminal and they have no evidence and that person has not been convicted of a crime, they are breaking the libel laws — just like I’d be breaking the law by stating that you are a child pornographer.
It’s not too complicated. Unless a person has been convicted of a particular crime, it is libelous to publish statements that say he is a criminal. Such statements can and do cause harm to the unjustly named victim.
JB
stageleft | 10-Apr-08 at 8:38 am | Permalink
Oh give us a break will you JayBird. There is a world of difference between freedom of speech and defamation and anyone who doesn’t know the difference should probably just stay shut up to avoid broadcasting their ignorance to a wider audience.
lance | 10-Apr-08 at 8:57 am | Permalink
Stageleft, yes Saskblogs auto-aggregated, if by that you mean it added posts without human intervention. If I had your RSS*/Atom feed in the database it polled your site and collected the top post if a) it was newer than your last post, b) the title (exact match) had never been used by your blog before.
As JB states, I don’t have the time nor inclination to do due diligence for every post that the two hundred+ Sask Bloggers might write.
Regardless of whether or not linking or reposting actually constitutes damages and is deserving of filing suit is entirely up to the “damaged” party. I’ve no desire to have a lawyer on retainer just so that I can provide a free service to others.
As a result of the above, I pulled it. No skin off my back.
Cheers,
lance
Scott Tribe | 10-Apr-08 at 9:15 am | Permalink
I agree with BCL’s post; this smells of an attempt at martyrdom/publicity stunt by Lance.
leftdog | 10-Apr-08 at 9:18 am | Permalink
Thanks for this Saskboy. I have adjusted the code in my blog template so that when you click on the SaskBlogs aggregator icon (the Sask Flag) you are directed to http://saskblogs.ca/. Others may wish to do that as well.
Scott Tribe | 10-Apr-08 at 9:18 am | Permalink
Louise, you implication was in your original posting on here that Warman’s suit and the HRC’s were related, as if whatever the result of Warman’s suit would somehow damage the HRC’s as well.
As usual, you righties like to engage in hyperbole, and then deny it when you get called on it.
lance | 10-Apr-08 at 9:28 am | Permalink
Hardly a stunt Scott. In a day no one will even remember there was a Saskblogs Aggregator. I have less shelf-life than an iceflow off of Antarctica.
I can hardly lay claim to a massive presence in the blogosphere, either my blog (which I haven’t shut down) or the Aggregator. I just can’t afford to roll the dice on whether or not someone feels that my republishing a supposedly harmful post constitutes intention to do harm.
I know we spar and often insult each other without quarter, I rather enjoy that, just this once though, look at it from my point of view. I am trusting every blogger that was on Saskblogs not to drag me into their problems. You read the blogosphere, is that a _reasonable_ trust? I’d argue not.
Yes, I could just delete the offending post . . . if I’m notified, if I’m doing due diligence. Course, that sort of invalidates the whole reason that I automated the entire thing.
I’d just rather not bother, this isn’t the hill I want to plant my flag on.
Blogging for me was about fun, getting into slag-fests with those who wanted to, or actually debating issues (not that anyone really changes their mind) or just having a place to speak your mind.
It was never about seeing how close to being sued I could get.
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 10-Apr-08 at 9:44 am | Permalink
Louise, comment 5 was stuck in my moderation queue because of the links probably.
stageleft | 10-Apr-08 at 10:56 am | Permalink
Scott Tribe: I agree with BCL’s post; this smells of an attempt at martyrdom/publicity stunt by Lance.
I would call it prudent. If a link to libel is in fact considered republication of libel how much of a stretch is it to day that a link to a link that is linking something that an individual considers libel is also republication of the libel?
The lawyer I spoke to thinks that SDA may well be in more than a little trouble given the degree of editorial control she exercises over the site as owner and administrator but that automated functions such as aggregators that do not depend on the individuals editorial discretion may (and not use of the word may because the concept has yet to be tried that he is aware of) have a very good chance of not being cast in a similar light.
He also noted that that was an “opinion” based on his “understanding”, and the whole concept is really so new and untried that his thoughts may be worth squat in the grand scheme of things until/if it hits a high enough court to matter.
I’m not taking my aggregator down and if someone was to email me a current OPML file I do have this aggregator thingie that imports them ……………….
bigcitylib | 10-Apr-08 at 11:15 am | Permalink
A stunt.
That Lance would have to police his aggregator militantly every day is ridiculous. He might, for example, only keep an eye out for those blogs that have been threatened with lawsuits for, I don’t know, the past THREE months now, and delete any obviously defamatory passages from those one or two blogs (like SDA for example). It would literally take three minutes and one finger pressing a button.
Saskboy | 10-Apr-08 at 11:29 am | Permalink
Yet BCL, ultimately it’s not your place or anyone else’s to tell Lance what “one finger press” he has to add onto his volunteer and ad-free effort. Even with the extra effort he’s not ensured of no lawsuit. He’s not willing to risk the lawsuit which is obviously a high risk given the circumstances.
Of course it does have an obvious protest aspect to pulling the plug too, yet to assume that’s the sole reason is a mistake, and doesn’t demonstrate an understanding of the serious flaws in our libel laws. We all take our legal butts into our own hands just by blogging. We really should stand united with other bloggers when they come under attack in this way, because it will just end up being us next if they lose.
bigcitylib | 10-Apr-08 at 11:42 am | Permalink
If Lance wants to keep his aggregator out of trouble then its simple enough for him to do. In fact, it is so trivial that I cannot see the “threat” aspect of this playing a major role in his decision at all.
Frankly, Lance’s biggest problem is that his rather shoddy “analysis” of Roger’s IP addresses kept the kooks at SDA and elsewhere thinking their position on the Lucy/90sareover Posts was credible. Lance, dude, I’ll say it again: 66.185.84.204 is a Rogers regional proxy, probably taking requests from all over Ontario.
And how exactly did Lance come under attack? Has Warman approached him in any fashion?
spike 1 | 10-Apr-08 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Mabe some of you experts should step up and replace saskblogs.ca as an aggregator. Prove that you believe in the right of free speach and not just someone that critisizes others.
stageleft | 10-Apr-08 at 11:56 am | Permalink
}}}}}sigh{{{{{ this is not a free speech issue spike 1, repeat, not a free speech issue, as I said earlier:
“There is a world of difference between freedom of speech and defamation and anyone who doesn’t know the difference should probably just stay shut up to avoid broadcasting their ignorance to a wider audience.”
Saskboy | 10-Apr-08 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
Spike, I’m not certain that I want to take on the responsibility of hosting an aggregator that could get sued. It’s not just because SDA’s a member or that Lance has posting/mod rights at SDA, it’s because ANY blogger in the list of 200+ members could write something, have it show up on the Aggregator, and thus potentially implicate *ME* in a stupid lawsuit I have nothing to do with.
Would *YOU* actually put in the hours of work, just to take on that risk? If so, get in touch by email with me, maybe you’ll be the hero of the day.
(Heck, I may as well though, I’m already a part of the volunteer administration of http://www.Progressivebloggers.ca , what’s a little more liability, eh?)
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 1:44 pm | Permalink
Well said, Saskboy @ # 28.
Scott, what you choose to read between the lines is up to you. You inferred something that wasn’t there. Since I wrote, I know what I intended. Case closed.
Saskboy | 10-Apr-08 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
“If Lance wants to keep his aggregator out of trouble then its simple enough for him to do.”
And he did it. He pulled the plug. Doesn’t get much more simple than that, unfortunately.
MW | 10-Apr-08 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
“Ezra is a defamation lawyer, so I think he probably knows what he’s talking about.”
This is assuredly NOT the first time Ezra has gotten into trouble for libel against people. Just ask Kevin Michael Grace about Ezra’s standards for columns he tried to submit to The Report Magazine.
Anybody who is listening to Ezra’s advice on this, should remember the old adage about a lawyer who represents himself having a fool for a client.
I think most people who are opposed to Warman are deluding themselves that this is going to be a slam-dunk no problem-o case for the defendants.
I doubt very few people have ever been on the other side of this kind of legal action. I have, and I can tell you right now, the onus is on the defendants to PROVE that they did not libel someone and cause them harm.
Since there are cases of numerous people calling for violence or harm to be done to Warman (One even made it onto Ezra’s moderated com-box) it’s going to be very easy for Warman to prove harm and malice on the part of the defendants.
The Speechies need to prove 1) That their statements are true 2) That the comments, despite being troubling to Warman are Fair Comments for the General public and 3)They posted remarks about Warman without any malice…
That’s going to be very hard to do. Espeiclly the last thing. The malice problem.
huffb1 | 10-Apr-08 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
Jeez, There’s been a lot of commenting on this.
Louise | 10-Apr-08 at 6:47 pm | Permalink
MW, Ezra is not representing himself. In fact one of the complaints to the Alberta Human Rights Commission about him has been dropped by the complainant. Try and keep up.
themusicgod1 | 11-Apr-08 at 6:17 am | Permalink
This is all happening at the wrong time for me. I’m down to my last loonie; three credit agencies on the lookout for me, and I’m going to basically be disconnecting from the internet and “disappearing” into oil country to make my fortune. I don’t know if I can afford steel-toed boots, nevermind help for SDA’s legal fund. I’m still paranoid that the CDMCA will be released Real Soon too, which doesn’t make things any better.
JimBobby: The laws you talk about are *broken* with today’s technology. If we as a society keep laws on the books that are meant to deal with large printing presses, and those who operate them, and seriously apply them to the technology of today, nevermind tomorrow, unceasing absurdities, such as this, and society will suffer as a result.
Mark Francis | 11-Apr-08 at 9:59 am | Permalink
Louise,
Ezra may have a lawyer, but he isn’t behaving like he’s got a good one. He is following his own course. Ezra seems to be thinking that speaking out on this issue is worth the risk as it is raising him money to be used in defense.
I am a known strong advocate for libel law reform in Canada, but if Warman’s Statement of Claim that he is not the author of the Cool’s post is true (or, more correctly, that the defendants can’t prove their claim that he is to be true) arguing in support of tolerating false attribution of authorship of racist material in the name of free speech is not something I am prepared to do.
It appears that the IP underlying the Cools post is a Rogers proxy, which was serving some 700,000 users at that time. One of those users may very well have been myself, as I used Rogers and was posting a lot on FD back then.
I am certainly NOT Richard Warman. I also did not post the Cools post. That’s one down, 699,999 to go.
When libel is found to have occurred by a judge, general damages are assumed to exist. The plaintiff need not prove any damages. The rules are different for special and punitive damages. This is not unusual in torts. With the tort of Malicious Prosecution, for example, you are awarded damages for defamation and aggravation. Trust me on that — I am shortly filing a Malicious Prosecution claim. Some other day I may write about it.
Remember, in Canada, we all have a legal right to reputation. It is a positive right, that is, we are assumed to have a good reputation unless proven otherwise.
I am very concerned about the conflict between freedom of expression and the right to reputation in this country, but if Warman was not the author of the Cools post, then he is entitled to damages.
MW | 11-Apr-08 at 11:29 am | Permalink
Louise,
I am not talking about Ezra’s Human Rights Commission in my comments here. I am strictly discussing the libel suit filed by Warman, which is a civil case.
I think you are the person who needs to “catch up” dear.
Head Tale - Yet Another Librarian's Blog | 01-Jul-08 at 12:30 am | Permalink
Link to Another Blog That Allows Its Users To Post Libelous Comments - Get Sued Yourself!…
When Jessamyn West was here for SLA, this topic came up at the after-event gathering. I meant to post ……