Showing posts with label Slander and Defamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Slander and Defamation. Show all posts
Friday, February 06, 2015
Levant Loses Another!
It's been awhile since Lorna Pardy has been in the news. Back in 2008, she was verbally assaulted by comedian Guy Earle at Zesty's Comedy Club in Vancouver. She took him to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, and won. At the time, some, Ezra Levant in particular, were pushing the notion that this case was about the exercise of free speech. It wasn't. It was more about a lowly restaurant functionary going off on a customer. In any event, Ezra said things. And Ms. Pardy commenced a civil action against him. However, the suit lay still-born for a number years until, in 2013, after the various appeals of the original wound up, Ms. Pardy served Ezra with a notice of civil claim. Ezra moved that the case be dismissed due to the long delay but, on January 29th of this year, the judge said no. So, throw another lawsuit on the pile; Ezra's going back to court. And when Ezra goes to court, Ezra tends to lose.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Lauten On Dale Vs. Ford
A good piece, especially where he discusses what sounds like it will be Ford's line of defense:
A further distinction without a difference is the suggestion that in speaking with Black Ford was merely "reliving the moment" when he confronted Dale and expressing what he was thinking at the time. The facts as found by the police don't support Ford in his belief that Dale had taken any photos of Ford's children, so it was not a reasonable belief to being with.
It is hard to see how it is any better for a slander action for Ford to say that it was at the time of the confrontation he thought Dale was a pedophile, and in his interview with Black he was just recalling it without saying he no longer believed it to be true. Ford has never apologised for such a mistaken belief and has now repeated it and says that he stands by it. To say that he was merely repeating what he was thinking at some time in the past doesn't excuse a present slander if he leaves the door open for his audience to think he hasn't changed his mind.
IANAL but I think Dale has damaged his own case by rattling on about it again and again in The Star. WK says it here. Put another way, you either try to win in court, or in the court of public opinion, but not both. Judges don't like you using their courtroom as a means of pursuing your extracurricular activities. Which is to say they just might agree with the Fords that this whole spat is "all about selling newspapers".
A further distinction without a difference is the suggestion that in speaking with Black Ford was merely "reliving the moment" when he confronted Dale and expressing what he was thinking at the time. The facts as found by the police don't support Ford in his belief that Dale had taken any photos of Ford's children, so it was not a reasonable belief to being with.
It is hard to see how it is any better for a slander action for Ford to say that it was at the time of the confrontation he thought Dale was a pedophile, and in his interview with Black he was just recalling it without saying he no longer believed it to be true. Ford has never apologised for such a mistaken belief and has now repeated it and says that he stands by it. To say that he was merely repeating what he was thinking at some time in the past doesn't excuse a present slander if he leaves the door open for his audience to think he hasn't changed his mind.
IANAL but I think Dale has damaged his own case by rattling on about it again and again in The Star. WK says it here. Put another way, you either try to win in court, or in the court of public opinion, but not both. Judges don't like you using their courtroom as a means of pursuing your extracurricular activities. Which is to say they just might agree with the Fords that this whole spat is "all about selling newspapers".
Monday, December 24, 2012
Another Early Xmas Gift: Patrick Ross Is Bankrupt
Patrick Ross, who defamed and was successfully sued by Canadian Cynic, has declared personal bankruptcy (scroll to bottom). Since notice of personal bankruptcy only remains on your credit record for six years, it will now be up to the Internet to ensure that the unrepentant Mr. Ross remains penniless after that time period is up. Thanks to Connie and Mark and the folks at FreeD for their efforts in this regard. Now, and forever, whenever someone googles Mr. Ross's name, the facts of his case, and the facts regarding his credit history, will be the first thing anyone sees. Which is ironic because that's the same method Patrick Ross used to spread his defamation around the Net. Have a pleasant holiday, Patrick Ross. Living in your parents basement is probably bad enough at 31. By your 40th its really going to suck.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Someone's Gonna Get Sued!
But not me! I'm just pointing to it, not describing it. Thus, according to the Supreme Court Of Canada, I'm right as rain, no matter how noxious my intentions might be. Though I assure you all they are pure as gold.
I'm also just pointing to, but not describing, this, by the way.
I'm also just pointing to, but not describing, this, by the way.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Does Supreme Court Decision On Hyperlinks Make Stealing Copyrighted Material Way Past Easy?
"If a link or hyperlink by itself does not constitute “publication” for defamation purposes, it is difficult to see how it could, by itself, constitute publication or reproduction or any other activity covered by the Copyright Act."
So just quietly linking to a site that lets you download copyrighted material, or running P2P software, may be OK according to the Supreme Court Of Canada. Although, if you rig things right, you can slander the ass off anyone you want. BOOYAH! Communism and random smear jobs rule the virtual world!
So just quietly linking to a site that lets you download copyrighted material, or running P2P software, may be OK according to the Supreme Court Of Canada. Although, if you rig things right, you can slander the ass off anyone you want. BOOYAH! Communism and random smear jobs rule the virtual world!
Crookes Case...Gone Badly Wrong?
First thing, the entire decision is here. It isn't too long nor hard to follow.
Second thing, its pretty clear that Crookes v. Newton deserved to fail.
Third thing, this bit of reasoning for the majority position strikes me as rather badly done, and extremely ominous:
A hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers. When a person follows a hyperlink to a secondary source that contains defamatory words, the actual creator or poster of the defamatory words in the secondary material is the person who is publishing the libel. Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered to be “published” by the hyperlinker.
I'm afraid this sounds like a blanket exemption for linking to defamatory material. So, imagine the following.
I publish a post which says:
John Doe is a murderer.
I am soon approached by Mr. Doe's lawyers. But then Bob writes a post which says
BCL finally tells the truth about John Doe.
Not having repeated any of the defamatory content, the SCC ruling lets Bob off Scot free. Now, you might argue that's fine. Bob doesn't control what's at the other end of the link. Maybe it's been changed in the meantime. Why should he be responsible? And etc.
Okay, but lets assume that Bob knows exactly at the other end of the link and is in clearly endorsing the defamatory content. And lets assume that in context it is absolutely clear that Bob's intent is to ruin the reputation of John Doe, as much as mine was.
The defamatory content was not repeated in his post, so he suffers no consequence. Period. End of story. Several justices dissented on this point, suggesting that context should be taken into consideration, and endorsing defamation should be considered defamation. The majority seems to have said NO.
The downside to this ought to be obvious. As Dan Grice notes in the comments over at Geist's place:
This ruling opens the door for abuse by publishers, and those with popular sites to readily direct readers to defamation and ruin reputations with no recourse to the person whose reputation is ruined. The person writing to exact words could be judgement proof, out of jurisdiction or sufficiently hidden. (I could write a defamatory article using a proxy site to ensure I would never be found, link to it myself, and be practically untouchable).
Exactly right. To give another example, a well known journalist links to a nobody blogger who is literally not worth suing. A reputation gets damaged, and the perps get away clear.
So what should have been a slam dunk for the SCC--just follow the reasoning of the B.C. judge--appears to have gone a bit sideways.
PS. The decision might also allow you to link to sites hosting copyright infringing music and movies. Hmm. Glass half-full?
Second thing, its pretty clear that Crookes v. Newton deserved to fail.
Third thing, this bit of reasoning for the majority position strikes me as rather badly done, and extremely ominous:
A hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers. When a person follows a hyperlink to a secondary source that contains defamatory words, the actual creator or poster of the defamatory words in the secondary material is the person who is publishing the libel. Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered to be “published” by the hyperlinker.
I'm afraid this sounds like a blanket exemption for linking to defamatory material. So, imagine the following.
I publish a post which says:
John Doe is a murderer.
I am soon approached by Mr. Doe's lawyers. But then Bob writes a post which says
BCL finally tells the truth about John Doe.
Not having repeated any of the defamatory content, the SCC ruling lets Bob off Scot free. Now, you might argue that's fine. Bob doesn't control what's at the other end of the link. Maybe it's been changed in the meantime. Why should he be responsible? And etc.
Okay, but lets assume that Bob knows exactly at the other end of the link and is in clearly endorsing the defamatory content. And lets assume that in context it is absolutely clear that Bob's intent is to ruin the reputation of John Doe, as much as mine was.
The defamatory content was not repeated in his post, so he suffers no consequence. Period. End of story. Several justices dissented on this point, suggesting that context should be taken into consideration, and endorsing defamation should be considered defamation. The majority seems to have said NO.
The downside to this ought to be obvious. As Dan Grice notes in the comments over at Geist's place:
This ruling opens the door for abuse by publishers, and those with popular sites to readily direct readers to defamation and ruin reputations with no recourse to the person whose reputation is ruined. The person writing to exact words could be judgement proof, out of jurisdiction or sufficiently hidden. (I could write a defamatory article using a proxy site to ensure I would never be found, link to it myself, and be practically untouchable).
Exactly right. To give another example, a well known journalist links to a nobody blogger who is literally not worth suing. A reputation gets damaged, and the perps get away clear.
So what should have been a slam dunk for the SCC--just follow the reasoning of the B.C. judge--appears to have gone a bit sideways.
PS. The decision might also allow you to link to sites hosting copyright infringing music and movies. Hmm. Glass half-full?
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Free Dominion Loses For Good And All
Ottawa human rights lawyer Richard Warman had already won on this issue, but the Fourniers requested leave to make yet another appeal, which was turned down yesterday. The upshot is that they will have to cough up IP addresses and other information on the anonymous posters who, Warman alleges, defamed him on the Free D Forum. And of course the defamation lawsuit against them and other FreeD participants will now go forward, presumably.
More generally, the four-part legal test noted above seems to have become the strandard in Canadian law for determining where the balance between protecting on-line privacy and applying defamation laws lies in particular instances.
Finally, the Fourniers will need to cough up costs, probably in the low five digits.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
On Linking To Hate Speech
This story, about the draconian effects of Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, begin in the frenzied depths of the mind of Free Dominion's Mark Fournier, and has spreadfrom their to more reputable quarters. The specific claim is that the act, which reads in part
Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted.
...will making hyper-linking an activity fraught with peril, and might in the end "make the Internet itself illegal". The problem is that, by analogous arguments, you could argue that current Canadian law already makes the "Internet illegal". That is, Canadian defamation law has already spoken: linking to defamatory may be (not is, necessarily) defamatory. For example, the judge in the Crookes case--in which green party activist Wayne Crookes attempted to, as the story goes, "sue the Internet"-- laid down several clarifying markers:
[84] I agree, as well, that the circumstances of a case may add more so as to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to go to a jury. So a statement to the effect “N is described at [hyper link]” may itself incorporate a libel so as to be defamatory.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but I know a few, and what this passage implies is that if you write something in support of the defamatory material at the other end of the link then you can get in trouble, but merely linking to, and perhaps even describing the content on a page carrying defamatory material, is not necessarily enough to be defamatory.
In any case, merely linking to defamatory material under Canuck law can be libel. That's already settled. Bill C-51 merely extends this to the matter of hate-speech. So it doesn't strike me as a particularly big deal if you aren't already a hard-core Speechy (free speech absolutist). The Internet is no more or less safe for linking than it was.
Don't get me wrong: C-51 is bad law. At its core it seems to demand that Canadian ISPs beef up and redesign their networks in order to spy on their customers when the police or government demand it, and demands that they do this without financial assistance from the government. I just don't clause 5 is where the really awful parts of the law are set out.
Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted.
...will making hyper-linking an activity fraught with peril, and might in the end "make the Internet itself illegal". The problem is that, by analogous arguments, you could argue that current Canadian law already makes the "Internet illegal". That is, Canadian defamation law has already spoken: linking to defamatory may be (not is, necessarily) defamatory. For example, the judge in the Crookes case--in which green party activist Wayne Crookes attempted to, as the story goes, "sue the Internet"-- laid down several clarifying markers:
[84] I agree, as well, that the circumstances of a case may add more so as to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to go to a jury. So a statement to the effect “N is described at [hyper link]” may itself incorporate a libel so as to be defamatory.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but I know a few, and what this passage implies is that if you write something in support of the defamatory material at the other end of the link then you can get in trouble, but merely linking to, and perhaps even describing the content on a page carrying defamatory material, is not necessarily enough to be defamatory.
In any case, merely linking to defamatory material under Canuck law can be libel. That's already settled. Bill C-51 merely extends this to the matter of hate-speech. So it doesn't strike me as a particularly big deal if you aren't already a hard-core Speechy (free speech absolutist). The Internet is no more or less safe for linking than it was.
Don't get me wrong: C-51 is bad law. At its core it seems to demand that Canadian ISPs beef up and redesign their networks in order to spy on their customers when the police or government demand it, and demands that they do this without financial assistance from the government. I just don't clause 5 is where the really awful parts of the law are set out.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
How To Defame People Online
Dawg has a nice update on the CC vs. Patrick Ross defamation case. In the comments, Marky Mark asks:
1. If a bear shits in the woods and nobody is around....i.e., what is the relevance of the obscurity/traffic of the blog that publishes the defamatory material? There is a difference between something appearing in a large daily newspaper or high traffic website and something technically available to all on the Internet but on a site that has insignificant traffic. Can a reputation be harmed in the community in those circumstances?
1. If a bear shits in the woods and nobody is around....i.e., what is the relevance of the obscurity/traffic of the blog that publishes the defamatory material? There is a difference between something appearing in a large daily newspaper or high traffic website and something technically available to all on the Internet but on a site that has insignificant traffic. Can a reputation be harmed in the community in those circumstances?
To me this gets the situation upside down.
Or, to put it another way, if I wanted to damage a person by defaming them on-line, I wouldn't worry too much about the amount of traffic I attracted to my blog or whatever I was using as the vehicle for my attack. Rather, I would worry about where the stuff I wrote about that person ranked in a Google search. As someone whose real-life job occasionally involves sniffing around the net trying to discover whether a particular (usually IT-based) company is a respectable enough business partner for my employer, I can tell you that if you apply for any position above burger-flipper someone in HR is going to run your name through google, see what you're up to on Facebook, and etc. If the first ten google entries about you all claim that you're a pedophile (for example), your resume will be moved to the bottom of the pile. Nobody is going to waste time testing the truth of these claims, and nobody is going to tell you why you didn't get a follow-up call. You just won't get one.
This, by the way, also works as an argument for working to remove Hate Speech from the Net. Here's what you get when you search for information re the oft-made claim that Anne Frank's diary was a hoax. The loons rule the top of the search results. Through sheer determination, they have swamped any saner discussion of the matter. But note that these sites do not themselves have to be particularly high volume to make the top of the list.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
To Know Him Is To Sue Him, Part Gazillion And One
Another episode in the continuing story of Ezra Levant and his encounters with defamation law.
I have a buddy that tells me what he's up to on weekends. I don't hang with him much, because most of his stories end with "...and then the cops threw me through plate-glass window". Similarly, most of the episodes in Ezra's life seem to end with "and then I got sued".
I have a buddy that tells me what he's up to on weekends. I don't hang with him much, because most of his stories end with "...and then the cops threw me through plate-glass window". Similarly, most of the episodes in Ezra's life seem to end with "and then I got sued".
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Crookes Loses: Linking To Defamatory Material Not Necessarily Defamatory
The decision is here. For anyone that doesn't know, Green Party activist Wayne Crookes sued a number of people, including Michael Geist for linking to material he considered defamatory. It was not too far from the truth to say he was trying to "sue the entire internet". Luckily, at least one of the judges in one of the cases decided that this would not stand.
I haven't read the whole decision, but from this:
[84] I agree, as well, that the circumstances of a case may add more so as to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to go to a jury. So a statement to the effect “N is described at [hyper link]” may itself incorporate a libel so as to be defamatory.
...suggests that if you say something in support of the defamatory material at the other end of the link then you could be in trouble, but merely linking to, and perhaps even describing the content on, a page carrying defamatory material, is not enough.
Hopefully this has positive implication for the case against Mark of Section 15.
PS. There is very little here that is pertinant to the Warman defamation suits.
h/t.
I haven't read the whole decision, but from this:
[84] I agree, as well, that the circumstances of a case may add more so as to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to go to a jury. So a statement to the effect “N is described at [hyper link]” may itself incorporate a libel so as to be defamatory.
...suggests that if you say something in support of the defamatory material at the other end of the link then you could be in trouble, but merely linking to, and perhaps even describing the content on, a page carrying defamatory material, is not enough.
Hopefully this has positive implication for the case against Mark of Section 15.
PS. There is very little here that is pertinant to the Warman defamation suits.
h/t.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Some People Never Learn, Or: Ezra Levant And Defamation Law
Apology to the Honourable Ron Ghitter
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I should like to read to you a statement that will be published in the Calgary Herald, The Calgary Sun and The Edmonton Journal on Friday, April 14. It will be entitled, "Apology to Senator Ghitter from Rob Anders, M.P., and Ezra Levant."
In September of 1998, we unfairly and inaccurately described the character, statements, commitment and work of Senator Ghitter in a fundraising letter circulated to 31,000 Albertans in connection with the Alberta Senatorial Election. The letter was prepared by Ezra Levant and signed by Rob Anders on behalf of the Reform Party of Alberta.
The letter was insulting and demeaning of Senator Ghitter who has dedicated over 30 years of his life to public service both as an elected member of the Legislature of Alberta, a member of the Senate of Canada, a spokesman for minorities, and a volunteer in many capacities.
On September 25, 1998, Senator Ghitter requested that we retract our statements and donate $2,500.00 to the Alberta Cancer Society. We refused to do so, and instead made further inaccurate and demeaning public statements about Senator Ghitter through various media outlets. On October 21, 1998, Senator Ghitter commenced a defamation action against us.
Our attack on Senator Ghitter was unfounded and we now admit having defamed Senator Ghitter. We further acknowledge that some of our statements were based on facts that were false and on out of context interpretations.
We regret preparing and sending the letter and wish to apologize to Senator Ghitter and his family for our lack of civility and our inappropriate actions and comments.
Rob Anders, M.P.
Ezra Levant
Some background here.
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I should like to read to you a statement that will be published in the Calgary Herald, The Calgary Sun and The Edmonton Journal on Friday, April 14. It will be entitled, "Apology to Senator Ghitter from Rob Anders, M.P., and Ezra Levant."
In September of 1998, we unfairly and inaccurately described the character, statements, commitment and work of Senator Ghitter in a fundraising letter circulated to 31,000 Albertans in connection with the Alberta Senatorial Election. The letter was prepared by Ezra Levant and signed by Rob Anders on behalf of the Reform Party of Alberta.
The letter was insulting and demeaning of Senator Ghitter who has dedicated over 30 years of his life to public service both as an elected member of the Legislature of Alberta, a member of the Senate of Canada, a spokesman for minorities, and a volunteer in many capacities.
On September 25, 1998, Senator Ghitter requested that we retract our statements and donate $2,500.00 to the Alberta Cancer Society. We refused to do so, and instead made further inaccurate and demeaning public statements about Senator Ghitter through various media outlets. On October 21, 1998, Senator Ghitter commenced a defamation action against us.
Our attack on Senator Ghitter was unfounded and we now admit having defamed Senator Ghitter. We further acknowledge that some of our statements were based on facts that were false and on out of context interpretations.
We regret preparing and sending the letter and wish to apologize to Senator Ghitter and his family for our lack of civility and our inappropriate actions and comments.
Rob Anders, M.P.
Ezra Levant
Some background here.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
No Accuracy Please, We're The Montreal Gazette
From their editorial decrying the OHRC's call for a national press council:
If someone wants to start a rabidly partisan, scurrilous scandal sheet, that's fine with us...
Scurrilous Adj. Def.:
untrue or unfair, insulting, and designed to damage a person's reputation: scurrilous allegations [Latin scurra buffoon]
containing obscenities, abuse, or slander
containing abusive language or defamatory allegations
For The Gazette: free speech = freedom to speak falsely and to slander. And this is how professional journalists have succeeded in marginalizing themselves in Canada's great free speech debate.
If someone wants to start a rabidly partisan, scurrilous scandal sheet, that's fine with us...
Scurrilous Adj. Def.:
untrue or unfair, insulting, and designed to damage a person's reputation: scurrilous allegations [Latin scurra buffoon]
containing obscenities, abuse, or slander
containing abusive language or defamatory allegations
For The Gazette: free speech = freedom to speak falsely and to slander. And this is how professional journalists have succeeded in marginalizing themselves in Canada's great free speech debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)