The Day Free Speech Died in Canada

[scribblet]

Hope this is the right forum... Has anyone been reading about the lawsuit on Freedominion.ca ? I have to be careful about how this is worded and not mentioning names, so maybe you could go to FD to read up on it. Websites must be very careful now about what is said as the site is responsible for reader's comments. Daniel Dickens has closed off his comments

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/10/jury-rules-in-favour-of-warman-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DanielDickin+%28Daniel+Dickin%29

The day free speech died in Canada

http://usuryfree.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-day-free-speech-died-in-canada.html

Now I read this : EU court is holding websitges liable for readers' comments

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/internet/3473236/eu-court-holds-news-website-liable-for-readers-comments/#ixzz2hRzxmokj

Seven top European Union judges ruled Thursday that a leading Internet news website is legally responsible for offensive views posted by readers in the site's comments section.

I'm surprised there isn't more about this in the media.

[TimG]

I guess that means that chat rooms will have to be hosted in the US or other country that values free speech.

Of course that means the NSA will be tracking your posts and correlating them with the other websites you visit...

Edited October 12, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Wow, I had not heard about these cases. The admins and moderators, and all forum members here at MLW should read up on the links you posted. These are very significant cases to us posters and those who run this forum.

It's all very scary for the health of online free speech, but it does look like these charges were within the law. I understand the hate-speech concerns, but the libel charges are very scary for us online posters. From what I've read, it seems any politician could very easily successfully sue any of us MLW posters for libel if we defame their character on MLW or anywhere else online. Even if we said "such-and-such MP is a real jerk" we could get successfully sued for libel, and if we said "such-and-such MP is a total Nazi, what a fascist!" that looks like it would be a slam-dunk charge of libel or something similar, based on the cases I just read from the OP. And don't even contemplate a "I really hate *insert person here*" because I guess that's "hate-speech"?

There's basically seems no legal difference between us posting something on MLW and a journalist posting something in a newspaper or book that is libel/defamation against a person. Scary!

[Moonlight Graham]

I guess that means that chat rooms will have to be hosted in the US or other country that values free speech.

Great point. If MLW forums are hosted in the US on US servers, does that get we posters and the forum admins different legal rights (ie: US speech rights rather than Canadian/provincial)?

I don't really agree with hate-speech laws in Canada.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Peter F]

I don't see a problem. Libel is Libel wether expressed to the public in the press on tv or on public websites

[TimG]

I don't see a problem. Libel is Libel wether expressed to the public in the press on tv or on public websites

In the US the truth cannot be libel. In Canada any bad thing said about a person is libel even if it is true. The Canadian law is wrong - no one should be allowed to suppress the truth.

But the bigger issue is the website operator is being held liable for comments made by a poster. If upheld this ruling will lead to the closure of all online forums in Canada because it is impossible for any operator to meet the standards set in this trial. This a gross denial of free speech that is not acceptable.

Edited October 12, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't see a problem. Libel is Libel wether expressed to the public in the press on tv or on public websites

Actually I think you mean "defamation" instead of libel. Defamation is the general term, and "slander" is defamation through speech or gesture while "libel" is defamation via written words, pictures, or other non-speech/gesture contexts.

But ya, in terms of what the law is, I agree.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

In the US the truth cannot be libel. In Canada any bad thing said about a person is libel even if it is true. The Canadian law is wrong - no one should be allowed to suppress the truth.

Totally agree with you.

But the bigger issue is the website operator is being held liable for comments made by a poster. If upheld this ruling will lead to the closure of all online forums in Canada because it is impossible for any operator to meet the standards set in this trial. This a gross denial of free speech that is not acceptable.

I agree again. Although the case against the free dominion did also go after 8 anonymous posters on the site.

[GostHacked]

That is really messed up. Let me see if I understand this correctly.

So I could flip off someone here, and if moderation/owners does not deal with it when requested, the targeted person could sue the moderation/owners of the site. And I might get banned, but other than that, no real harm to me.

[Bonam]

That is really messed up. Let me see if I understand this correctly.

So I could flip off someone here, and if moderation/owners does not deal with it when requested, the targeted person could sue the moderation/owners of the site. And I might get banned, but other than that, no real harm to me.

Sounds like a great easy way to destroy forums you don't like by signing up with throw-away accounts and making "offensive" comments.

[GostHacked]

Sounds like a great easy way to destroy forums you don't like by signing up with throw-away accounts and making "offensive" comments.

An increase in troll like activity perhaps? Every site has a EULA type thing to agree to and not be a dick to others. In no way should the host site be responsible for what posters say on forums. But in the majority of cases, I would assume that moderation takes care of those posters post haste. Sometimes it can't all be done in a timely manner. I'd simply put a disclaimer as well with the rules acceptance, you and you only (the poster) are responsible for what is posted here.

[Moonlight Graham]

In Canada any bad thing said about a person is libel even if it is true.

BTW Tim, are you sure this is the case? I think I read it somewhere too, but also read the opposite on Wikipedia.

[TimG]

BTW Tim, are you sure this is the case? I think I read it somewhere too, but also read the opposite on Wikipedia.

It appears that truth is a defense - the linked article played games by quoting a human rights tribunal ruling on hate speech and that led me to believe the actually libel law did not allow truth as a defense. Dishonest tactics for someone looking to get public support. Edited October 12, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

The day free speech died in Canada

I'm surprised there isn't more about this in the media.

is defamation a free speech issue?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

is defamation a free speech issue?

Well, Conservative media relies on defamation of truth and slandering of good conscience opinions... I suppose they expect it to become the norm and widely accepted?

Kidding aside, website administrators should be held liable if they were asked to remove the defamatory comments and chose not to. This has implications for people who believe lies very passionately. I can think of numerous occasions that extremists have made comments they believe wholly to be true but are patently false.

[jacee]

It appears that truth is a defense - the linked article played games by quoting a human rights tribunal ruling on hate speech and that led me to believe the actually libel law did not allow truth as a defense. Dishonest tactics for someone looking to get public support.

That's the way (edit) alarmists play. Edited October 13, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

That's the way the neonazis play.

Its the way climate alarmists play too. The 'bait and switch' tactic is essential to the alarmist propaganda playbook. I should have been more careful. Edited October 12, 2013 by TimG

[scribblet]

Anonymous posters were sued as well, so it could be a lot worse than being banned.

The site in question is hosted in Panama, they did that years back thinking it would protect them, it didn't. If you are interested in reading more about that I think they may have posted transcripts, if not they've given the whole account in a thread. I haven't read it all and I don't post on there, but I think it is a free speech issue as more sites will close down the commenting section. The owner of this forum should be very careful too.

[Peter F]

I don't see any free speech issue here. That a public website is being held responsible for defamatory comments by anonymous users is entirely reasonable (no sarcasm intended). All forms of public forums are held responsible for the crap they allow on them and must take reasonable steps

(editing) to avoid instances of defamation.

The complaint here seems to centre on the fact that the web masters are going to have to take thier self-assumed positions seriously - just like every other public forum.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Peter F

[waldo]

The complaint here seems to centre on the fact that the web masters are going to have to take thier self-assumed positions seriously - just like every other public forum.

apparently... their version of freedom died. Say a lil' prayer for it! On the other hand, claimed vindication: "- I am pleased to confirm that a 6-member civil jury in Ottawa has now vindicated my reputation from a 6-year onslaught of character assassination and malicious attacks."

Edited October 12, 2013 by waldo

[Argus]

It appears that truth is a defense - the linked article played games by quoting a human rights tribunal ruling on hate speech and that led me to believe the actually libel law did not allow truth as a defense. Dishonest tactics for someone looking to get public support.

It's not a defense if you're not allowed to introduce information to prove it's true. If you read the cited article the judge basically tied their hands and refused to accept anything as true with absolute proof. So the fact a newspaper said something is irrelevent. You'd need the original person to testify. And according to the linked article, whenever they got someone to do so, even flying them across the country, Warman would simply drop that part of the claim (it related to 69 posts). Also, if the jury is given a narrow interpretation of defamation by the judge and that intrpretation doesn't allow for political comment or truth then what else are they going to find? I hope this is appealed.

[Argus]

I don't see any free speech issue here. That a public website is being held responsible for defamatory comments by anonymous users is entirely reasonable (no sarcasm intended).

I've noticed that many of those on the left have little or no commitment to freedom of speech, especially in any context where that speach disagrees with or offends them.

[Argus]

That's the way the neonazis play.

Are you suggesting the individuals who were sued were neo-nazis? Because I guarantee you there are people on this forum who are also on that forum and you could be leading Mapleleaf web open to the next lawsuit.

For the record, if you had actually read the cite, you'd find where, in speaking about the defamation law We were not allowed to refer to any case law that gave a broader definition, and the judge specifically refused to give the jury case law relating to the extra latitude that should be given to "political speech".

[scribblet]

Are you suggesting the individuals who were sued were neo-nazis? Because I guarantee you there are people on this forum who are also on that forum and you could be leading Mapleleaf web open to the next lawsuit.

For the record, if you had actually read the cite, you'd find where, in speaking about the defamation law We were not allowed to refer to any case law that gave a broader definition, and the judge specifically refused to give the jury case law relating to the extra latitude that should be given to "political speech".

Right, and this is part of the issue, even that comment could be fodder for a law suit.

There is a website (not FD) that has documented everything and the issues iincluded the impersonation of a 'racist', a sting so to speak or entrapment. I'm not sure if even posting that could be a problem.

[TimG]

And according to the linked article, whenever they got someone to do so, even flying them across the country, Warman would simply drop that part of the claim (it related to 69 posts).

The judge in this case is appalling and I hope it is appealed or, better yet, that the law be reformed. That said, the article is misleading because it leads one to believe that truth is not is a defense when the exact opposite is true. The real problem was a biased judge who clearly has no respect for the principle of free speech since he made it so difficult for FD to defend themselves.