The Day Free Speech Died in Canada

[Peter F]

The judge was appalling? What information leads you to that conclusion?

[waldo]

The judge was appalling? What information leads you to that conclusion?

I wonder if any of this threads posters, those who are so livid over the "death of free speech", those "interpreter's of their favoured blog interpreters", have actually read the court's ruling... can they link us to it? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

I'd be most interested in reading how certain testimony sits within the ruling.

[Michael Hardner]

This thread suffers from a lack of objective legal analysis, and some missing objective facts as well such as the specific complaints, how long they were posted, when the plaintiff requested removal, the response and such facts.

[TimG]

This thread suffers from a lack of objective legal analysis, and some missing objective facts as well such as the specific complaints, how long they were posted, when the plaintiff requested removal, the response and such facts

Well the suit prevents people from posting the facts that would allow people to make a determination for themselves. Which is a huge problem in itself.

That said, the claims that the judge refused to allow the defendants to cite relevant case law or to explain the context are objective facts.

Also the fact that the plaintiff removed posts from the complaint as soon as witness were produced shows that the plaintiff was acting in bad faith (i.e. the plaintiff must have known that the posts were true yet still sought to sue based on the hope that they could not be proven to be true).

[Michael Hardner]

i doubt the suit prevents people from posting the assertions.

Many of the facts on the case seem to come from FreeDominion itself - let's wait until the MSM posts the story.

The legal strategy used to win the case isn't proof of anything IMO.

[scribblet]

I think most of it is up on FD's site, there is a thread somewhere about how he pretended to be a racist etc. This goes back for a few years. It's a lot of reading... One thing is clear that site owners must be very careful about what the posters say. Not just about politicians et al but about other posters. In fact, if I were Greg I would have more moderators.

I wonder how long it will be before sees something ike the EU ruling, and where does the definition of offensive start?

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.

The European Court of Human Rights found that Estonian courts were within their rights to fine Delfi, one of the country's largest news websites, for comments made anonymously about a news article, according to a judgment.

In January 2006, Delfi published an article about a ferry company's decision to change its routes and thus delay the opening of alternative and cheaper ice roads to certain islands.

So far the MSM isn't reporting on the story which is a shame.

Edited October 13, 2013 by scribblet

[bleeding heart]

There have been a lot of complaints (I'm not talking about legal ones) from each part of the political rainbow regarding comments sections generally. I recal a kerfuffle between the lefty media watchdog group "Medialens", in which Guardian journalsitsa accused them of insufficiently moderating their comments section. In turn, the Medialens fellows pointed to the Guardian's own comments section...which was chock full of similar comments.

The Medialens response was essentially: "If your staff at the Guardian cannot moderate to your stated standards, how do you expect the two of us to do it with ours?" etc. (A fair response, incidentally.)

I've heard much the same elsewhere, too.

I guess disallowing public comments is an option, but that sounds pretty chilling, and I think few want to go in that direction.

Edited October 13, 2013 by bleeding heart

[waldo]

I wonder if any of this threads posters, those who are so livid over the "death of free speech", those "interpreter's of their favoured blog interpreters", have actually read the court's ruling... can they link us to it? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

I think most of it is up on FD's site

eggzactly Michael... "facts" are not necessarily!

Many of the facts on the case seem to come from FreeDominion itself - let's wait until the MSM posts the story.

[Argus]

The legal strategy used to win the case isn't proof of anything IMO.

I disagree. If the cited report is correct, and he sued over the facts in 69 posts, yet withdrew each one whenever the defendants could fly in a witness to testify to its validity I would think it goes to the heart of what this lawsuit was really about. Was it really over his reputation? Or was it really just using the law to blundgeon someone with whom he disagreed, a tactic he has been accused of in the past in his various human rights complaints. If he didn't even wait to hear the testimony that would seem to indicate he knew they would corroborate it, ie, that he knew it was true but sued in the hopes the defendant could not prove it, or that it would cost them immense time, effort and money to do so.

[waldo]

I disagree. If...

clearly, a well founded disagreement!

[Michael Hardner]

If it's true, as pointed out, then the tools you can use to win such a suit are the problem. Didn't Conrad Black make this tactic a well-publicized tool against his biographers ? As such, we're talking about two things:

- The case against FD

- "Libel chill"

[scribblet]

I disagree. If the cited report is correct, and he sued over the facts in 69 posts, yet withdrew each one whenever the defendants could fly in a witness to testify to its validity I would think it goes to the heart of what this lawsuit was really about. Was it really over his reputation? Or was it really just using the law to blundgeon someone with whom he disagreed, a tactic he has been accused of in the past in his various human rights complaints. If he didn't even wait to hear the testimony that would seem to indicate he knew they would corroborate it, ie, that he knew it was true but sued in the hopes the defendant could not prove it, or that it would cost them immense time, effort and money to do so.

It seems that was and is the intent as you say it's a tactic he's used before. I think the repeal of section 13 should slow down the SLAP suits .

Michael Geist has reported on some of this back in 2009.. It would be interesting to see his take on the final outcome.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3777/125/

I haven't seen the comments though I recognize that Warman has been subjected to some truly vile commentary. My problem with the decision is that the court conducted no analysis of the evidence presented and instead chose to create a very low bar for disclosure of personal information. As I note in my posting, anonymity is not an absolute and if Warman was able to present a prima facie case then the law clearly permits disclosure. In this instance, the court didn't conduct that analysis and I fear that the decision will be used in many other cases to compel disclosure without fully accounting for the privacy interests of the posters.

Edited October 13, 2013 by scribblet

[waldo]

I haven't seen the comments though I recognize that Warman has been subjected to some truly vile commentary.

and again... given this, your 'late to the game', as you call it, 'recognition'...

is defamation a free speech issue?

[jacee]

Are you suggesting the individuals who were sued were neo-nazis?

I wouldn't know. I don't know who made the allegation in question, but it is the type of over-the-top tactic used by some fringe groups.

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.

Well I'm not interested in that and to remove the red flag and make my point clearer, I like TimG's choice of word: alarmist as it refers more generally to the type of activists who use that kind of tactic", so I've edited my post.

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".

Yes I've read it. The part you quote doesn't address the issue of 'truth' in defamation.

-edit to add-

As TimG said:

... 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 ...

/edit

The appeal will be interesting.

Edited October 13, 2013 by jacee

[scribblet]

I wouldn't know. I don't know who made the allegation in question, but it is the type of over-the-top tactic used by some fringe groups.

Well I'm not interested in that and to remove the red flag and make my point clearer, I like TimG's choice of word: alarmist as it refers more generally to the type of activists who use that kind of tactic", so I've edited my post.

Yes I've read it. The part you quote doesn't address the issue of 'truth' in defamation.

The appeal will be interesting.

There where a couple of neo nazis involved in another lawsuit by the same person, but they weren't on FD's site. At least he was pretending to be one, This is one he lost...

http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/09/22/warman-v-lemire-the-constitutionality-of-hate-speech-legislation/

On September 2 of this year, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued its decision in Warman v. Lemire, 2009 CHRT 26. Making national news in doing so, Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis declared as unconstitutional section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act) for unjustifiably infringing on the freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2( of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision would effectively strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to stamp out internet hate speech under the impugned section. For its shocking result and for the questions it engages as to the constitutionality of hate speech as an exception to the freedom of expression, this Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision is covered here on TheCourt.ca.

Then there's Mark Steyn

http://www.steynonline.com/3563/warman-sues-blazing-cat-fur-for-linking-to-far

The least does is put a chill on commenting.

Edited October 13, 2013 by scribblet

[The_Squid]

There were some very defamatory allegations made against the plaintiff on the FD website. I think it's a lot of hyperbole to say that "free speech is dead in Canada". It was a fairly straightforward case of libel. The owners of the website seemed to let the posts linger because of their own conflict with the plaintiff.

[scribblet]

Warren Kinsella is being sued, don't think he's a happy camper.

http://warrenkinsellasux.blogspot.ca/2013/10/bourrie-v-kinsella.html

[jacee]

Warren Kinsella is being sued, don't think he's a happy camper.

http://warrenkinsellasux.blogspot.ca/2013/10/bourrie-v-kinsella.html

I can't wait to see the evidence for Bourrie's claim that he's not the "world's biggest a**hole".

I wonder how they'll deternine that?

[jacee]

There were some very defamatory allegations made against the plaintiff on the FD website. I think it's a lot of hyperbole to say that "free speech is dead in Canada". It was a fairly straightforward case of libel.

I think that's the heart of the matter.