Freedominion Closed - A Sad Day For Canada & Freedom

[BubberMiley]

Seems reasonable to me. Otherwise, you would have situations like a Prime Minister suggesting a group of people are terrorists just because they criticized his political positions.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see such a law being used against a PM, unless you were being sarcastic there.

[waldo]

I don't see such a law being used against a PM, unless you were being sarcastic there.

interestingly we don't hear/read either Joe Oliver... or Harper... or any Harper Conservative, as I'm aware, directly uttering the "enemies of the state" line anymore. Did they succumb to a perceived threat of a defamatory/libel lawsuit... or are they just letting "Ethical Oil and the Ezrant" carry that water?

[BubberMiley]

I don't see such a law being used against a PM, unless you were being sarcastic there.

It's being used against this PM, which is completely appropriate given his unethical and irresponsible comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/28/muslim-canada-jason-macdonald-harper_n_4680611.html

[cybercoma]

In my mind free speech is the right not to stand at trial for the contents of a statement.

Free speech has never been free. Even in America you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

[cybercoma]

Yes, follow the link to find out some amazing and unfortunate facts about our feudal legal system.

And don't worry. Bush_Cheney2004 can make all the defamatory libellous statements he wants. The US government protects him from having to pay in a Canadian court.

[cybercoma]

Seems reasonable to me. Otherwise, you would have situations like a Prime Minister suggesting a group of people are terrorists just because they criticized his political positions.

Or saying that people support pedophiles for not agreeing to intrusions on their privacy. We wouldn't want that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Free speech has never been free. Even in America you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

This tired old "meme" has been debunked for years. You most certainly can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded or uncrowded theatre in "America", and depending on the context and circumstances (with and without a real fire), one may face consequences for creating a clear and present danger.

[cybercoma]

You most certainly can yell fire, except when you can't. Thanks for your enlightened response.

[bush_cheney2004]

The late Christopher Hitchens explains this further for "meme" devotees:

[sharkman]

Whatever the law is, if it can close an internet forum simply because some twit posts illegal comments, then that is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The guilty person should be held accountable, not the internet or some forum. This ruling is so Canadian.

Edited January 31, 2014 by sharkman

[Argus]

civil... and criminal: from the Criminal Code of Canada:

- 298. Definition

(1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

Mode of expression

(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony

a - in words legibly marked on any substance; or

b - by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.

So you can expose someone to ridicule by irony? And if someone does it on your web site you're responsible?

It's an absurd law, but colour me unsurprised that the lefties are fine with its misuse as long as it takes down a conservative web site. Very few on the left that I encounter have the slightest support for freedom of speech when that speech disagrees with their own beliefs. It's something about that incredible level of self-righteousness which gets handed out with the 'progressive' ideology. In fact, it's a mirror of the very actions of the person described by Ezra Levant

[Argus]

Whatever the law is, if it can close an internet forum simply because some twit posts illegal comments, then that is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The guilty person should be held accountable, not the internet or some forum. This ruling is so Canadian.

And how do you know what sort of commentary is illegal given the sweeping nature of that law?

[-1=e^ipi]

Sad day for freedom in Canada.

For issues like this, it is important to remember why freedom of speech should have so much value in society. Freedom of speech allows people to share different ideas, discuss them, debate them and as a result come closer to the truth. It allows new ideas to replace old ones, allows unpopular ideas to become popular and it lets people challenge the status quo for the betterment of humanity. If no ideas are protected and everything is open to scrutiny then ultimately the more reasoned and logically sound arguments should prevail. Only weak and poorly justified ideas need to fear freedom of speech.

If someone purposely distorts truth or lies then it is against the best interest of society and in extreme cases should be considered a crime. This can include:

- Someone yelling 'FIRE' in a movie theatre

- Someone committing fraud

- Cases of libel where someone is intentionally lying about someone else

However, the following should not be illegal:

- Hate speech

- Blasphemy

- Cases of libel where someone is not intentionally lying about someone else

In the case of libel, the distinction should be made if someone is intentionally lying or if they truly believe their claims. If someone truly believes that Stephen Harper is a space alien from Mars (example), then they shouldn't be charged with libel for their ridiculous beliefs. Ultimately the best defense against both forms of libel is to use freedom of speech to defend against someone's claims.

I would also like to point out that many religions are based on fraud (Mormonism, Scientology, etc.) but those religions shouldn't be banned because some of the followers truly believe in their bullshit religion and people should be allowed to disagree with the majority opinion, no matter how crazy their beliefs.

Three other cases where I think that restrictions on freedom of speech should apply are:

- Leaking military intel to other countries against the best interest of the nation

- CEOS of different firms trying to collude and form a cartel in order to raise prices against the best interest of the nation.

- Conspiracy to commit significant crimes such as murder

In each case, the restrictions are justified because they are in the military/economic interest of the nation and neither cases involves the restriction of discussion of ideas on how society should function.

Except for statements that are crimes, I assume?
Like ...
conspiracy
treason
defamation

and such ... I assume?
Your statement doesn't hold up.

This is a ridiculous position. You say that it's okay to limit speech if the statements are made. But by definition, if something is against the law it is a crime. Therefore, you are saying that any legal limitation is justified because going against it would be a crime. So blasphemy laws in Ireland or Pakistan justified?

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't see such a law being used against a PM, unless you were being sarcastic there.

Oh yeah? Take note that a libel suit has been brought against Harper and his spokesman for a statement which came from his office suggesting the National Council of Canadian Muslims is connected to terrorist groups.

[sharkman]

And how do you know what sort of commentary is illegal given the sweeping nature of that law?

Good point, I suppose it's up to the leanings of whatever judge gets the case. By this ruling, if one of us said something that ended up in court, a judge could order this forum closed. Kind of sounds like China.

[jacee]

Whatever the law is, if it can close an internet forum simply because some twit posts illegal comments, then that is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The guilty person should be held accountable, not the internet or some forum. This ruling is so Canadian.

They could have avoided this situation by acting like normal moderators and removing the libellous posts and apologizing, etc.

They chose to challenge the law instead.

Their choice, their loss.

.

[jacee]

Good point, I suppose it's up to the leanings of whatever judge gets the case. By this ruling, if one of us said something that ended up in court, a judge could order this forum closed. Kind of sounds like China.

The judge did not order the forum closed. He ordered that the libels not be repeated.

The Fourniers chose to close the forum.

[waldo]

Whatever the law is, if it can close an internet forum simply because some twit posts illegal comments, then that is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The guilty person should be held accountable, not the internet or some forum. This ruling is so Canadian.

the 'law' did not close an internet forum... the owners/operators of that internet forum chose to close their forum. The reasons why the owners/operators were included in the ruling are described in the ruling (a link to which appears elsewhere within this thread).

[waldo]

So you can expose someone to ridicule by irony? And if someone does it on your web site you're responsible?

It's an absurd law, but colour me unsurprised that the lefties are fine with its misuse as long as it takes down a conservative web site. Very few on the left that I encounter have the slightest support for freedom of speech when that speech disagrees with their own beliefs. It's something about that incredible level of self-righteousness which gets handed out with the 'progressive' ideology. In fact, it's a mirror of the very actions of the person described by Ezra Levant

colour me unsurprised that you so quickly turn this into you targeting "lefties", that you presume misuse... and you conflate (this example of) defamation/libel with free speech. Self-righteousness? You mean as in the self-righteous indignation you so easily/readily display in your expressed reaction to "progressive lefties" being "fine" with something you clearly know nothing about, or something that you can't seem to find the time or make the effort to better inform yourself of?

from the Canadian Bar Association:

What is defamation?

Defamation is communication about a person that tends to hurt the person's reputation. Defamation is a strict liability tort, which means that the intentions of the defamer are not relevant. The communication must be made to other people, not just to the person it's about. The statement must be false to be classified as defamation. If it is spoken, then defamation is termed “slander". If it is written, it is termed “libel”. It can also be a gesture, which is a type of slander.

The law protects your reputation against defamation. If someone defames you, you can sue them to pay money (called “damages”) for harming your reputation. You have to sue in Supreme Court, not Provincial Court, and you have to sue within 2 years of the defamation. It is not relevant the timing of when you discovered the defamation. Rather, the limitation period commences on the date the defamatory statement was made or published.

The law doesn't protect you from a personal insult or a remark that injures only your pride; it protects reputation, not feelings. So if someone calls you a lazy slob, you might be hurt, but you probably don't have a good reason to sue. If he goes on to say you cheat in your business dealings, you probably do have a good reason to sue, as long as he says it to someone else, not just to you. If he says it only to you, you can't sue because he has not hurt your reputation.

Defamation can be a crime under the Criminal Code, but only rarely.

What is libel?

Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on damages, the Court will consider your position in the community. For example, if you are a professional, damages may be higher.

What is slander?

Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement. It can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently than libel: with slander, you have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensation. But with libel, the law presumes you suffered damages. For example, say that Bill told John you were a cheat, and then John refused to do business with you because of that. You sue Bill and prove that you lost business with John because of what Bill said. Bill would have to pay you for the loss of John's business, but not for the general damage to your reputation. It can be very hard to prove this sort of financial loss. That's why most slander cases never go to court.

But in the following four examples, a slander lawsuit may succeed without your proving financial loss. Even though there's no permanent record of the slander, the law will presume damages, as if it were libel, if someone:

- accuses you of a crime (unless they made the accusation to the police)

- accuses you of having a contagious disease

- makes negative remarks about you in your trade or business

- accuses you of adultery

What about the right to free speech?

The law protects a person's reputation but this protection can restrict other rights, such as the right to free speech. The law tries to balance these competing rights. Sometimes, even though someone made a defamatory statement that hurt a person's reputation, the law considers other rights more important. The law allows the following defences for a person who makes a defamatory statement.

What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?

If someone sues for defamation, the most common defences are:

- truth (known in law as "justification")

- absolute privilege

- qualified privilege

- fair comment

- responsible communication on matters of public interest

1. Truth or justification

A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.

2. Absolute privilege

There are two main examples of this defence: statements made in Parliament and statements made as evidence at a trial or in court documents. This privilege does not apply if a person repeats their evidence outside a courtroom. This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of these statements in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying about being sued.

3. Qualified privilege

This defence is where remarks that may otherwise be defined as defamatory were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reason. Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that this employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, and your statement is not made to more people than necessary, then the defence of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it.

4. Fair comment

We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest statements of opinion, based on fact, and not malicious. For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist has the defence of fair comment. Media articles that accurately report what was said at public meetings are also privileged, unless the meeting was not of public concern and the report was not for public benefit.

5. Responsible communication on matters of public interest

In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations – even if they are not true – if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defense, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:

- the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and

- the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.

The court defined “journalist” widely to include bloggers and anyone else “publishing material of public interest in any medium.”

What effect does an apology have?

A newspaper or a TV or radio station that publishes or broadcasts a libel can limit the amount of the damages they may have to pay by publishing or broadcasting an apology right away.

Summary

The law of defamation protects your reputation against false statements. If a person makes a false statement to someone and it hurts your reputation, you can sue the person who made the false statement for damages. But because of other competing rights in our society, such as free speech and fair comment, you will not always win.

[Michael Hardner]

By this ruling, if one of us said something that ended up in court, a judge could order this forum closed. Kind of sounds like China.

Yes, it does but we've wandered pretty far away from the facts of this case. It was the owners of the site who decided to shut down instead of facing the risk of a contempt of court charge. Not that the facts of this case are readily viewable anyway. It's kind of farcical that we can't learn any lessons from that case because the details are so scant.

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo's post seems to be very helpful in reviewing this case.

What would also be helpful - and is very difficult to find - would be the details of the original posts about the plaintiff: what the nature of the posts were, what the moderators did/didn't do to respond to the plaintiff/remove the posts, and the legal steps that got the parties to the ruling.

[-1=e^ipi]

If someone says that I am the anti-christ and work for satan, can I sue them for slander/libel? Or is that protected under freedom of belief in fairy tales?

Edited January 31, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Argus]

colour me unsurprised that you so quickly turn this into you targeting "lefties", that you presume misuse... and you conflate (this example of) defamation/libel with free speech.

It seemed pretty obvious to me. All the lefties commenting seem to evidence a sense of smug satisfaction rather than the slightest concern about the law. You included, obviously.

Part of my continuing observation of the zealotry of the left and their outrage at contrary opinions and beliefs.

So tell me, Waldo, would you, like Suzuki, jail climate deniers?

[Argus]

Waldo's post seems to be very helpful in reviewing this case.

What would also be helpful - and is very difficult to find - would be the details of the original posts about the plaintiff: what the nature of the posts were, what the moderators did/didn't do to respond to the plaintiff/remove the posts, and the legal steps that got the parties to the ruling.

How would that be helpful? You want to discuss a notorious multiple litigator and his multiple litigations on this forum and risk being sued? It costs a lawyer nothing to sue you, you know. He just has to file a few documents. Are you up to paying $50,000-$100,000 to hire another lawyer to defend yourself?