Internet hosts should be made to pay for libellous statements, suit contends

[Newsjock]

Source: The Globe and Mail

The hosts of the speed-of-light world of Internet blogs and interactive websites that publish anonymous commentary should be forced to pay when reputations are damaged, says a former Green Party staff member who is suing three such sites.

Google, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia and openpolitics.ca, a Canadian political website based in Toronto, are being sued in Vancouver in a libel case that could change the way Internet opinion is monitored and published.

Wayne Crookes, a former campaign manager of the Green Party of Canada, said he “suffered an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress” over postings on Google's Blogspot.com, a free blog-hosting website, within an entry under his name in Wikipedia, and on openpolitics.ca, an interactive political forum set up by Michael Pilling, an Ontario and federal Green Party activist.

... The American headquarters of both Google and Wikipedia declined to comment as they had not yet been served with the writ.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070419.wwikipedia0420/BNStory/Technology/home

[Phredicles]

Would this mean I couldn't say Hannity orally pleasures goats?

Then I better say it while I still can: Hannity orally pleasures goats!!!:evilgrin:

[TexasLawyer]

4. truth is a perfect defense to slander

so you're good.

[rwenos]

1. The Canucks and Brits Ain't Got No

First Amendment, and they ain't got no New York Times v. Sullivan, which constitutionalized libel law in the U.S. back in the 1970's.

My prediction is this political operative might prevail in court in Canada, but he'll never be able to enforce a judgment against Wikipedia or Google in the States. No American court would do it.

[Kagemusha]

5. Canada has a written constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

It's not a 1st amendment, it's a 1st clause. It isn't absolute but it is rather broad. I mention this because what I have written is emphatically not the case in Britain... though they've signed up to a convention on human rights with the EU but, that's a really ugly process of last resort. It's still a hell of a lot easier to win a libel case in Britain.

[rwenos]

6. Okay, Canucks Have Improved on Brits

I am by no measure learned in Canadian law. I do know that they don't have NY Times v. Sullivan -- which stands for a broad rule that anyone who is a "public figure" is virtually impossible to libel or slander. As it should be. If the Canadians have moved off the old British common law, good for them. But is there a lower level of protection for politicians and "public figures" than for private citizens? That's what NY Times v. Sullivan gives us in the U.S.

[Kagemusha]

7. I think the best answer is, the bar is higher, but not quite as high.

The problem with this case isn't the bar; it's that there's no way Google or Wikipedia should be held responsible for the content in this manner, no matter what the standard for culpability for the party *actually* responsible for the libel.

[rwenos]

8. Agreed - Internet is Becoming a "Traditional Public Forum"

US First Amendment law has a doctrine called "traditional public forum." Thus, a speech made in front of an assembled crowd in front of the White House, or on the Mall, or in Union Square in San Francisco, has more protection under US law than a screed uttered in a quiet library. Thus, a speaker can call a politician a "goddamned racketeer fascist" in front of a crowd in downtown Chicago, but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

[Kagemusha]

9. Yeah, I expect if this hasn't been hammered out in the courts yet

it will be, largely along the lines you just mention. I speak of Canada's case.

The UK? That's gonna be a mess.

[rwenos]

10. Hasn't Really Shaken Out in US Yet Either

I don't know of any big chat forum that has been sued in the US. I'm simply summarizing basic US First Amendment legal principles. Sounds like the Canucks (God bless 'em -- I LOVE British Columbia) will probably sort it out along similar lines as US.

The system has worked pretty well in the US. A private citizen or corp can sue, but if the target of the speech is a politician or person who has purposefully injected themself into the public debate -- forget it. Almost impossible to slander or libel them.

[truthisfreedom]

2. If this goes through, I will immediately shut down the q & a forum on my website.

I cannot be made to pay for someone else's illegal postings.

[havocmom]

3. And THAT's just why they are making the threat

They want to shut down questions and answers in public discussions.

The internet was the one thing the junta didn't control and it is their undoing.

[bemildred]

11. Right, pulp mills should pay for all the nasty books out there too. nt

[gratuitous]

12. This law is an excellent idea

Right after they enact a law that holds the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace liable for their specious statements that damage their targets' reputations. In contrast to the case of an internet site that includes comments from anonymous commenters, these sewer mouths are putting their lies out there themselves. Once we have a law in place for those folks, then we can turn to the internets.

Deal? Oooh, crickets!

[ends_dont_justify]

15. Heh, agreed

That's the very first thing I thought of. If this starts working, how about the non internet douche bags who traumatize entire cities like olielly's comment about san Francisco and terrorism?

[benEzra]

13. So then any web forum can be shut down by trolls

who purposely show up to post libelous statements in order to shut the forum down. No thanks.

[rinsd]

14. Wayne Crookes is a vindictive douchebag.

:hide:

[Solo_in_MD]

16. There are significant jurisdictional issues with Google and Wiki