Worse, our courts are still unclear how to apply libel law to the Internet.
As I've written about before, (see here) I'm being sued by Green Party of Canada creditor and former campaign manager Wayne Crookes over links and articles other people wrote which I had the misfortune of reposting in a Yahoo Group forum. During the Green Party of Canada's 2006 internal election I kept a wiki which had a link to a candidate's web page, which had on it somewhere a link to a wiki which had on it somewhere some content Crookes objects too (I still don't know what!). For this, he is also suing me, though, to date, he's not sued the candidate.
If Wayne Crookes (the plaintiff) gets his way, entire sites could be forced offline simply for linking to another site which somewhere on it has content someone claims is libelous.
Crookes is also using Wikipedia and (ironically) the OpenPolitics.ca wiki. For a great piece about the OpenPolitics case, see fellow ProgBlogger Chris Tindal's excellent The Silliness of Suing a Wiki which is a piece explaining why suing a wiki is ridiculous.
Crookes responded by suing that author as well. Read it and see if you can figure out what is libelous.
Done? According to Crookes, nothing written in that piece is libelous -- except it has some links he doesn't want published.
And now, for linking to it, he can sue me (again!) as well. And if you link to this post, you can now get sued.
Or so he argues.
What these lawsuits place at risk is nothing less than net democracy in Canada. By insisting that political writings no more unusual than what we all read daily on blogs, forums and wikis are to be considered libelous, and by succeeding in getting defendants to remove material (and in one case removing an entire blog over one post and some comments) without even a court order or finding, and for claiming that hyperlinks — even over multiple jumps — are to be considered as disseminating alleged libel, Crookes' lawsuits are attacking the very roots of our online community. There are issues here which our courts have yet to decide on, and unless we can fund and fight these lawsuits, the courts may rule his way, establishing a precedent which may not only chill the Canadian Internet, but freeze it.
What we want is for political writing to be specially protected from such lawsuits, as it is in countries like New Zealand, Australia and the UK. We want right-of-reply recognized as a remedy to defamation. We want the reverse-onus provision (guilty until proven innocent!) with regards to libel eliminated. And we want to see penalties applied to those who try to use libel law to silence dissent, such as the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) provision in use in California, which allows judges to dismiss qualifying cases early in the litigation process.
We want to be able to publicly question those in power without chill without fear.
Political writings should not be held merely on par with other expressions. Political writings are what have granted us our very freedoms, and will continue to preserve them as long as they flourish. Unprecedented in history, citizens can now publish their political opinions and inquiries online. We can now be freer than ever before; however, Canada's libel laws can and likely will make these most important expressions a liability to the corporations hosting the material, and our political opinions subject to coercion from the powerful. We need to change these laws, or lie down and be the peasants they say we are.
So Donate!To defend ourselves, we badly need money. Over at LibelChill.ca you can donate to our defense fund through Paypal. Please give generously. Libel lawsuits are very expensive and as we are fighting several at once, we are looking at an initial price tag of up to $100,000. If you value your online expression, you need to donate!
If you run a blog, there are promotional banners you can place on your blog here. (Feel free to design something better -- just let me know.) The CBC video is available on YouTube here.
We need your help. And you need us to help establish and preserve your online rights.
I leave you with the words of an American defendant, David Weekly, CEO of PBwiki.com:
I don't think there's a realistic option for companies to actively monitor the content that they host. My company of six people publishes over two million unique pages of user-provided information. A rather simpler solution for ISPs, if this trial goes the wrong way, would be to simply firewall Canada to prevent Canadians from accessing websites with consumer media. That's the only option our company could afford to undertake. (We're also being sued by Crookes.) It'd be like the Great Firewall of China, but in reverse.
If you don't know my private email, and want to contact me, either leave a message below (and if you don't want the message posted, tell me), or reach me at libelchillinfo (AT) gmail.com.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 8/17/2007 10:45:00 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment