[Section 15] Michael Geist event in Toronto: E-Publishing & The Law

Michael Geist: E-Publishing & The Law

    The Canadian Journalism Foundation Hosts March 6 Event

   TORONTO, Feb. 22 /CNW/ - On March 6, Dr. Michael Geist will discuss the
legal issues that are impacting everyone from the seasoned blogger to the
average internet user, followed by a Q&A moderated by Sally Armstrong.

   <<
   What:  Anyone who blogs, comments, sends e-mail or otherwise publishes
          electronically is subject to the laws of defamation and libel,
          according to University of Ottawa Law School professor and
          internationally renowned expert on law and the Internet, Dr.
          Michael Geist. The Internet and new technologies have ushered in a
          seemingly unlimited array of possibilities for access to
          knowledge, creativity, and public participation. Dr. Geist will
          highlight the role that the Internet is playing for new creativity
          and knowledge sharing, while identifying the business and policy
          challenges that this creates for journalists and journalism.

   Who:   Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and
          E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, has written numerous
          academic articles and government reports on the Internet and law
          and was a member of Canada's National Task Force on Spam. He is an
          internationally syndicated columnist on technology law issues with
          his regular column appearing in the Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen,
          and the BBC. Dr. Geist serves on the Privacy Commissioner of
          Canada's Expert Advisory Board and on the Canadian Digital
          Information Strategy's Review Panel. Moderator Sally Armstrong is
          a veteran journalist and author of Veiled Threat: The Hidden Power
          of the Women of Afghanistan.

   When:  Thursday, March 6, 2008
          6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

   Where: MaRS Discovery District, CR-3
          101 College St at the SE corner of College & University.
   >>

   Join The Canadian Journalism Foundation (CJF) on Thursday, March 6, for
this event, which is free of charge and open to the media and the public.
Seating is limited. If you plan to attend, please register at info@cjf-fjc.ca
or visit our website www.cjf-fjc.ca/programs.htm to register online.

   About the Canadian Journalism Foundation

   Established in 1990, The Canadian Journalism Foundation (CJF) is a
not-for-profit organization that exists to contribute to the achievement of
excellence in Canadian journalism. Better journalism means a better-informed
citizenry and an improved democratic process. Through leadership seminars,
panel discussions and other activities the Foundation builds bridges and
fosters open, informed dialogue between leading public and private
organizations and the media.

For further information: Heather McCall, Program Manager, The Canadian
Journalism Foundation, Phone: (416) 955-0630, Email: hmccall@cjf-fjc.ca,
www.cjf-fjc.ca 

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 2/22/2008 01:36:00 PM

[Section 15] My empty protest

Speaking today with Zorpheous, I confessed to having the worse case of writer's block ever as an explanation as to why I have not been blogging. Where once I managed multiple posts per day on two blogs, I now do nothing.

This block is unlike any other I've had before. It's not that I lack anything to say, it's that I'm afraid to write for fear of falling once again under the shadow of Canada's backwards libel laws.

This is not a creative block, it is truly a block of stone hard fear.

You may recall that I am being sued by Wayne Crookes. Well, as I approach the one year anniversary of the lawsuit, I have little to report. A good hunk of the claim has been thrown out, but that is, last I heard, under appeal.

I am unable to pay for any legal bills. The LibelChill.ca site I put up to gather donations broke due to a server crash, and I just didn't have the time to put it back together. It seems not worth it as the donations I received after all that work were quite small.

People need to realize that Canada is not America -- you can most certainly be sued for libel in Canada for writing well-researched posts, or simply for stating opinions regardless of the level of public interest. You can most certainly be sued for writing the truth, and unless you have the tens of thousands of dollars required to defend yourself, you will find yourself publicly retracting that truth.

I try to write, but everything I publish concerns politics, and writing about politics often requires me to criticize people. Our libel law basically says that any negative comment about a person is libelous, unless, under reverse onus (guilty until proven innocent), the author can prove what they wrote is defensible.

And so, despite my many concerns about the direction of this county, and of our global society, this space now sits empty.

Consider that a political statement.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 1/07/2008 02:14:00 AM

[Section 15] Al Gore wins Nobel Peace prize

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace prize, shared with the IPCC.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change....

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world's future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control.

Congrats! This was well-deserved.

Meanwhile, there's some curiously-timed news kicking about that some judge cited nine errors with Al Gore's inconvenient truth.

The judge did not find that there were nine errors!

The judge identified nine issues raised by a plaintiff, who was trying to prevent the documentary from being shown in schools.

The plaintiff lost.

See Deltoid for an excellent factual rebuttal.

Is it a coincidence that a judge's findings are widely being misquoted at the same time it's been announced that Al Gore has won the prize?

Just wondering.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/12/2007 07:25:00 AM

[Section 15] One of Crookes' lawsuits dismissed

Wayne Crookes' lawsuit against Yahoo has been dismissed. You may recall that I am a defendant in one of his cases.

Michael Geist covered it the other day, and now CBC has it up on their website.

I have the actual ruling.

Now, Crookes has many lawsuits out there, and this is just a section of one of them, albeit one of the more significant.

What the judge found, in granting a motion by Yahoo, was that there was no evidence that a third party in BC actually saw any of the material Crookes claims to be libelous. In making this positive ruling, the judge recognized that the Yahoo group in question (GPC-Members) was a closed, private group, the contents of which are not visible to non-members. As such, without evidence that a BC-based subscriber read the material, Crookes had no case to bring the suit in BC.

What else I found interesting was something else the judge had to say, in section 16. You'll need to read some sections beforehand to get the gist:

[12] On August 4, 2006, Mr. Crookes emailed Yahoo about three postings on the GPC-Members website that defamed him and demanded that Yahoo remove these postings. That same day, following an exchange of emails and Mr. Crookes providing Yahoo with the necessary, detailed information required by Yahoo to deal with Mr. Crookes' concerns, a copy of the full headers and the message, Yahoo removed the postings. Yahoo asked Mr. Crookes to notify it of any further questionable content he found in Yahoo! Groups. Mr. Crookes was satisfied with Yahoo's prompt response and thanked Yahoo for its assistance.

[13] The statement of claim alleges that later in August 2006 the impugned postings were reposted with other allegedly defamatory material. Instead of following his previously successful method of complaint by email, Mr. Crookes claims that on December 8, 2006, he had his lawyer send a "legal letter" by fax and courier addressed to "Sir/Madam" at Yahoo! Inc. Mr. Crookes' counsel complained that Mr. Crookes "has not received your ongoing diligence in making certain that this website does not either repost the libellous comments or post equally venomous remarks". Mr. Crookes' counsel requested Yahoo "shut down this site and in its place, post an apology for the libellous comments made about him, which the moderators have, to date either reposted, ignored, and sometimes even republished with commentary". The letter did not provide the information that Yahoo had previously told Mr. Crookes it needed in order to take steps to deal with questionable material; that is, a copy of the full headers and the impugned messages.

[14] A receipt of confirmation was requested in the letter. There was no receipt of confirmation. No effort was made by Mr. Crookes or his lawyer to ascertain if Yahoo received the letter.

[15] Yahoo claims it has been unable to locate this letter in its correspondence records. In addition, no effort was made to ascertain the appropriate individual, or even the appropriate department, who should receive such a letter. No effort was made to correspond with Yahoo by email, as Mr. Crookes had done, successfully, in the past. Instead of following up with Yahoo, Mr. Crookes commenced this action against Yahoo on March 2, 2007.

[16] Plaintiffs' counsel argues knowledge can be imputed to Yahoo based on counsel's letter which was faxed, and then couriered and signed for by "K. Kerins". However, the manner in which counsel contacted Yahoo, having regard to Mr. Crookes' prior email contact with Yahoo, which was successful in having the impugned postings removed efficiently, raises suspicions and concerns.

We'll see if he appeals. He has less than 30 days now to do so.

I'll save my further comments until after that deadline.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/07/2007 10:45:00 PM

[Section 15] Iraqi government is in collapse

The world's most expensive and bloodiest experiment in imposed democracy is on the skids, says a formal Congressional Research Report, secured by Raw Story from the Daily News.

The original report is here: (PDF).

"My assessment is that because of the number and breadth of parties boycotting the cabinet, the Iraqi government is in essential collapse," Kenneth Katzman, the author of the report, said, according to Meek. "That argues against any real prospects for political reconciliation."

(Meek wrote the piece for the Daily News.)

Without a secure political climate, any military successes will not last. Which is not to say that the report is critical of the idea that there are currently any military successes.

Bush got his way, and he has failed.

*Worst. President. Ever.*

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/07/2007 12:33:00 PM

[Section 15] CBC host libel chill story on their site

CBC had the libel chill news story (starring moi among others) removed from YouTube (but left thousands of other CBC videos there); however, the piece has now been posted on CBC's site.

See http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/crimejustice/bloggers_beware.html

Geist's public complaint about it seems to have been noticed.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/05/2007 09:29:00 PM

[Section 15] How our libel law allowed the torture of children

Ontario's Grenville Christian College was a place where children were "emotionally, spiritually and sometimes physically [abused]" says a piece in today's Globe and Mail:

Joan Childs, who worked at the school for more than 30 years, posted a public apology on an Internet message board that former students have been using for more than a year to talk about what they experienced and suffered.

"What was done to people at GCC was very wrong," Ms. Childs wrote. "I was very wrong. And I am so sorry for all the hurt that was caused to each of you by me and by all of us in positions of leadership."

Former students have described a bizarre environment where they were hauled from their beds in the middle of the night to be harangued for hours by staff at so-called light sessions about being sinners.

Read the piece for more info.

What really caught my eye was a related piece, Brockville's local paper was advised not to publish abuse allegations which shockingly tells us that the local Brockville newspaper knew of these abuses, and had a story ready to print about it 20 years ago, but pulled back when witnesses suddenly retracted permission to use their names. At the exact same time, the newspaper received a letter from a major Toronto law firm threatening libel action if the article was printed.

So the story was never published.

Our libel laws place the burden of proof on the defendant, and assume that any defamation causes damage. The plaintiff merely has to claim that the published allegations are false, and it's up to the defendant to prove otherwise. Without the people willing to come forward -- and one wonders given the timing of things if there wasn't a connection between the witnesses withdrawing and the libel chill letter arriving -- the paper had little choice but to not publish.

And so the abuse went on for years more.

Many other Western jurisdictions have since reformed these ancient laws to properly place the onus upon the plaintiff, and to require proof of damage. All, except Canada, have reformed libel law to grant special protection for those commenting on matters of public interest. Some jurisdictions, like California and 23 other US states, have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) provisions allowing for vexatious or nuisance libel lawsuits to be easily thrown out and the plaintiffs penalized.

Quebec is currently considering updating their Code of Civil Procedure to penalize those launching anti-SLAPP suits (see here). New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are currently considering such laws as well. (I will be writing about all this soon enough).

Had such protection been around 20 years ago, would the abuse have continued? Would the witnesses have been less afraid to come forward?

Anti-SLAPP provisions need to be in place in every province in Canada.

Many defendants, including myself, are currently fighting libel claims filed in British Columbia by Wayne Crookes. You can read more about it here, and visit LibelChill.ca (still under development) for more.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/01/2007 03:35:00 PM