Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Can a Blogroll Be Defamatory?

Posted by kdawson on Wed May 30, 2007 02:06 AM
from the way-out-of-control dept.
Censorship
An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation, has added Michael Geist to his hit list. Geist is a well-known Canadian law professor and blogger. His offense: linking on his blog to site that links to another site that contains material allegedly of a defamatory nature. (Others would characterize that material as historical facts about Crooks's tenure at the helm of the Canadian Green Party.)
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Canada's Wayne Crookes Sues the Net 200 comments
newtley writes "Wayne Crookes, the Green Party of Canada's ex-financier, is in effect trying to sue the Internet. He's going after the Wikipedia, Google, and openpolitics.ca (run up by federal Green Party activist Michael Pilling) claiming he's suffered, 'an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress' over postings. Some 15 others may also have been targeted. "Mr. Crookes seems to be 'trying to unwrite history,' Pilling says. 'He was a central figure in the growth of the Green Party. His actions were highly controversial and if we have freedom of speech in this country, people should be allowed to talk about them.'" Newtley adds in a posting submitted 121 minutes later: "Literally 15 minutes after I posted [the foregoing], there was a knock on my door. It was a writ server telling me I, too, have been named in a lawsuit launched by Wayne Crookes..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Can a Blogroll Be Defamatory? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Well, it's Canada (Score:5, Informative)

    by phorm (591458) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @02:11AM (#19318679) Homepage Journal
    One of the differences up here from the American system is that if (and I hope, when) Mr Crookes loses this case, then he can look forward to paying the costs of the defendants.

    Usually that acts as a strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits. I guess it doesn't always work, but it'll be nice to see the big fat bill forthcoming.
    • One of the differences up here from the American system is that if (and I hope, when) Mr Crookes loses this case, then he can look forward to paying the costs of the defendants.

      Usually that acts as a strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits. I guess it doesn't always work, but it'll be nice to see the big fat bill forthcoming.

      I thought it was the same way in American Courts as well?

      • I thought it was the same way in American Courts as well?

        I seem to remember it used to be.

        But then again, I was stopped at a stoplight in broad daylight and got hit by a lady in a very nice new cadillac. She not only didn't see me and just failed to stop in time, she never had the brakes and hit me so hard I slid forward as she bounced off my Jeep's rear spare and managed to hit me again. All of this was of course in front of a hospital. So the ambulance arrived and they insisted my neck was tender enough I need to get it x-rayed. So as the police arrive late, I leave my license, registration and insurance on the seat while the EMTs take me away on the board. The cop stops us at the ambulance and says my insurance isn't there. The EMTs push me back over and the wind blew it over onto the passenger seat, where I can't reach because I'm taped down. Plus the EMTs are pushing me to get to the hospital ASAP because I have a history of pain complications making me barf. So I point at it and he says "sorry lady, you have to hand it to me, i'm citing you for failure to prove insurance". He tickets me and sticks it under my neckbrace. I'm like wtf silently? In the ambulance the guys explain to me that the lady who hit me is the widow of a fireman. They tell me that its a loyalty thing, cops and fireman stick together so he has to give me attitude.

        Three weeks later in court with my letter to prove I had insurance. I'm sitting up front waiting for my turn, its the time I was given to show up. The DA calls a familiar name. Its the lady that hit me. (She never bothered to get out of her car to see if I was alright, btw.) I'm in a freaking neck brace because she herniated a disc. So she goes up to the DA and starts crying about her former husband, and tells him she didn't see me at the stop light because the sun was too bright. BS she coming at me from under an overpass. She is only 4 feet tall though. She might not be able to see over her caddy's dashboard. The DA hugs her and says he won't charge her because of her husbands loyal duty to the city of Aurora. He then asks her if she can afford her court costs of $60. She starts crying and tells him no, that since her husband has been gone, she can't make ends meet. (except for that fancy loaded Caddy out there) and firemen get a pretty good pension in CO too, so I think she was just greedy. The DA says ok, don't worry, we'll work it out, you go home and rest up. Then he calls my name.

        His demeanor changes. He tells me that I was driving without proof of insurance and will have two points removed from my license for a year unless i have a letter to prove otherwise. I show him the letter and he begrudingly accepts it. He lectures me that leaving a license, registration or insurance card on a seat for a police officer to pick up is not allowed. I must hand them to the officer. I interrupted to explain the situation with my injury, and he said that doesn't matter--you are still obligated to hand all three to the officer. So I asked the DA, if I'm unconscious and bleeding to death shall I have someone staple them to my hand? He got pissed but so was I at this point.

        I said, I read the police report, I went and got a copy of it under the freedom of information act. The lady that hit me has a record of several reckless driving warnings recently and she failed to prove any insurance at the scene of the accident. The police officer not only didn't ticket her for that, but he let her off for reckless driving because she's a widow of a firefighter. Now, I respect what her husband did for Aurora, but I don't think she should get treated differently than I do. Especially if she is endangering other's health with her careless driving, and has no insurance to help pay for damages she causes. She has no insurance. He agreed to that. But then he said. She is on a fixed income, whereas Ms. XXXXX you are making a generous income and so I am going to require you to pay both parties court costs

        • Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Antony-Kyre (807195) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @04:08AM (#19319157)
          Isn't that called a countersuit when you are the defense, and you want the other side to pay the costs if and when you win?

          If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?

          If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.

          • Isn't that called a countersuit when you are the defense, and you want the other side to pay the costs if and when you win?
            If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
            If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.

            I'm not sure if its called a countersuit, I'll ask my sister who is a DA and reply.

            And I agree, It was stupid to sign it, because yes, it basically admitted I was less financially burdened than she was. I didn't sign anything saying I was at fault for the accident though or that I wasn't insured. Who knows, maybe the car she was driving was some rich friend's car. Maybe she is burdened and her firefighter husband didn't get his pension because of some other factors I don't know of. I made my point

            • (On a side note, I don't drink alcohol.)

              The problem is, that if you're using any sort of excuse not to fight the system, the system can use that against you. If someone isn't fighting because they are sick, injured, etc., then it is entirely possible, somehow, for the system to keep that someone down just so they cannot rise up.

              Fortunately, we don't have to fight ourselves. We have other people there to do the things we cannot do without severe exhaustion.

              I for one won't stand for defemation of character, i

              • Of course, there are other "interesting" ways to deal with being wronged. One way is to fight it in another ways.
                Posting on slashdot is one such way and it might even be more effective (and cheaper than counter suing). Already 500 people know what has happened and that the system was wrong. So, you see, the OP is fighting the system.
            • I was working half time because I suffer from severe treatment resistent depression

              When the day comes that you are truly a geek girl, you will rejoice and be rid of this blight! ;-)
          • If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.

            What if a company was doing something wrong and the system won't fight for you? I know someone (let's call this person X) who was a personal trainer at the YMCA in Ottawa. X was technically considered an employee who was paid by t
            • Here are some options.

              Find a lawyer who will sue pro bono.

              Find a lawyer who will sue, only getting paid if the case is won. (Even if they take 50%, it is still bringing justice against the company.)

              Contact news organizations.

              File a complaint against the Labour Board, if someone feels strongly they are not doing their job.

              Contact legislators.

              Ask friends for ideas on what to do.

        • I respect and make it a point not to take the police, firefighters, EMTS and all other first responders who put their lives on the line for strangers not for granted. I think I just got a bad deal. So what if I had to pay some lady's court fees. Those guys put their lives on the line for strangers all the time.

          I have a hard time believing that that is a true story, but assuming that it is, then i have to wonder why you seem to think its a nice idea to let police and firefighters have their way. As its said, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act", evil prevailed in your case.

          The only thing you achieve by submitting to corruption, is encourage it. Yes they deserve respect for their jobs, but that doesn't give them the right to trample over your rights in the process.

          Saying that, reality can be pretty harsh on i

        • Out of curiosity, why didn't you take your insurance case before a judge?

          Also, you should have sued the old lady for your vehicle damage and injuries. Most personal injury lawyers will work on contingency.

        • Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DreadfulGrape (398188) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @06:42AM (#19319753)
          As poignant as your story is, I don't understand your subject title. And this all has to do "with this administration" in.... what way? Like the same thing wouldn't have happened during the Clinton admin., or the whoever-comes-next admin? C'mon... the system is corrupt on all sides.
            • the system is designed to pick out and screw over those who don't know better. it wasn't an accident that the connected old bat got let off and you got hosed.

        • Awarding legal costs to the successful defendant (Score:5, Informative)

          by billstewart (78916) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @02:46AM (#19318801) Journal
          Sometimes a US judge can do that too, without a lawsuit.


          The disadvantage to loser-automatically-pays is that it's extremely risky for an injured individual to sue a large corporation, even if he's right, because the corporation can afford much better lawyers (and therefore has an unequally high chance of winning, even if they're wrong), and usually has much higher legal costs. So if you lose you're not just out your own legal costs and the court's costs, you're out the legal costs of the corporation that had injured you.

          • Not the *real* legal cost (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Per Abrahamsen (1397) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @03:05AM (#19318865) Homepage
            I don't know about Canada, but in Denmark the accuser has to pay what the judge estimates the defense ought to cost, not the actual cost. So if your lawyer is any good, you will have to pay most of his salary yourself, even if you win.
          • The solution to this was worked out some time ago.

            The loser should pay a value based on their own costs to the winner. This means that both sides have a vested interest in only spending as much on legal fees as neccesary.
            • Don't be stupid, you pay ALL my cost or else I sue your dumb ass.

              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by nosferatu1001 (264446)
                Even if your costs cannot be justified as required to support your case?

                In the UK both sides have a requirement to mitigate any losses incurred, which INCLUDES legal fees. For example, hiring 100 expert witnesses which do not really have a bearing on the case would get those costs removed as frivolous.

                PLus, we have a great small claims court system - for up to £5k claims a filing fee of about £35 gets you a hearing in front of a magistrate. Costs are capped and in general no lawyers are involv

    • Not much use in this case (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Flying pig (925874) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @02:45AM (#19318793)
      Crookes clearly has plenty of money.

      I once had the misfortune to work for a company where the CEO was a litigious [noun censored]. This is not good when you are (in my case) Company Secretary. Basically he used to put together a convincing sounding scenario of what he claimed had happened, consult a lawyer, be told we had a good chance of winning. The lawyer would then ask me, as CS, to submit the documents in the case and I would have to tell him that they said something different or did not exist. The lawyer would then tell the CEO to forget it, and the CEO would vow never to work with that bent lawyer again, especially when the bill arrived. This happened with increasing frequency after he actually won a case which, in fact, was really the other side's fault and was clear cut. The one thing he never for one moment considered was that he might be wrong.

      The simple fact is, and I take no credit for saying it because any CS would have done the same, without intervention he would have bankrupted to company and not cared, because all he was interested in was having his own way.

      I've since learned it is not an uncommon personality type. I think it has much in common with compulsive gambling and drug addiction.

      Not, of course, that I would for one microsecond suggest that it has any bearing on this case, except to demonstrate that you cannot assume that losing cases and paying costs will deter litigious people.

      • I've since learned it is not an uncommon personality type. I think it has much in common with compulsive gambling and drug addiction.

        A pre-emptive foreign policy also has a lot to do with it, although I guess that's just a special case of compulsive gambling.
      • You're absolutely right that this is a common personality type. I'm reading The Hound of the Baskervilles [sirconandoyle.com] and I just found this passage, which (though of course fictional) suggests that this personality type was around during the Victorian era as well:

        One other neighbour I have met since I wrote last. This is Mr. Frankland, of Lafter Hall, who lives some four miles to the south of us. He is an elderly man, red-faced, white-haired, and choleric. His passion is for the British law, and he has spent a large

      • I've since learned it is not an uncommon personality type. I think it has much in common with compulsive gambling and drug addiction.

        I can understand compulsive gambling, but drug addiction? That's often a physical addiction, which started because the addict wanted to feel better. I don't see how it related to always thinking you're right.
    • Flagrant and obvious abuses of the legal system such as this (and other SLAP suits) should be punishable as a CRIMINAL violation. That would put a stop to the BS.

  • keep on truckin' (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @02:11AM (#19318681) Homepage
    An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation

    Yeah, well, things have really gone down the tubes lately, if you know what I mean.
    • An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation

      Man, I feel bad for the process server who got that assignment.

      • Man, I feel bad for the process server who got that assignment.

        First upload yourself to Youtube handing papers to a camera and saying, "you've been served!" Provide a link to a PDF somewhere with the actual documents. Then goof off on the Internet all day posting your links. Just keep telling people "you know what you did" and let your defendants all over the Internet spread the word- doing your process server work for you "virally". Do a brief writeup in your blog, send the URL to the court clerk, and wait

  • Well of course it can be (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @02:12AM (#19318685) Homepage
    it's made of paper after all!

    Oh wait, you asked if a Blogroll can be Defamatory.

    I thought you asked if a Bogroll can be Inflammatory.
    • It needs to be made of paper to spark anger and outrage?

      You`re looking for imflammable.

      Dr Nick - It means flammable? What a country!
  • defamation defined by WordNet [google define:defamation] 1. a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions 2. aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name linking isnt an attack on character/name nor is it misrepresenting anything.
    • I know what defamation is. But never heard of "blogroll".

      blogroll defined by wikipedia [google define:blogroll]A blogroll is a collection of links to other weblogs. Blogrolls are found on most weblogs.

      Don't know why it's different from "links", but I'm not a blogger.

      • Don't know why it's different from "links", but I'm not a blogger.
         
        So even after reading the definition you can't see a difference. The difference is that a blogroll is a collection of links to other blogs, an important distinction, since links to blogs are not as worthy as links to say newspapers, or scientific journals.
  • Crap, I'd better take down my links to Google.

  • easy way to deal with him (Score:3, Interesting)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @02:39AM (#19318773)
    everyone repost the articles in question. lets see him sue everyone. douche bags like him need to be taught the lesson that the courts are NOT there to shut people up who simply don't like you or disagree with your world view.

  • Yipes! (Score:3, Funny)

    by naich (781425) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @02:46AM (#19318807) Homepage
    No-one link to http://google.com/ [google.com] - they've got links to all sort of dodgy stuff on there.
  • Because it links to a site that links to a site that links to a site that ....

    erm... hold on, I lost count.

    A screw it, why doesn't that guy simply sue the whole internet, it's much easier.
  • What a bunch of Crookes.

  • IANAL (Score:4, Funny)

    by archeopterix (594938) on Wednesday May 30 2007, @04:39AM (#19319273) Journal
    I am not a lawyer, so before posting I consulted one. Here's what I have to say:


    Mr Crookes [removed to avoid potential liability], however [removed to avoid potential liability] and [removed to avoid potential liability]. So, in fact [removed to avoid potential liability] and to be honest [removed just in case].


    Have a nice day. DISCLAIMER: The author of this post does not guarantee that your day will be nice. Moreover, the author of this post is not responsible for any damages resulting in your trying to have a nice day.

    • Have a nice day. DISCLAIMER: The author of this post does not guarantee that your day will be nice. Moreover, the author of this post is not responsible for any damages resulting in your trying to have a nice day.
      As a woman, I find that remark offensive! Being "nice" is a servile attitude imposed by the patriarchal order! You won't get away with your misogynistic orders, I'll see you in court!

  • Canadian law... (Score:4, Informative)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .sinedtsmot.> on Wednesday May 30 2007, @05:20AM (#19319437) Homepage
    Section 298 and onward defines Defamatory Libel in the Canadian Code.

    So far "linking" to a page that links to a page that publishes libel isn't illegal. So Geist is very safe provided he doesn't publish [or cause to be published] anything libelous on his own.

    The paper analogy would be like suing the corner store that sells a newspaper that happen to have carried a libelous story. That wouldn't hold up in court, neither will this.

    Tom
  • And /. links to that site, that links to that site, that...

    Hell, just sue the Internet.
  • [this post has been deleted by decision of the court]
  • sue sue sue sue sue sue

    But then again, sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue
    sue sue sue sue and more

    sue sue sue suesue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue Crookes sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue wacko sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue 1310 people [digitaltippingpoint.com] sue sue sue This thing is getting a little out of hand, dontcha think?.

    And the really funny thing is, I'm a lawyer.
    • How did you know ? Google is next on his list.
    • > Okay, unless I'm reading this wrong, he's suing the writer of Blog A
      > because it was linked to Site B which then further linked to Site C
      > which may contain information of a defamatory nature?

      1) And dee first blog is connected to dee second blog
      2) And dee second blog is connected to dee third blog
      3) And dee third blog is connected to dee fourth blog
      4) ???
      5) Profit?
    • I know nothing about the Canadian Green Party, but the Dutch green party (Groenlinks) is actually one of the most internet-savvy parties, big supporters of Open Source, free speech and privacy. Sometimes I'm surprised of the nutcases that seem to represent the green parties on the other side of the pond.

      Ofcourse the US Republicans also have some notable computer-illiterates. And the previous Dutch prime minister (Wim Kok, one of the best PMs we've had, actually) didn't even know how to use a mouse.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.