Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million 842
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian stay-at-home mom of 3 recently created a website to report on environmental problems around her neighborhood. The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'. However, not everyone was quite as happy, as she soon found out, when one company decided to sue her for libel to the tune of $2 million."
I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
But she has to prove it, and they've got the bigger pocket books...
Sad state of society (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember Bush's Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Actually, I first applied that to Poppy many years ago, but it goes double for Dubya.
Re:heh (Score:2, Insightful)
that's right, you can't have people going around correcting things said about you!
Typical STFU lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, a little bit more details about which claims company thinks are false would be helpful for more concrete judgement.
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
The second is something that affects a lot of people who didn't cause the problem in the first place and can continue affecting people in that area for years.
Whoever moded you insightful needs to have their head checked.
Re:This is all good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a "you have wronged us, we deserve damages" lawsuit. The company knows she couldn't ever pay $2 million. This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
Let's hear it for coporate censorship. If you say something we don't like, make sure you're willing to give up your life for it.
troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice assumption about rich stay-at-home moms, but my family had five children, my mother stayed at home, and we lived below the poverty line. I think that's more typical than the rich "busy-body do-gooders". Sorry to burst your own little self-righteous bubble.
Makes me mad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
People will bring up the RIAA suing grandmothers, and rightly so. The difference, as I see it, is that the RIAA believes - rightly or wrongly - that they're losing millions and millions of dollars to piracy. Look at it that way and it makes sense that they're willing to trade some bad press for a lessened erosion of their bottom line. Nothing in the article led me to believe that Activa was being so seriously affected by this one little site.
I guess what I'm saying is there's just enough information to make me think something else is going on here, but not enough to know what.
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:5, Insightful)
...therefore, to silence others, acuqire their property. Landlords can silence tenants, shopping malls can evict patrons wearing political slogans the management disgrees with, etcetera.
Typical libertarian capitalist fallacy that puts property as a primary right, rather than as a secondary tool to ensure primary rights.
Haven't we been over this already? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Money is all that matters.
2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen
3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available
4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad.
5) If you buy something from a company, they own you
6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal.
7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies.
8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over
Let's see, we're all guilty of...well, pretty much everything.
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:5, Insightful)
But discrimination results in people not being able to make so much money, and thus not being able to own property, and thus not being able to reduce the acreage available for bigots to be bigoted on, and so on. Seems like that'd create an underclass, which never ends well.
I could care less about what media companies might do with the freedom to libel. Who cares. If you're in the public eye, accept it. If you run a big business, combat it with great quality of service.
But how do people find out about your excellent quality of service or great product if the people getting paid to talk loudly are all saying it sucks? The system you describe would allow any company to cover another with as much slime as they could buy, which would tend to lead to horrific monopolies - a classic market breakdown effect. Slime does have an effect, and it's not always trumped by quality of service. Besides, do you really want to produce a system in which only the biggest liars are able to survive? We're close enough to that already without adding fuel to the fire.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:5, Insightful)
So then, as a matter of principle, you won't be suing me when I rent a few billboards near your house and put your name, address, and photo on them, along with labeling you a known liar, thief, and pedophile. Hope you produce some seriously high-quality products, my man.
One word: Countersuit (Score:3, Insightful)
If their actions have placed her kids at risk and (been part of what) led her to spend the expense and time of putting up the website to document their illegal actions, that should be just cause for a countersuit against them.
Sue them for direct costs, her time (at a consulting rate of $60/hour), and punitive damages of $2Million. If they have said anything public about the suit (like claiming that she lied), then she can also countersue for libel. (In Canada, You can't sue for statements made in court or court documents, but you can sue for what's said on the courtroom steps before or after you file [umontreal.ca].)
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.
Activa claims the website has caused damage to its reputation and launched the lawsuit only after Lanteigne refused to apologize and take down the site.
--end cut--
So, it appears she is stating on the website that they have been spilling oil, etc., even possibly as a one-liner somewhere, and not documenting with photographs. If I were her, I'd find some law firm to take the case on pro-bono and spend my money getting GreenPeace out there to do soil/water testing to _prove_ that there has been oil spilled.
Voila, case won, and probably legislation started about this corporate behaviour too, so good for Mom.
I sure hope she has pictures of these spills, to start with...
Peace!
-cheez
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm a landlord and I don't like a tenant, I shouldn't be forced to accept them. It is my property.
Yes, some racist white guy may say no to a black family. What stops another landlord from saying no problem? Competition opens doors shut by others.
Re:I thought... (Score:1, Insightful)
Big business is not always in the wrong, and there are just as many misinformed nutjobs out there as there are corrupt businessmen.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
But how much truth can you afford? Lawsuits are expensive, for both sides. Though if her story is 100% true (and I see little reason think it's not, though of course I only know what I've read on her site and the news) it's unlikely that this will ever even go to trial. But of course, a lawsuit doesn't have to go to trial to have the desired effect ...
Don't fret too much about her right now. With all the publicity this story has gotten, she will probably have no problems defending herself against the lawsuit, and the company itself is probably already regretting the lawsuit -- even if they're 100% innocent, they've already been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion.
politics of fear (Score:1, Insightful)
No insurance for defense from criminal acts (Score:3, Insightful)
Will this also work for copyright infringement, I.E. P2P, BITTORRENT, ECT? If so, this might be a good investment for us all.
Speaking from near-total ignorance, I'm guessing no. Slander/libel is a tort, while copyright infringement is a criminal case. I've never heard of insurance that would defend you against prosecution for criminal acts. In fact, I'd argue that such insurance would be a bad thing, since it would make people more likely to commit crimes.
As I said, though, this opinion is straight from my butt.
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thinking of setting up a website? (Score:5, Insightful)
While truth is an absolute defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can virtually stop any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when a multi-billion dollar insurance company is the one that is paying to defend you against the suit.
hmmm.... lets fix this one
Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to research an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies may protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While proof is a defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can possibly prevent any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when you have adequate protection.
ahh much better. Only thing worse than financial disaster is financial disaster after you realize your poorly researched insurance policies really don't help you in your case
Be sure of what you are buying.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:in Canda? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe someday our soldiers will be able to RETURN.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not. That's why I posted the link to a discussion of the differences. Thanks for playing "Do You or Do You Not Have Basic Reading Comprehension Skills" though. In a defense of Justification (ie. "It's not Libel, it's the truth!"), the burden of proof is on the Defendant in Canadian law. Canada is not the US; our legal system is not identical to yours.
Perfect test case for Canada's libel laws (Score:5, Insightful)
This could prove to be an excellent test case of Canada's libel laws vis a vis our Charter or Rights. If Activa Holdings is successful in their lawsuit then just about any negative comment about any company made in the press, on the radio or TV or by the public is actionable. Some provinces, such as British Columbia, have SLAPP legislation that helps in defending such lawsuits but Ontario, where this lawsuit was filed, to my knowledge does not.
Re:Haven't we been over this already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs to bother creating a Big Brother when the cowards take care of themselves?
Mod parent up. (Score:4, Insightful)
How can it be libel if she is simply reporting what she sees? It's obvious from her tone that she has concern for her neighborhood including many sincere warnings to parents in the area about specific threats (stagnant water, pressure treated wood).
I'm at a loss here as to what Activa's case is.
Re:Is the big company a bully? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
or the company is improperly using a libel suit to silence a legitimate critic.
She is a bit overzealous, treating each drop of diesel spilled as a life-threatening calamity, but she appears to have the law on her side.
Re:I thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a digression, but does "pride" really come into it one way or another? I mean, "relieved" might be a better word. But while we can take credit for changes we help make, and have the responsibility to try to make things better, for the most part we can be as "proud" of the niceties of the legal millieu here as we can be of the weather.
When people positively act on values they identify as ones associated to a culture or place (for example, being friendly and generous, which many Americans can be proud of when they themselves act that way - a lot of Americans feel weirdly proud for other Americans' generosity), then pride makes sense. But since you or I did not draft libel law, I don't see where pride comes into it.
Like I said, this is a digression....
Re:Makes me mad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes I'm from the UK before anyone asks!
I guess it is good and all... (Score:3, Insightful)
It sucks that the woman is getting sued, that is an outrage. But I wouldn't glorify what this woman is doing too much. She seems more the neighborhood busy body who calls the police when kids are playing touch football in the street, or who get a restraining order to keep their neighbor from painting their house purple, than some real enviornmental crusader.
Re:That's it! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) There's no evidence to that effect
b) My reputation is such that a statement that I rape babies would damage it and
c) I can prove that you said so without making certain minimal efforts to substantiate your claims.
My problem always comes in point b. My coverups are masterful, and my enemies far too lazy, but my rep sucks.
Pug
It's just that it's a sore spot (Score:1, Insightful)
Canadian libel is based on British libel, and, we have none of the zealous first amendment jurisprudence to mitigate it. You can be seriously fucked in Canada for libel, where in the US you would not.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm...No...
Two things:
a) If you get news from a spammer, does it really have any standing?
b) The defendant would have to prove that the spammer was false, not that he or she did not rape the baby. Remember, US law says there must be damage for one to have legal standing. It's a much better system. It keeps our police honest and keeps justice sound. Here, circumstantial evidence does rear its ugly head, but you'll find much more that people are justly prosecuted in the US than other countries. I agree with the original poster...I'm glad in this case to be an American citizen. Our lawyers may be the biggest scum bags in the world, but at least our justice system can compensate.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, quit trying to claim a difference in legal procedure is a vast cultural divide. I happen to agree with the U.S. system leaving the burden of proof where it is, but to make this into a "Capitalism vs Socialism" issue?
Get a grip. We're hardly perfect, and at least if she loses the suit and files bankruptcy, she can still get her kids to a doctor.
Pug
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:3, Insightful)
A restaurant who refuses to serve midgets is a Bad Idea. I won't eat there. But to me, the OWNER of the PROPERTY is free to use his property that way.
Racism and discrimination by government is terrible. As a biracial person, I hate government discrimination but I will protect the private individual's right to congregate with whomever they want.
Re:Hooray for loser-pays (Score:4, Insightful)
The loser-pays rule is appropriate in some circumstances, which is why judges should always have the option to allocate legal fees. But it is not a panacea.
Re:Hooray for loser-pays (Score:4, Insightful)
Loser pays the would possibly work a bit better if you were forced to pay the other side the equivalent ofyour legal fees instead of theirs. I.e. if you loose your legal fees can only double (if your lawyer doesn't give you a "win or I'm free" gaurantee.)
The added bonus is that both sides are encouraged to make the case more breif, with fewer lawyers involved.
Re:No Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Adera has been forced to do some repairs, such as fixing all the popped bits of drywall where they didnt let the mud dry properly before painting it.
They get away with it by not getting all the building permits they need, so inspectors arent necessarily aware of all the work being done, or they enclose in parts of their work before the inspectors come around because most of the lazy inspectors wont force the contractors to open things back up for proper inspection.
Then there's the public inspectors you hire when buying a place (as opposed to the city building code inspectors)
But mainly most of the bad work in this city is because
I'm not worried about resale value, Vancouver is insane. This townhouse has gone up in value from $200,000 to $300,000 in 4 years time. The trick will be to sell before the problems start costing us in repairs i guess.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
My homecountry does not need any additional amendment to give people free speech, it's part of the constitution. But then again, it has a better standard of living, better almost everything according to globally used statistics. So, you can continue to believe in your own propaganda, but people outside this country are maybe not as stupid as you may think. But then again, I find that most of the loudmouths screaming about American freedom etc, have never been outside their own country, so the material used in their comparison is generally missing alltogether.
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:3, Insightful)
I want my private properties to be private. I want to invite who I want to, and avoid who I want to.
It is not your property.
You want to tell me what I can do with my property. You want to force me to congregate with either everyone or no one. I have to rights in my property according to you. I have to be your slave, invest my time and money so you can create your better world, your utopia for all.
I don't care about that. It is my property. My private property.
Re:heh (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless she's full of it and they didn't do anything wrong.
I mean, if someone punches you in the face for something you didn't do, do you sit on your ass and go "gee, thanks for that" like some coward?
Personally, I would demand satisfaction.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what's the excuse for the American media's failure to report on anything?
I mean, really, with all these great freedom of speech protections in law, why are the US media so often the most saturated with bullshit (not counting reports coming from the Iraqi information minister, and such)?
Re:just planned a "save the earth" site :( (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
Has anyone here considered that she might, in fact, have done harm to an innocent company? We don't know anything about her or the company. I've known people who think they know everything, what is safe and what isn't, what's the law and what isn't (sound familiar anyone?), and just get in everyone's face. It's quite possible that she is wrong. TFA states that she said roofers weren't using proper safety equipment. Does she know what's proper safety equipment for a worksite? The point is, everyone is just assuming she's right and the company is wrong. Check your assumptions.
As for the "better law" argument, neither is better or worse. The U.S. system gives you more freedom to say whatever but at the cost of having people (or companies) slandered without remedy. The Canadian (and English) system requires that you be more careful about what you say, but means you are less likely to be unjustly attacked or at least remedied if you are. Neither is perfect.
Stop Whning: Being Sued Is A Risk of Publishing (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a kneejerk tendency to assume this is an innocent blogger versus an evil corporation. Maybe, maybe not. If she's can convincingly argue that she did not commit libel, lawyers will be lining up at her door with thoughts of huge percentages in their heads. If she can't convince a lawyer who wants her to win, maybe we ought to reconsider the merits of the corporation's claims.
Publishing is publishing, whether you're the NYT or someone's cat blog. No one gets, or deserves, a free pass. Anyone unprepared to deal with the consequences ought not to publish.
Re:Eh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:in Canda? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's maintaining your own industry, not helping the environment. That'd be like, oh, I dunno, sending some of the used water back into the lake you draw from if you're a Coke bottling plant.
Re:An unspeakable outrage! (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about Waterloo, as mentioned in the Google-cache version of the web page, is that the entire region of around 300,000 people depend entirely on ground water drawn from wells. This makes the problem of leaky fuel tanks particularly important in that area.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether that ends up being true in specific issues varies, of course. But to whatever extent the typical American thinks about Canada, it's usually safe to assume a
Contrast that with Mexico --- they're just as close to us as Canada is (obviously), and they probably have more influence on us than Canada does, but I daresay most Americans (myself included) wouldn't be nearly so quick to make assumptions about government policies there.
Maybe it's because of the language thing, maybe it's something else. But I seriously doubt it's because of something
Found in Google cache --- (Score:1, Insightful)
What little I read... and there is alot more to read such as city council meetings etc...
and having worked in a related field of cabinetry (one of the later things to install). It is not completely reasonabe to enforce some of her complaints as the environment of a construction site is going to be influenced by the construction. (I have no doubts that personnel at the construction site dislikes nails in the parking lot as mush as she dislikes nails elsewhere.
On the other hand and in recognition of this above fact, is she lying? The odds are she is telling the truth but perhaps expecting to much and as such
Should a construction company and sub contractors police (control teh level of hazards and garbage and etc..) the sites they work at? Yes, they should if only as a matter of public relations marketing. Otherwise it seems to me that there is a matter of private property where kids and anyone else at the construction site, that shouldn't be there, is trespassing.
When I pass by a construction site the way it is kept makes an impression on me as to the quality and attention to detail I can expect from the general contractor. Their expectations on the sub-contractors to maintain a reasonably clean appearance of the property. I get this from working on multi million dollar sites.
But I also recognize a trespassing issue.
Activa should not sue her, thats very bad PR. Instead they should require their subcontractors to maintain their trash and such, as well as post no tresspassing signs.
They should pay her any expense they have cost her in this legal mess and then do the right thing
reputation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hooray for loser-pays (Score:3, Insightful)
I was injured by a medical fuck up years ago, and when I tried to file a malpractice suit I discovered that I flat out didn't have the money to even file, much less pay a lawyer (hospital lawyers vs IANAL doesn't strike me as a fair fight). I suppose it does make it fairer to raise that bar even higher.
Since the larger institutions (companies, hospitals, whatever) with the deeper pockets and the larger (more expensive) teams of lawyers already have the advantage, something tells me involving the risk of having to pay that team of lawyers isn't going to help people who really have grievances that need to be dealt with in court.
Simple really (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
While (as an American) I think the whole Gitmo thing gets brought up a little bit frivolously here on Slashdot, the fact of the matter is that for one reason or another the government of the United States of America does not believe that they would be able to convict these people if due process were observed. Why else would they suffer through the bad press and tarnished national image that having an institution like the one in Cuba has brought upon them?
This is the problem, you see. These "obviously guilty" terrorists are apparently not "obviously guilty" enough. Either that, or the USA is (essentially) publically admitting that its judicial system is inadequate.
Either situation frightens me quite a bit, frankly.
Re:Thinking of setting up a website? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thinking of setting up a website?
(Score:5, Informative)
by bigtallmofo (695287) Friend of a Friend on Sun Nov 13, '05 03:16 PM (#14021837)
(http://www.insurancegenius.com/ [insurancegenius.com] | Last Journal: Tue Mar 22, '05 06:26 PM)
An insurance recommendation by a guy homepaged at insurancegenius.com? No conflict of interest to see here, move along....
Re:I thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simple really (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of many reasons why treating corporations as "people" under the law (a.k.a. corporate person-hood) is a stupendously bad idea. Anti-SLAPP laws seem to do some things to mitigate this but Canada doesn't seem to have this kind of thing and even in places that have it the corporations are sometimes allowed to use the same laws against individuals when they libel them. Corporations aren't people. They are large, abstract, organizations driven solely by profit motive in which group mentality (much like the mentality that takes over in riots) is used to override the morals of the individual employees. Pair this with the sheer disparity of resources (both intellectual and fiscal) of a corporation versus the average person and you have a situation where the two parties are almost guaranteed to enter any legal battle with the corporation at a massive advantage.
I can't speak for Canada, but I was always taught that the U.S. was supposed to be all about the rights of the individual. Of course, it was our supreme court that started this ball rolling by declaring corporate person-hood in the first place (Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886)...
-GameMaster
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
The poeple who believed this, believed it because the U.S. government was saying it, with the credibility it used to have. If you lie to me and I believe you, my believing you doesn't make it not a lie.
Regardless of whether they actively lied, however, prior to the invasion the U.S. pressure had gotten Hans Blix and the U.N. inspectors back in the country, with very liberal rules about what they could inspect. I knew Bush and co. were lying when this wasn't good enough, that even with basically full access they were arguing for an invasion because the Iraqis hadn't filed all the paperwork. (Missing a coversheet on their TPS report, perhaps?) Clearly they didn't have solid evidence, otherwise said evidence could have been used to help the inspectors find these purported weapons.
They could be in some other sand laden country even as we speak.
Right. Hussein resorted to hiding in a shabby hole in the ground because he'd been so busy smuggling WMDs out of the country, he didn't get around to getting his family out.
Corporate Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
What we need are reforms to greatly limit the impact that corpotations can have on individual citizens.
To start, a corporation suing an individual citizen must cover that citizens legal fees, up to a certain percentage of their own legal cost, for instance 25%.
The money will be paid up front on a monthly basis, and does not need to be returned under any circumstances.
Any taxes for the legal fee reimbursement will be paid by the corporation, such that the citizen recieves, after all applicable taxes, the required amount.
The legal fee reimbursement will not be considered income for purposes of welfare, disability, unemployment, etc, and can be used for any purpose with no limitations.
Obviously the first things corporations will do is claim that their legal costs are next to nothing, because all of their lawyers are on retainer, and thus 'free'
Good job at finding the loophole, Mr. Suit, that simply means that the assumed legal cost will be the monthly salary of each lawyer who touches the case, times the number of years that the case. Alternate compensation would also need to be considered, including stock options, company cars and houses, so forth and so on.
Under current market and legal conditions, often it is such that citizens have little to no recourse when corporations violate laws in a way harmful to said citizens.
And yet, the same corporations that are effectively immune to citizen retaliation can effortlessly bankrupt numerous citizens via legal entanglements.
Corporations should not be able to force citizens into disfavorable settlements that entail large fines and the sacrifice of the citizens rights and future liability by threatening a never-ending legal battle that will cost the citizen large amounts of money even to enlist a single lawyer for the duration of their defense.
Corporations may exist solely to turn a profit for the shareholders, but they are allowed to exist solely to benefit the economy and thus the country. Suing private citizens rarely has any kind of benefit beyond establishing corporate dominance over the citizen, which is certainly bad for the country, as the country is, in fact, said citizen.
Of course, I am in no way qualified for legal or economic analysis, so obviously all of this will no doubt cause an economic recession as the rights of the pitiful corporations are simply trampled upon by an uncaring, unfeeling mass of citizens, who the corporations have no means of stopping. Which would be rather similar to the current situation, except with the trampling being the other way around.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, that'd be a miracle: Last time I lived in Ontario, there was a shortage of 1400 doctors in metro Toronto alone and the numbers were growing -- almost no doctors were taking new cases.
So, yeah, she gets to see a doctor "for free" (what is the tax burden again?) if she can (a) find one, and (b) wait to be seen.
This Canadian happily works and lives legally in the U.S., pays for and gets health care when ever I or my family need it. In Canada it would be illegal for me to pay a doctor to tend to me even if s/he was willing -- this despite that law being overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court (at least in Quebec) -- Canada having an insane "Notwithstanding Clause" in their constitution that lets the government overrule the highest court in the land.
Canucks can mod me down all they want, but, having severed all my ties with Canada, none of my income is taxed to support their crooked, communist, government. The best way I can fight them is to stop feeding them.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you better go give a lecture to the Supreme Court then, because that's not what they say. Since the founding of this country US military bases in foreign lands, embassies, etc. have been considered US territory, where the laws of the United States apply. This sort of convoluted self-serving hyper-technical arguement, something a three year old could see through, is typical of the Bush administration.
We explicitly do not want to give these thugs Constitutional rights as they do not deserve it.
Maybe, maybe not, but America deserves better. Besides, if they are guilty what do we have to fear from putting them in front of a judge and jury?
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well intentioned" isn't sufficient if she's breaking the law. I'm not saying she's guilty, but there appears to be a presumption that she isn't... something important in a courtroom, but not outside of it. I could be "well intentioned" when I send a memo to your coworkers explaining that you are subject to fits of rage and beat your wife on a regular basis due to your cocaine addiction, but that does *not* mean that I can't be held responsible.
How about if I accuse you of child molestation on a website? I can probably even get some pictures of you and children together.
Don't worry... it's "well intentioned".
Accusations of crime have to be taken seriously. As part of that, there is a burden upon the accuser to be truthful. That's not a bad thing: it protects everybody from insufficently supported or knowingly false accusations, no matter how "well intentioned" they are.
--
Evan
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Press and media may be free from gouvermental influence, but still be under strong influence from shareholders, ad-clients and so on.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:photograph everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you aren't a terrorist, the photos at your website may be used by one, so publication of, say, sketches or descriptions of the malpractice must also be outlawed.
With a bit of lobbying and some palm-greasing on the part of construction firms, can you seriously see that law
Enjoy the rights while you've got 'em: you won't have them tomorrow.
Re:Stop Whning: Free Speech is a part of Life (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a free speech issue. Nothing has happened that has limited this person's freedom to speak or write what she pleases. Free speech does not include the right to slander or libel. You have a right to say what you wish, and I have an equal right to sue you if I believe you've slandered or libeled me. One right has nothing to do with the other.
Re:I thought... (Score:1, Insightful)
The romans introduced the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
It is ironic to see someone stand up for the US judicial system by telling us that someone should be kept in jail indefinitely because of <atrocious act> committed by <someone else, which we don't like>.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless of course she were making it all up, in which case her reputation goes down the shitter and she has to pay up.
One frivolous lawsuit, coming up! (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm an attorney living in Sunnyvale, and I thought the most effective way to show how wrong you are is to file a frivolous libel case against David Johnson of Mountain View, CA.
When you receive the summons, even though it is a joke and will eventually be thrown out, I highly suggest you hire an attorney to receive advice. I also suggest you show up to court because otherwise a default judgement will be thrown against you and I will collect on it.
Re:"Fair" is a relative term (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Fair" is a relative term (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:photograph everything (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't disagree, I just think a useful volume of photographic evidence is a lot easier to achieve if you don't have to buy all that film. Digital photos can go up on the web nice and quick, too, which is useful if you're making a site meant to sway public opinion.
That sounds like more of an issue for a criminal case, right? Anyhow, links to more info on the topic would be appreciated, it's kind of an interesting one. Thanks.
Re:"Fair" is a relative term (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets start with that.
With Libel, you *have* made a statement. The statement is a matter of public record. That FACT is not in question.
With Murder, the FACT of the Murder is in question.
With Libel, the determination of Libel is whether the statement that has been made is True. If the statement is False Libel may have occured. If the statement is True, Libel DID NOT OCCUR.
Now, with Murder, Murder must be proven. With Libel, the truth of a statement must be proven. Since a falsehood cannot be proven, the burden must fall on the plaintiff.
Simple logic.
Ratboy.