A New Libel Defense In Canada; For Blogs Too 146
roju writes "The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has created a new defense against claims of defamation, allowing for reporting in the public interest. They specifically included bloggers as eligible, writing: '...the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets.' and 'A review of recent defamation case law suggests that many actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media. ... [I]t is more accurate to refer to the new defense as responsible communication on matters of public interest.'"
Re:I don't see why you'd need something like this (Score:3, Insightful)
If I understand the intent of the law correctly, the point here is that, while press also needs to at least try to check their facts for correctness before publishing them, they do not have time enough for a thorough investigation, because we - you and I and million other people out there - demand early, up-to-date news. Hence stringency of fact checking has to be balanced against the need to report current events.
Re:Truth as a defense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Truth as a defense? (Score:3, Insightful)
The lawyer didn't suck, but he was definitely not used to trying these kinds of cases. Our insurance assigned the case to a legal contracting company which normally handles all of their auto insurance claims. I asked around, and it turns out that these sorts of legal contractors typically shoot for quick closing and low damage awards. Their goal is not to win the case but to minimize exposure for the insurance company and the defendant. I almost wonder whether this was the planned outcome all along. Because the plaintiff won her case, she can't appeal it and drag the insurance company back through the entire process again. For all I know, that was the strategy on purpose.
I am, however, a bit disillusioned about free speech now. As far as I can tell, there isn't any. It's a lie.
How convenient (Score:3, Insightful)
This is very convenient. Now, not only do I have a girlfriend in Canada [tvtropes.org], but my civil rights are located there as well. Shame about actually living in the US...
Re:Truth as a defense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about satire? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know Canadian law, but if satire is protected, couldn't someone put a small disclaimer on the website?
Satire and parody are broadly protected, but that wouldn't work if the material wasn't actually satire. It's like a terrorist putting up a disclaimer "these aren't instructions on how to build a bomb" while then describing how to build a bomb...
Re:This doesn't help (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be simpler not to publish deliberate and harmfull porky-pies about people?
Sensible libel laws are a good thing in my books. Arthur C Clarke was accused of being a peodophile by a UK tabloid. He asked the tabloid to withdraw the story and apologise but they told him to take a flying leap. A lot of people belived the story (some still do), so he dragged the tabloid into court kicking a screaming, it took 2yrs but he got justice in the end.
Re:More ephemeral? (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm. Too bad? Time, and technology, marches on and what you prefer really doesn't come into consideration.
Re:This doesn't help (Score:3, Insightful)
"Simpler, sure. Completely ineffective though" I think A. C. Clarke would disargee.
I think Arthur C. Clarke understood the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 errors. This being News for Nerds I assumed you would too. Sorry.
I gave an example of a just application of the law, can you give an example of an unjust case or are you just waving your hands? As far as I understand it the UK laws are similar to Aussie laws, the defendant must show why they believe the accusation to be true. This does not mean I can't print a derogatory opinion, it means I can't fabricate evidence and make baseless accusations without risking a law suit. In otherwords, it's simply extending the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" into the fourth estate.
Pretty much all civilised countries have libel laws that work well for the affluent when they have genuinely been libelled. The problem is for the less affluent person wrongly accused of libel. Actual cases are, of course, difficult to cite because they are by their nature disputed. But the fact that the UK is a destination for libel tourism [timesonline.co.uk] does suggest that either it's easier to win a case here than elsewhere or that damages will be higher. Of course, we might be an outlier because we're leading the way to a better future, but for those of us who believe in free exchange of ideas it does look rather more as if something is seriously wrong [libelreform.org].