A New Libel Defense In Canada; For Blogs Too

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.'"

This doesn't help

[bmo]

This doesn't help when you can be sued in England for blogging in Canada or anywhere else for that matter.

--
BMO

CBC article has details...

[qvatch]

More details on the CBC site(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/12/22/supreme-court-libel-responsible-journalism-citizen-star.html?ref=rss), including the actual checklist: Excerpt from Supreme Court ruling The defence of public interest responsible communication will apply where: A. The publication is on a matter of public interest and: B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to: * The seriousness of the allegation; * The public importance of the matter; * The urgency of the matter; * The status and reliability of the source; * Whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported; * Whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable; * Whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and * Any other relevant circumstances.

Re:This doesn't help

[MichaelSmith]

Just don't go to England. Extradition doesn't apply to civil law.

More ephemeral?

[nacturation]

I'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough rather than these days where anything published online gets archived forever.

How about this?

[Darkness404]

How about doing the sane thing and limiting libel to only really -damaging- things that were intentionally untrue.

For example (using examples from all over the world and not just Canada), the woman that was sued for libel after tweeting that their may have been mold in her apartment ( http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html [chicagobreakingnews.com] ) is not damaging. Twitter, Facebook, etc. should not be grounds for libel unless it was clearly meant to influence a large group of people against something and had no proof. Basically, Twitter, Facebook and even some blogs are akin to people talking in a crowded room, the comments may be untruthful, insightful or just plain random. They aren't meant to be taken seriously.

Truth also should be taken with a grain of salt. The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.

Re:Truth as a defense?

[pclminion]

So truth as a defense doesn't count?

Nope. My wife found this out the hard way this year. She was sued for "defamatory" statements she made in a formal complaint against a board-certified professional. During the court case, which was before a jury, at the plaintiff's insistence, the issue of whether or not the statements were true was not even a topic of discussion. The only thing that mattered, to both the judge and the jury apparently, was whether my wife's comments caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation. Well, of course they did. That's why they are called "complaints." Bam, $5000 judgment against my wife. Could have been worse -- the plaintiff was asking for $75,000. Thank God our homeowners insurance had our ass. We didn't pay a dime.

This allows for character assassination

[presidenteloco]

Remember that this new ruling only assists journalists and bloggers whose story about someone is false.

If the story was true, there is no libel, under existing law.

I think it will be easy to put a patina of professional responsible diligence on acts of deliberate
character assassination using lies and incendiary innuendo.

All you have to do is say that you got it from some sources, and tried to reach some sources
to contradict it but couldn't get hold of them by publication time etc. etc.

The media is already manufacturing opinion and making and breaking kings, and this
just allows them to do it using false stories with impunity.

Scary

Re:Truth as a defense?

[moeinvt]

"In Ontario I do know that truth is absolutely a defense . . ."

Apologies for repeating myself, but truth isn't "absolutely a defense" on all questions related to free speech. Apparently it only applies to claims of "libel". Insult a minority and you could find yourself before A "human rights tribunal". Scary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Tribunal [wikipedia.org]