Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Censorship The Courts

In Canada, Criminal Libel Charges Laid For Criticizing Police 383

Posted by timothy
from the buncha-hosers-you-say? dept.
BitterOak writes "A Calgary man is facing criminal charges of libel for criticizing police. According to the story, the RCMP have filed five charges against John Kelly for claiming on his website that Calgary police officers engaged in perjury, corruption, and obstruction of justice. What makes the story unusual is that the charges are criminal and not civil. Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States, it is extremely rare for people to be charged criminally with libel. It is almost always matter for civil courts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Canada, Criminal Libel Charges Laid For Criticizing Police

Comments Filter:
  • ohhh (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:21AM (#33619076)

    time to pack my bags and head north. ohh wait....

    • Re:ohhh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shentino (1139071) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:23AM (#33619092)

      That's right.

      Thirst for power and oppression of dissent is engrained in the very core of humanity's political genes.

      There is no escape.

      • Re:ohhh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Blue Stone (582566) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:37AM (#33619814) Homepage Journal

        Not just our 'political' genes, but our actual genes.

        Every simian species* has a hirarchical social structure whereby those at the top dominate and control those at the bottom, often extremely viciously. Humans are little different in that respect.

        *Except Bonobos, who settling disputes by fucking, and spend most of their spare time doing the same. Man, I wish we were more like Bonobos.

    • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara DOT huds ... a-hudson DOT com> on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:54AM (#33619246) Journal
      The burden of proof is MUCH higher with criminal charges.

      All the guy has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of ONE juror.

      When he's not convicted, this will be seen by many as proof that the RCMP did in fact perjure themselves. Dumb move, cops.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jav1231 (539129)
        Stifling free speech is never a good thing. Whether it's hate speech laws or outright criminal charges to stifle someone. This is for fail, not for good.
        • by tomhudson (43916)
          Did you even read the comment? I make it clear that the RCMP are SCREWED on this one. In a follow-up comment, I also point out that the web server is in New York, and Canada doesn't have a long-arm statute except for child sexual abuse and terrorism.

          The "defamatory libel" (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel") wasn't committed in Canada. The publication took place in the US. Even trying to argue that it was posted from Canada fails - it isn't published (under the meaning of

      • I don't know about Canada, but in the US, defending yourself eats up so much time and money that even when you win, you lose.

        • by tomhudson (43916)
          While judges don't like it, it's very easy to defend yourself pro se in Canada. In fact, a recent study showed that it's not just becoming more common in criminal and civil courts, but also in family law, where the majority of people (60%) now represent themselves.

          The Internet has changed the balance of power. People can do their research, find precedents, previous filings that they can cut-and-paste and edit, the rules of procedure, etc. Anyone with a bit of hard work and intelligence can make a good pre

      • by dryeo (100693)

        Odds are that he won't get a jury trial. I haven't read the fine article but in Canada we only have the right to a jury trial for crimes where the maximum sentence is over 5 years.
        It's in the Charter.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dougmc (70836)

        All the guy has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of ONE juror.

        Even in the US, that's hardly sufficient to reliably be acquitted. If one juror's doubt is merely reasonable, the odds of him caving to the other jurors are quite high. It requires considerable certainty to persist when hounded by five or eleven other people.

        The juror's decision must be unanimous, and if one juror sticks to his gun and will not vote guilty, and the other jurors stick to their guns and vote guilty -- this eventually results in a mistrial and the accused gets a new trial -- and really, if

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mfh (56)

      To Alaska? You can see Russia from your house there.

  • by Ron Harwood (136613) <harwoodr&linux,ca> on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:22AM (#33619084) Homepage Journal

    That's a loaded and subjective statement - care to back it up?

    • by TermV (49182) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:44AM (#33619188)

      The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees a Canadian's right to free speech, is inherently weaker than the US constitution because it contains a notwithstanding clause that allows a province to suspend many rights for 5 year periods. Quebec's language laws wouldn't stand up to a first amendment challenge in the US but it is allowed to violate the charter of rights and Freedoms in Canada because they used the notwithstanding clause.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by pooh666 (624584)
        BS.. It is allowed to stand because the people of Quebec wish it. You can compare paper or compare reality. In the US, in the same situation we would just find a way to change the law to suit. So staying there is some kind of static difference really isn't accurate. I think the language laws are a massive affront to freedom, but then I don't live in Quebec, for damn good reason!
        • by florescent_beige (608235) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @09:12AM (#33619342) Journal

          I think the GP is right actually. The problematic part of Quebec law is the requirement that French be predominant on all business signs. I can't see that surviving in the US.

          Note that the restriction is not on what you can say, it's on the language of business signage. Practically speaking I'm not sure if that means Canada has less free speech that the States.

          Given that this was one of only two uses ever of the notwithstanding clause, I don't consider it to be a weakness in the constitution. Think of it more as a shortcut constitutional amendment. Note that notwithstanding overrides expire after five years in order to give voters a chance to express their opinion via a general election it before they are renewed.

          The US constitution has...how many amendments? The Canadian Constitution has none, and two uses of the notwithstanding clause. I wouldn't say one is stronger or weaker than the other.

          Finally, as clear as the 1st amendment appears to be, we all know you can't say anything you want whenever you want wherever you want. There are limits. The Canadian constitution is explicit about that so when you read them side by side the Canadian text appears wishy-washy, but in effect they are equivalent.

          • I can't see that surviving in the US.

            IANAL, but there's a lot less protection for business/commercial speech than for political. And regulations on signs in general have been upheld.

        • by McGiraf (196030)

          They are a affront to your freedom but not mine.
          Like he parent said, the majority in Quebec are in agreement with these laws.
          Without these laws we would lose our language, people don't seem to remember,but only a few years ago, all big stores inside and outdoor signs where in English.
          The majority of patrons were francophone but the owner were anglophone.

          • by h4rr4r (612664)

            Is that why changed the stop signs too?
            Next time you get a chance to go to France, checkout their stop signs. They say STOP on them.

            • by McGiraf (196030)

              They say Stop in the City of Westmount in Quebec too.

              They were changed because all the French speaking driver refused to stop at the "Stop" signs arguing they could not understand the meaning of the word. This was causing general mayhem on the streets and a lot of nasty accidents, something had to be done.

              • They couldn't tell what a stop sign was regardless of what was printed on it? Sounds to me like they were trying to be pricks.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            >>>Without these laws we would lose our language

            So? There have been millions of human languages... only about 1% of them have survived to the modern day. In fact the world would be better served if everyone spoke just a few. Look at the benefits gained when Roman Latin replaced the native european languages (circa 100 to 900 AD) - you could travel anywhere from Africa to Rome to Portugal to Britannia, and communicate to everyone with ease.

            A single language promoted the sharing of ideas and uni

            • by McGiraf (196030) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:23AM (#33620074) Homepage

              Fine if less language is better learn French and stop using English.

              Language is a big part of culture, mono-culture is very bad, not only in computers (windows zombies)m also in agriculture and society.

              Languages dies, like culture and civilizations and people.

              "A single language promoted the sharing of ideas and unity."

              Multiple languages promote innovation and diversity, I like that better.

              Speaking more than one language give you a broader mind, as our thinking is dictated by words, language structures, we think mostly in words.

              Ask anybody who speaks multiple languages, there is words and concepts in each of them that can only be approximated in other languages.

              The Quebec Languages law do not aim to eradicate English, they are there to preserve French.
              There is mandatory English classes in French schools.

            • by Haeleth (414428) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:54AM (#33620286) Journal

              Or, looking at it another way, a single language was used to enforce the control of a privileged minority who trampled the rights and freedoms of people across an entire continent.

              The same thing happened with Arabic in the Ottoman Empire, with English in the British Empire, and with Mandarin in China. The Japanese also attempted it in China, Taiwan, and Korea in their brief imperial period.

              Having a single language is only a good thing if you belong to the culture whose language it was originally. It is never a good sign for people whose cultures used to speak something different.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by pooh666 (624584)
            Well said. So my freedom is worth less than yours. That sums up the language laws quiet well. I am less free, because you want to keep your "culture" I never have understood what that culture is actuality. The culture of whining and demanding your rights, no matter the effect on others? Those laws start with the idea that the English are out to get the "French" when the people of France can barely understand Quebecois. So who are the French of Quebec and why do they have more rights that other people?
            • by Pig Hogger (10379)
              Law 101 has never infringed on anybody's freedom of speech.

              The restrictions only apply to COMMERCIAL SPEECH and even in the US, there are restrictions to commercial speech.

              Only businesses have been affected by law 101 and businesses are not human so they do not have human rights.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                Businesses are owned by humans. Any time you put a restriction on a business you are restricting the rights of their owners who last time I checked were pretty likely to be humans.

      • by pnewhook (788591) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @09:31AM (#33619434)

        Ok, what about television and radio broadcast standards? In Canada, I can watch uncut movies on public air broadcast channels that contain violence and nudity. In the US, your broadcasts are under a required broadcast delay and censored when deemed inappropriate. Who in this case has more freedom of speech? Do you think ABC would ever get away with broadcasting nudity on a Friday night?

        And the US constitution does not protect anyone from libel statements. There are limits to acceptable free speech in both countries.

        The article summary just reeks of ignorance and bigotry.

        • Regulation of broadcast depends on the fact that it uses the public frequencies. Print publications enjoy much stronger protection.

          And the US constitution does not protect anyone from libel statements.

          Technically true, but the burden of proof in libel cases in the US is frankly astronomical, especially if the victim is a public figure. I don't know if Canadian law is closer to the US or the UK on this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

      rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

      Tne First Amendment doesn't have the qualifer, therefore it is slightly stronger.

      Note that this is in theory. It is not necessarily true in practice, for either nation.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sbates (1832606)

      I believe the individual was referring to such bodies as the Alberta Human Rights Commission. These bodies have the ability to prosecute an individual for speech outside of the normal judiciary and without any of the normal protections you might expect from a judiciary. In that sense free speech takes a hard hit, especially when you have to wonder what solution the AHRC (and others like it) provide that the courts could not.

  • by Auroch (1403671) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:27AM (#33619106)

    Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States ...

    Really? Because in canada there is a tonne of laws protecting free speech - so long as you're not engaging in hate speech. In fact, the laws are almost exactly the same as in the USA in regards to freedom of speech (with hate speech being a key difference).

    I think what the article means to say is that "In canada, they're not litigation happy, and the courts have made it very difficult to get a multimillion dollar settlement for pouring hot coffee on your lap and claiming that it was the fault of the coffee shop for not telling you that coffee is hot... (and other such nonsense cases ... like awarding a family damages over the autism-caused-by-vaccines debacle which has been debunked by real scientists over and over...)".

    Yes, in Canada you can't walk around holding a pistol and suing everyone who looks at you funny. You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal. Why? Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged. That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.

    • That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.

      Actually, I would say that it means both.

    • Are there any exclusions for factualness?
      Or in Canada can I not say that all members of the westboro baptist church are evil scumbags since I'd be promoting hate of a religious group?

      • The truth is an absolute defense in libel and slander cases.

      • by pokerdad (1124121)
        You can say to your friends, but you could get into trouble if you broadcast it, published it, or if you gathered an audience to tell them it.
    • by selven (1556643) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:49AM (#33619224)

      Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States ...

      Really?

      The first item in the US bill of rights guarantees freedom of speech. What does the first item in our charter of rights do?

      1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

      Oh, right, it effectively nullifies the rest of the charter by including vague language about "reasonable limits".

      You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience.

      Yeah, that's the problem. See, I don't think we should have government bureaucrats decide whether or not something "has no value". How about we let the audience decide that for themselves? If we want to prove that our ideologies are indeed superior to those of the KKK, that can only be done on a fair and equal forum of debate where the other side has a fair chance to speak. Right now, all we've proved is that the anti-racists have bigger guns.

      • You got it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @09:11AM (#33619332)

        The problem is that whenever you stop protecting the unpopular speech, and let the government decide what is and is not of "value" or "useful" or whatever, you open the gates to restricting speech for all sorts of bad reasons. It is the unpopular speech that must be protected.

        As an example, look at the sham that is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You have a lead investigator that said, on the record "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept." Where you don't have the right to question your accuser, hearsay is admissible with few exceptions, and truth is not always a defense. Basically, if a plaintiff can demonstrate you hurt their feelings (with rather dubious standards of evidence to do so), even if your statements were true you can get in trouble.

        Really you want free speech very protected, where there are clear lines as to what can't be done and those lines are only there as needed to protect people (like you can't order someone to kill someone else and claim free speech). As it stands in Canada, the laws are used to shut down unpopular speech.

        • by theNAM666 (179776)

          Down here in the US, we have come to believe that Freedom of Speech is a French concept. On which grounds we are planning to eliminated it, along with pommes frites, as soon as possible.

      • by pnewhook (788591)

        Oh, right, it effectively nullifies the rest of the charter by including vague language about "reasonable limits"

        This is NO different that the US. The US constitution on free speech does not give someone the right to break the law. For example it does not allow you to slander someone else, nor can you do something like lie on your tax returns. The right to free speech is bounded by other laws in both countries.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by telso (924323)

        I'm sure that "vague language" has never been interpreted by the courts. Oh wait: [wikipedia.org]

        1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
        2. The means must be proportional
          1. The means must be rationally connected to the objective
          2. There must be minimal impairment of rights
          3. There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

        You're right, though, that's pretty permissive in what it allows the government to do. Fortunately for Americans, their rights are not subject to such "vague language". For example,

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by swabeui (1291044)

      I think what the article means to say is that "In canada, they're not litigation happy, and the courts have made it very difficult to get a multimillion dollar settlement for pouring hot coffee on your lap and claiming that it was the fault of the coffee shop for not telling you that coffee is hot... (and other such nonsense cases ... like awarding a family damages over the autism-caused-by-vaccines debacle which has been debunked by real scientists over and over...)".

      I love how everyone uses that case as their poster-child for all things wrong in American courts. I guess everyone is susceptible to media bias as one point or another. Here's the actual facts of the case: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm [lectlaw.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by demonlapin (527802)

      Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged.

      Wait, what? I'm with you on the assault bit, but you're not allowed to walk around with a sign saying "NERDS ARE EVIL SINNERS" or "NERDS WANT TO MAKE YOUR CHILDREN PASTY, BASEMENT-DWELLING SLOBS"?

      You don't have a right not to be offended, IMO. As soon as you set up a group of people that have the ability to tell you to shut up because your speech has "no value", you're just institutionalizing one set of prejudices - a set that might not be stable over time. (Always assume your worst political enemies will

    • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:37AM (#33619818) Journal

      >>>You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal.

      It shouldn't be. You're not truly a "free" person if you don't have the right to be an asshole. You've basically made assholes second-class citizens without rights and without freedom - i.e. you demoted them to Serfs. So in my opinion the United States enjoys more freedom because even assholes are free to be themselves.

      Yes I'm being serious. Freedom means freedom for ALL people, even the ones you don't like
      .

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Haeleth (414428)

        And yet by forcing society to permit hate groups like the KKK, you deprive everyone else of the democratic right to choose the laws that they are governed by.

    • by khallow (566160) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:48AM (#33619880)

      Yes, in Canada you can't walk around holding a pistol and suing everyone who looks at you funny. You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal. Why? Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged. That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.

      What rights are being protected here? The right to associate with whom you choose? Nope. The right to say what you think? Nope. All these are sacrificed for some alleged right to not be offended. Looks like folly to me. Maybe you should think about this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by TheABomb (180342)

      You also can't ... start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience.

      Off the top of my head:
      Bryan Adams.
      Alanis Morissette.
      Celine Dion.
      Justin Bieber.

      Your argument cuts like a knife through all criticism.

  • As long as it actually WAS libel.

    There are enough people out there who distrust the police, we don't need unfounded accusations reducing police support further.

    On the other hand, if the statements were factual, the cops and prosecutors involved need to be lined up against a wall and shot.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      If he is innocent and things work there like the US, the charges will be dropped and the police involved will get a suspension with pay while things are being "investigated". The cops will then go back to active duty after the investigations and the whistle blower will be continually harassed because protect each other even when the other is a criminal or eve murderer - I mean accidental shooting victim.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HungryHobo (1314109)

      Don't worry, no matter how fake or factual his claims will be found officially to be baseless.

    • Re:I'm OK with this (Score:4, Informative)

      by demonlapin (527802) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:15AM (#33619698) Homepage Journal
      Stuff like this [usma1994.com], or this [reason.com], or any of a thousand other examples, are why people don't trust the police. They're not trustworthy, they don't care to help you, and their dedication is only to each other. You are a subject, and they are the ones with power. Disagree, and they'll jail you, shoot you, or frame you. This just proves the point.

      Police and prosecutors say baseless crap all the time. Remember Richard Jewell [wikipedia.org]? The FBI can "leak" information to the media to destroy people's lives with impunity - the best that guy got, despite complete innocence, was the AG saying "I regret the leak." Well, gee, thanks.

      the cops and prosecutors involved need to be lined up against a wall and shot.

      Yeah, somehow that never seems to happen. All Mike Nifong [wikipedia.org] got was being disbarred, and spending one night in jail for contempt of court, on charges that he trumped up and that would have, if successful, put three men in jail for a long, long time. And those are the ones with lots of money to defend themselves. As far as I'm concerned, that level of dishonesty should lead to putting him in jail for the full length of the sentence he was trying to get.

  • by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:28AM (#33619112) Homepage
    It meant that they could raid his house and get a copy of everything that he had, possibly then loosing some of it for him. If it was a civil action then they would not have been able to do this. What is dreadful is that the ''other side'' (ie the police in this case) get an immediate advantage. This is abuse of power.
    • by scream at the sky (989144) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:57AM (#33619258) Homepage

      The investigation that pressed the criminal charges was conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not the local Calgary Police Service. The Royal's are the Canuck equivalent to the American FBI, and are a national police force.

      There is a lot of infighting between the various Law Enforcement Agencies in Canada over jurisdictional rights, etc, and to the best of my knowledge, they don't really go out of each others way to help each other out that much.

      This is very evident at family functions. I have a couple of cousins (cousins to each other as well) one is local CPS, and the other is RC. They get into pissing matches with each other all the time over who has the more important role in Canadian Civilization, and I am usually the one who gets to moderate their arguments, generally by telling them both to STFU, and handing them a beer.

      • by zill (1690130) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:50AM (#33619894)

        The Royal's are the Canuck equivalent to the American FBI, and are a national police force.

        This is incorrect. The FBI only has investigative jurisdiction over federal crimes, thus differentiating them from local police departments. The RCMP and the Calgary police department enforce the exact same set of laws - Criminal Code of Canada, and they have identical investigative jurisdictions. While the RCMP is a national police force, it is not the equivalent of the FBI.

        Simply put, RCMP hands out parking tickets but the FBI does not.

  • Is this the site? (Score:5, Informative)

    by MichaelSmith (789609) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:35AM (#33619142) Homepage Journal

    http://www.bownessca.com/ [bownessca.com]

    The purpose of this site is to inform the residents of Bowness, the citizens of Calgary and others, as to how senior individuals within the City of Calgary placed the Bowness Community Association (the BCA) into receivership by illegal, corrupt and criminal means.
    .
    There has been over 5 years of corrupt and criminal acts that have been committed and they are continuing to be committed by Derek Podlubny and the present Board, ably assisted by lawyers from the law firm of Blake Cassels and Graydon.

    • Re:Is this the site? (Score:5, Informative)

      by whisper_jeff (680366) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:39AM (#33619160)
      I was going to say it was this site - http://www.rosscarrock.info/ [rosscarrock.info] - but I see that Mr Kelly is mounting a multi-pronged attack against, well, anyone he sets his sights on that wrongs him in even the slightest way.
      • Re:Is this the site? (Score:4, Informative)

        by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @08:47AM (#33619212)

        Both of these sites have a distinct flavour of crackpottery, mixed with a generous dose of lunacy and tipped with wholesome nuttiness.

        I think the RCMP will end up with a rather embarrassing situation of having dragged a certifiable conspiracy nut before the courts wherein he will quickly drown them in spittle and general ranting incoherence, which then will prompt more reasonable citizenry to start asking pointed questions as to why the RCMP feels threatened by an individual whose case would best be dealt with by the medical profession and if maybe there is something to his ranting...

        • No kidding (Score:3, Informative)

          by Sycraft-fu (314770)

          Also I don't know the libel standard in Canada but in the US:

          1) The statements must be untrue. Truth is the ultimate libel defense. So if his statements are true (probably not, but just saying) then that is the end of that.

          2) The person making the statements had to know they were untrue. While this gets a little more "he said, she said," in the case of someone who's connection to reality is a bit tenuous, this could easily be a defense. He may honestly believe what he is writing is true. In that case, it is

          • Re:No kidding (Score:4, Informative)

            by wrecked (681366) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @12:18PM (#33620464)
            Sorry, IAAL in Canada, and I can't let your comment go without a reply. The libel laws between the US and Canada are very different. In Canada, there are several defences against libel: justification (ie "truth", the most difficult defence to prove), absolute or qualified privilege (ie communications in a confidential setting), fair comment (ie honestly held opinion in good faith), and the new defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" (ie. "responsible journalism").

            The last defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" was created in 2009 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v Torstar 2009 SCC 61 [canlii.org]. That case was actually covered in Slashdot: Landmark Canadian Hyperlink Case Goes to Supreme Court [slashdot.org].

            Read of that case if you are interested in defamation law (but seek legal advice if you have a problem). It explains the legal tests for all of the defences. Since the defence of "responsible communications in matters of public interest" does not exist in US law, it means that American journalists and bloggers have a higher risk of liability for defamation than their Canadian counterparts. So which country has stronger freedom of expression?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        This guy has an amazing sense of entitlement, and I say this as someone who lives in the Calgary area, and has heard of him through friends who live in the Bowness/Montgomery area.

        Just reading the index to the main site that you listed it is obvious that he just has an axe to grind against the entire community association, probably because he was expelled. Why was he expelled? I have no idea, as all we are able to see is his side of the story, and as we all know there are always at least 3 sides to ever

        • The front page is really ambiguous and more griping about the failure to stand up about the claims he has made. More interesting are his actual claims:

          http://www.rosscarrock.info/id6.html [rosscarrock.info]

          Personally, I would attribute most of his problems (if true, we obviously are not seeing any primary sources here) to simple negligence rather than intentional malice or fraudulence. It may be worth looking into, however, and if at the very least this guys stink causes the association to get their accounting and record keep

      • by kg8484 (1755554)
        Also http://www.rottenapples.info/. [rottenapples.info]
  • by beaker8000 (1815376) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:47AM (#33619874)
    Public Enemy never would have gotten of the ground. '911 is timely and effective'....just doesn't work. God Bless America.

Never invest your money in anything that eats or needs repainting. -- Billy Rose

Working...