Canada's Wayne Crookes Sues the Net

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..."

Mr. Crookes?

Nominative determinism?

--jeffk++

submitter's conflict of interest

The submitter of this post is in a position of conflict of interest and appears to be using SlashDot as a means to denigrate the individual behind the lawsuit. As it is clear from newtley's post, newtley himself is highly been involved in whatever shenanigans that are going on here. It is unfortunate and dishonest that newtley is using this forum as a platform to smear his opponent. Just from newtley's egregious behavior here, I can imagine that aspects of this case have more merit that he is portraying.

Re:submitter's conflict of interest

Strange, my original comment was moderated as flamebait. First time one of my comments has been moderated as such, must be having an off day. I still think the individual who submitted this story did so for self-interested PR reasons. The individual who submitted this story has published negative information on the individual who has now filed suit and has continued this pattern by misportraying/ridiculing the suit. This type of behavior is discoverable in court.

Re:

Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freeoms:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

Negative i

Re:submitter's conflict of interest

You do realize that this is formally a "libel case" as per the G&M story. This means that Crooke is alleging and will have to prove in court that the material in question is of an untrue nature. Thus from Crooke's perspective, this is not a case about "negative information" but about untrue information. Of course Crooke could be wrong, if he is, he sure will be wasting a lot of money on these suits.

You also claim that this lawsuit is a SLAPP. But typical SLAPPs lawsuits differ from this one though in an important way, Crooke has sued two very large firms that have more than enough money to defend themselves: Google and Wikipedia. SLAPPs, since they are based on intimating people who can't afford to defend themselves, usually are targeted only against small folk, not the big guys. Google and Wikipedia are unlikely to fold simply because the lawsuit was filed, and thus I do not believe this particular lawsuit of Crooke can be classified as your SLAPP.

Re:submitter's conflict of interest

The submitter is trying to "warn others" about what exactly? The case is about libel, the spreading of false information that is designed to cause harm to a person's reputation and their ability to conduct themselves in society. Being able to libel someone is not a right, it is not about freedom of speech, it is not about the truth. Whether this is in fact libel is not for me to decide, since I don't have the facts, but if it is this libel, Crookes is within his right to sue those that are purposefully trying to cause him harm for damages. I don't think he'll have much success with Google, but the individuals behind it should be held accountable if it is indeed libel, even if they are trying to be anonymous here or on Wikipedia.

Re:

Indeed, the accusations of "frustration and emotional distress", as stated by the submitter are vague and meaningless. Is criticism on an open forum thought crime? http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/394 [digital-copyright.ca]

Re:submitter's conflict of interest

I'm calling BS on this statement. Nothing in this guy's post could honestly be taken as smear- not any more than any other /. article. The fact of the matter is that this Crookes man doesn't like what is being posted about him on open forums, and is suing the editors of said forums for comments that not only did they not make, but that they disavow any ownership of in their legal disclaimers, as does any open forum. Furthermore, Michael Piling, head of OpenPolitics, even edited the offensive material, only to have the original material reposted by the user. How is Piling deserving of a lawsuit for something that is not only not his fault, but that he tried to correct to the wishes of Crookes? It'd be one thing if the lawsuit was for refusing to release the names or IP addresses of the users commiting libel, as that could be (mis)construed as aiding and abetting criminals, but even that would be a pretty weak case. Furthermore, I notice that the lawsuit against Wikipedia was made April 16, though Crookes' entry on the site was cut to a stub and protected nearly a month earlier, on March 19. Besides, he will need to prove to a court that the statements made on these sites were not only false (which shouldn't be too hard) but made with malignant intent something that will be nearly impossible to prove against anonymous users, and absolutely impossible to prove against the hosts of public forums who have made efforts to edit, remove, and block said harmful statements from appearing on their sites.

The disputed Wikipedia material:

(Posting here in case the Wikipedia gods decide to bend over and completely expunge it, somehow... This is all GFDL material.)

Lender to Green Parties

He is best known for his involvement in the Green Party of British Columbia, to which he donated substantia

Sue al of us?

Will also sue all of us users, who know the truth?

This should fall under 'its funny'.

In tomorrow's news...

247 lawsuits filed against a Mr. Anonymous Coward for postings causing "immense amounts of frustration and emotional distress".

Downtime

So tahts why slashdot was down earlier today, they were erasing all the evidence.

"oops, harddrive crash... nothing to see here judge"

this is a useful reminder

Things like this help us remember why we have the right to free speech. It's because of people trying to remove our right to speak out against them, just like is happening here.

It's sometimes difficult for young'uns to remember that the internet, in it's populer worldwide usage form at least, is still very young. A great many people, organisations and countries were caught off guard by the freedom it gave for comment, and are still trying to remove that freedom.

Their efforts are going to fail, but not because of any moral or ethical issue, simply because of evolutionary principles. The internet is evolving faster then it can be censored. If, and this I doubt, but if they manage to censor all the current expression methods on the internet, more will be created to fill the gaps, and more. It's a fight that can't be won.

The only thing we need worry about is whether 4chan becomes the dominant player in the free expression market :-)

Re:

You make the common mistake of referring to 'the internet' as an entity. The entire reason it can't be censored is because it isn't a single entity.

Single entities can - and commonly are - censored. The websites primarily involved in this dispute (Wikipedi

Re:this is a useful reminder

Things like this help us remember why we have the right to free speech.

Well, I'm not sure what the term free speech means in Canada, but down here in the U.S. it means that the government is not allowed to suppress Constitutionally-protected speech (which it does anyway, but that's a topic for another day.) It does not mean that we aren't allowed to suppress each other. The courts determine when and if we can do that, and if Mr. Crook wants to throw his weight around and try to "suppress" his detractors, that really doesn't come under the heading of free speech. It may be an abuse of laws, and of those being threatened. I don't know, I'm not Canadian, and like I said maybe the term means something different under Canada's legal system.

It's a fight that can't be won.

Sure it can. You understand that the Internet is evolving, but you're assuming that the Internet, as it stands today, is the only way such a network can be run. China has already shown us a different way (certainly not a better way, by Western standards) where what can be found online can be strictly controlled, if the government so chooses. Even here, in the land of the brave, home of the free ... the locking down of the Internet is already underway. Five years from now, or ten, and I think those of us "old timers" will look back fondly on the so-called Wild West days, where you could send a packet anywhere and not worry about whether a blood-sucking ISP, an unfriendly government, or even our own governments would block it.

Certainly there will always technological measures that can be implemented to get around most such obstacles, but the problem is that those tools will never be in the hands of the majority of the voting public. If the Internet doesn't just conveniently "work", doesn't just let them go where they want to go, most people will never get there ... and that's exactly how some people want it.

I guess what I'm saying is, enjoy it while it lasts.

The only thing we need worry about is whether 4chan becomes the dominant player in the free expression market :-)

What's a 4chan?

Re:

I'm not sure what the term free speech means in Canada, but down here in the U.S. it means that the government is not allowed to suppress Constitutionally-protected speech (which it does anyway, but that's a topic for another day.) It does not mean that we

Re:

Well, I'm not sure what the term free speech means in Canada, but down here in the U.S. it means that the government is not allowed to suppress Constitutionally-protected speech (which it does anyway, but that's a topic for another day.) It does not mean that we aren't allowed to suppress each other. The courts determine when and if we can do that

You're an idiot. When Party A requests that the court limit the speech of Party B, he is, in fact, requesting that the government limit B's speech as allowed by law. The limits allowable by law are subject to the 1st Amendment.

Re:

Which is an absolutely bogus interpretation of the entire concept.

Not at all.

You have to read the First Amendment: It says Congress shall make no law... It's very specific: The legislature has no power to abridge the freedom of speech. The judiciary can

Re:this is a useful reminder

The judiciary can make determinations on specific civil suits, after the fact, but there is no prior restraint.

Which is an incredibly important distinction that is lost on some of the other posters here. The Founders were not (so far as I can tell) attempting to make us exempt from the consequences of what we say. They were very much aware of the potential consequences of opening one's mouth, or of setting ideas to paper.

They did, however, want us to have the power to speak in the first place, no matter what, and the biggest single threat to that ability is government itself. That fact is no less true today.

Re:

With freedom of speech comes responsibility. You're free to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't unduly cause harm to other people. Without such restrictions we'd have anarchy.

Libel is libel.

Now I don't know the facts of this case, but being the v

Re:

You're free to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't unduly cause harm to other people.

It's probably more correct to say, "you're free to say whatever you want so long as it's true", at least in the United States. If the truth causes harm, well, s

Re:

iirc from the libel section [~298] of the CCC, the "truth" has to also be in the publics best interest.

It's may be true that you fancy barbie dolls and collect stamps, but the public has no need for such information and if you publish it to harm another (e

Re:this is a useful reminder

Consider reading the code [justice.gc.ca] section 298 states

298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

Note the "without lawful justification or excuse." Section 300 states if it's false the punishment is 5 years, and section 301 blankets it with a 2 year sentence regardless. (that is, upto). So you can get more time for a false statement, but true or not, you can still be found guilty of libel.

It's in the publics interest if he messed with party money [or whatever]. If the allegations are false, then whoever published them can be found guilty of defamatory libel.

However, suppose he had an embarrassing hobby (that was otherwise legal), and it was paraded in public to mock and ridicule him. If the publication causes him harm [loss of job, contempt of peers, etc] it can be found to be libel, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Tom

Re:

"Again, I don't know the full merits of this case, because honestly, who the fuck follows the green party? If it's not PC, Liberal, NDP, or PQ it's pretty much off the radar for the majority of Cannucks." [sic]

In light of this, perhaps a good defense wo

Re:

The difference is which rights different countries prioritize. Here in Canada the right to privacy is considered much more important then it is in the States.
Someone could have some strange habits that he keeps secret and if you out them and they lose thei

look up what anarchy means

With freedom of speech comes responsibility. You're free to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't unduly cause harm to other people. Without such restrictions we'd have anarchy.

Yet another person who has no idea what the meaning of anarchy is. Please go and do some research.

In fact, the very definition you gave is one description of anarchy, that is, you are free to do what you want so long as you don't take someone elses freedo

Re:

The definition in the OED says nothing about rules. Actually, there are two different definitions, one with a positive connotation and one with a negative. Neither really says anything about whether or not people can take other people's freedoms in a non

Re:

By the definitions of rule, it almost seems that there needs to be a ruler in some form for there to be rules ...

So then, what it really boils down to is a choice between English or Metric.

Re:this is a useful reminder

I have no idea what your ranting about. I didn't vote NDP. And I'm pro-individual rights, which includes the rights to live safely (free from ridicule, contempt, torment, etc). I was simply replying to the parent suggesting that libel is real, does affect people, and there are boundaries that civilized people don't cross.

The idea that anonymous users exist on the net is an excuse to publish libel is nonsense. If you run a message board [or equiv] you should be held liable for any and ALL anonymous postings. After all, you're the one who is publishing it. I think it's reasonable that people moderate their websites such that libelous content is not widely distributed.

If that means changing existing website designs to disallow anonymous posts to become immediately published so be it.

Take a look at this [amazon.com] for instance. Not once did I "spam" usenet about the book. I posted one message in an on-topic usenet group (where I've was an active participant for the last 7 years) about the book, some asshole then took that post and reposted it to a hundred other groups.

Amazon was at one point hosting reviews that read such as [from memory] "I would never buy this book as he's a usenet spamming jerk. This book clearly is not worth buying, etc, etc..." While amazon was nice enough to take down the reviews [which were posted before the book was in print] they didn't remove the "discussion" threads which are still there today.

While I don't think that's the only reason the books aren't selling, I have to assume that it has had an impact on some of the sales, at the very least, one sale.

And what did I do to deserve this treatment? Be an outspoken advocate of free software, open source cryptography, and an enemy of snake oil. Because someone didn't like how open I was, how generous I was to give out free knowledge and software they decided to post spam, kiddie porn and other nonsense with my name on it. It wasn't like I was actively attacking others. In fact, the last round of joe-jobs before I just quit using usenet altogether were people re-posting my research posts [I had optimized my ECC implementation that I give out in LibTomCrypt].

Basically some guy decided he didn't like me so he nearly ruined my life (hint: you consider awful things when you're being labeled a kiddie porn peddler).

Is that what living in a "free" society is like?

God help us all then when some random asshole on the web decides to have it in for you. Maybe the next time someone does the same to someone else (yourself, a friend of yours, a family member), someone will respond with violence. In my case, there were times were I was afraid someone would mail a bomb, or worse, come to my house looking for a fight.

People should be responsible for what they write, and people should be responsible for what they host.

Tom

Re:

I do not agree that the person or corporation running a mesage board should be held liable for "publishing" everything that anyone writes on their board. The person who actual wrote and published the article should be held liable. Reasonable people should

Self defeating strategy

I had never heard of this guy before. Now I have heard of him and I think he's an idiot. He has found an amazingly effective way to destroy his own reputation.

Re:

He has found an amazingly effective way to destroy his own reputation.

Same here. But can you sue yourself in Canada?

I do have to wonder, though, if this suit (suits?) actually has any real merit... I though "the truth" generally counted as a solid de

Re:

I wouldn't be surprised if he was considered a hero in [riaa.com] some [mpaa.org] circles. [slashdot.org]

Streisand Effect

It's a fine example of the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] in action.

Class action suit against Crookes?

If he tries to sue enough people, then they could band together and countersue as a class action suit. (assuming Canada has class-action lawsuits)

Remember, It's Canada

Remember, this is Canada we are talking about, where, for a short while, it was illegal to name a cow with a human name [www.cbc.ca] all because a mid-level functionary, and hyper-sensitive twit shared the same name as a state owned cow.

Re:Remember, It's Canada

Maybe some medication will assist you?

Nah ... just some good Canadian beer.

Re:

Well, I'm American myself and there really aren't too many good domestic beers here either. Well, that's not entirely true, there are a number of microbreweries in my area that turn out some excellent stuff. The big boys are all pretty marginal though.

How do you know when nuts are not ripe for eating?

They are green.

Wikipedia mostly-blanked and protected article

As of a few days ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Crookes [wikipedia.org] is a generic biography page. It's also protected.

The January and September versions have some meat on them. Whether they are accurate or not, who knows?

Kook of the Month?

The Kook of the Month [killfile.org] [mind your eyes at that site] award ought to be revived...

Public Figure

Is there a public figure [wikipedia.org] rule in Canadian law?

Free speech vs. slander

I know I'll get a bashing with thet modbat for that, but there is a limit to free speech. It is when my speaking is slander. Saying "Crookes is a crook" just 'cause I don't like him would constitute that.

Note that I'm neither saying that he has a case for

Emotional Distress

Speaking of Emotional Distress, is it a coincidence that this is being posted right after the story about goatse.cx being up for sale?

I think not.

Al Gore

All I can say is that Al Gore better get a good lawyer....

While we're at it...

I'm suing calculus, for undue mental distress.

Re:Proof once again

Indeed, straight from the Chief Justice Herself, Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeche s/ComparativeView_e.asp [scc-csc.gc.ca] That said, the debate isn't new in fact, http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/libel3.html [uwaterloo.ca] decribes how lawsuit can be used to shout down criticism through intimidation. Jeffrey Shallit http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/ [uwaterloo.ca] is vice-president of Electronic Frontier Canada http://www.efc.ca/ [www.efc.ca]. One of us!

Re:

Well, mostly I was taking a swipe at all those "If $X gets elected, I'm moving to Canada" pundits who, unfortunately for those of us in the political center, never actually do.

But yes, the stupidity of the Green party boggles my mind. This is coming from s

Re:

Interestingly, I was going to give the issue with Operation Clambake on xenu.net as an example how Scientology had forced Google to remove links to the website as it contained "copywritten material", however I did a quick search and lo and behold first lin

Re:HAHA

where did this dumbass manage to find a lawyer that is also big enough of a dumbass to think this might actually be a success?

As far as a lawyer is concerned, if he's paying then that's all that matters. Saying you found a lawyer who's prepared to argue your case is like saying you found a prostitute prepared to have sex with you.

TWW