Can a Blogroll Be Defamatory? 142
An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation, has added Michael Geist to his hit list. Geist is a well-known Canadian law professor and blogger. His offense: linking on his blog to site that links to another site that contains material allegedly of a defamatory nature. (Others would characterize that material as historical facts about Crooks's tenure at the helm of the Canadian Green Party.)
Well, it's Canada (Score:5, Informative)
Usually that acts as a strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits. I guess it doesn't always work, but it'll be nice to see the big fat bill forthcoming.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually that acts as a strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits. I guess it doesn't always work, but it'll be nice to see the big fat bill forthcoming.
I thought it was the same way in American Courts as well?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Awarding legal costs to the successful defendant (Score:5, Informative)
The disadvantage to loser-automatically-pays is that it's extremely risky for an injured individual to sue a large corporation, even if he's right, because the corporation can afford much better lawyers (and therefore has an unequally high chance of winning, even if they're wrong), and usually has much higher legal costs. So if you lose you're not just out your own legal costs and the court's costs, you're out the legal costs of the corporation that had injured you.
Not the *real* legal cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Awarding legal costs to the successful defendan (Score:2, Insightful)
The loser should pay a value based on their own costs to the winner. This means that both sides have a vested interest in only spending as much on legal fees as neccesary.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the UK both sides have a requirement to mitigate any losses incurred, which INCLUDES legal fees. For example, hiring 100 expert witnesses which do not really have a bearing on the case would get those costs removed as frivolous.
PLus, we have a great small claims court system - for up to £5k claims a filing fee of about £35 gets you a hearing in front of a magistrate. Costs are capped and in general no lawyers are involv
In America, with this Administration, who knows... (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought it was the same way in American Courts as well?
I seem to remember it used to be.
But then again, I was stopped at a stoplight in broad daylight and got hit by a lady in a very nice new cadillac. She not only didn't see me and just failed to stop in time, she never had the brakes and hit me so hard I slid forward as she bounced off my Jeep's rear spare and managed to hit me again. All of this was of course in front of a hospital. So the ambulance arrived and they insisted my neck was tender enough I need to get it x-rayed. So as the police arrive late, I leave my license, registration and insurance on the seat while the EMTs take me away on the board. The cop stops us at the ambulance and says my insurance isn't there. The EMTs push me back over and the wind blew it over onto the passenger seat, where I can't reach because I'm taped down. Plus the EMTs are pushing me to get to the hospital ASAP because I have a history of pain complications making me barf. So I point at it and he says "sorry lady, you have to hand it to me, i'm citing you for failure to prove insurance". He tickets me and sticks it under my neckbrace. I'm like wtf silently? In the ambulance the guys explain to me that the lady who hit me is the widow of a fireman. They tell me that its a loyalty thing, cops and fireman stick together so he has to give me attitude.
Three weeks later in court with my letter to prove I had insurance. I'm sitting up front waiting for my turn, its the time I was given to show up. The DA calls a familiar name. Its the lady that hit me. (She never bothered to get out of her car to see if I was alright, btw.) I'm in a freaking neck brace because she herniated a disc. So she goes up to the DA and starts crying about her former husband, and tells him she didn't see me at the stop light because the sun was too bright. BS she coming at me from under an overpass. She is only 4 feet tall though. She might not be able to see over her caddy's dashboard. The DA hugs her and says he won't charge her because of her husbands loyal duty to the city of Aurora. He then asks her if she can afford her court costs of $60. She starts crying and tells him no, that since her husband has been gone, she can't make ends meet. (except for that fancy loaded Caddy out there) and firemen get a pretty good pension in CO too, so I think she was just greedy. The DA says ok, don't worry, we'll work it out, you go home and rest up. Then he calls my name.
His demeanor changes. He tells me that I was driving without proof of insurance and will have two points removed from my license for a year unless i have a letter to prove otherwise. I show him the letter and he begrudingly accepts it. He lectures me that leaving a license, registration or insurance card on a seat for a police officer to pick up is not allowed. I must hand them to the officer. I interrupted to explain the situation with my injury, and he said that doesn't matter--you are still obligated to hand all three to the officer. So I asked the DA, if I'm unconscious and bleeding to death shall I have someone staple them to my hand? He got pissed but so was I at this point.
I said, I read the police report, I went and got a copy of it under the freedom of information act. The lady that hit me has a record of several reckless driving warnings recently and she failed to prove any insurance at the scene of the accident. The police officer not only didn't ticket her for that, but he let her off for reckless driving because she's a widow of a firefighter. Now, I respect what her husband did for Aurora, but I don't think she should get treated differently than I do. Especially if she is endangering other's health with her careless driving, and has no insurance to help pay for damages she causes. She has no insurance. He agreed to that. But then he said. She is on a fixed income, whereas Ms. XXXXX you are making a generous income and so I am going to require you to pay both parties court costs
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that called a countersuit when you are the defense, and you want the other side to pay the costs if and when you win?
If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
I'm not sure if its called a countersuit, I'll ask my sister who is a DA and reply.
And I agree, It was stupid to sign it, because yes, it basically admitted I was less financially burdened than she was. I didn't sign anything saying I was at fault for the accident though or that I wasn't insured. Who knows, maybe the car she was driving was some rich friend's car. Maybe she is burdened and her firefighter husband didn't get his pension because of some other factors I don't know of. I made my point
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, that if you're using any sort of excuse not to fight the system, the system can use that against you. If someone isn't fighting because they are sick, injured, etc., then it is entirely possible, somehow, for the system to keep that someone down just so they cannot rise up.
Fortunately, we don't have to fight ourselves. We have other people there to do the things we cannot do without severe exhaustion.
I for one won't stand for defemation of character, i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Posting on slashdot is one such way and it might even be more effective (and cheaper than counter suing). Already 500 people know what has happened and that the system was wrong. So, you see, the OP is fighting the system.
Which OP are you referring to?
If you're referring to the person hit by the fireman's widow (WannaBeGeekGirl) well, I don't know what city she lives in, who the DA was, etc. I have no details at all. So this particular post to /. wasn't a very good way of getting the word out -- and besides, 498 of those 500 people who read it probably don't live anywhere near her.
She should talk to a lawyer. Really, she should have talked to a lawyer as soon as things started going wrong in the court room. She
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what city she lives in, who the DA was, etc. I have no details at all.
Well, sounds like it was Aurora, Colorado. Still don't know who the DA was, etc.
Of course, the people who need to know the story aren't in Texas like me. They're in Aurora. And /. will only reach a small number of them.
The local news is probably the best bet for getting the story out. If it's even worth it -- getting the local police, fire department and DA mad at you, even if you're completely justified, is rarely a good policy. If you're going to do this, it might be wise to leave the city o
Re: (Score:2)
When the day comes that you are truly a geek girl, you will rejoice and be rid of this blight!
Re: (Score:2)
What if a company was doing something wrong and the system won't fight for you? I know someone (let's call this person X) who was a personal trainer at the YMCA in Ottawa. X was technically considered an employee who was paid by t
Re: (Score:2)
Find a lawyer who will sue pro bono.
Find a lawyer who will sue, only getting paid if the case is won. (Even if they take 50%, it is still bringing justice against the company.)
Contact news organizations.
File a complaint against the Labour Board, if someone feels strongly they are not doing their job.
Contact legislators.
Ask friends for ideas on what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the states, I'd of suggested that the trainer go to small claims court with the evidence from the labor board saying that the YMCA was paying wrong. Even if they declined to do anything further about it, it's a heck of a piece of evidence in court.
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:1)
File a complaint against the prosecutor, in the state bar or with the state attorney general, if you feel you were treated wrongfully. They are not as willing to bend to local politics.
Why did you need to use FOIA to
Re: (Score:1)
The prosecutor bluffing. You should have fought it instead of agreeing. Also your story is not applicable to the present situation because, the judge never even got involved. You were just arguing with the prosecutor, if you had stuck with it the judge/ jury would have sided with you. File a complaint against the prosecutor, in the state bar or with the state attorney general, if you feel you were treated wrongfully. They are not as willing to bend to local politics. Why did you need to use FOIA to get a copy of the police report? You can't defend yourself if you do not know the charges, therefore you have to be given all the evidence against you by the police. If you were not given a police report, that is grounds for immediate dismissal of the case against you. My friends have used this point to get out of stupid tickets numerous times. Mr. Crooke's case is a civil case. In a civil case there is the plaintiff and the defendant. In a criminal case there is a prosecutor (the state) and a defendant. In a civil case if the defendant wins, and proves some additional facts (like that the suit was BS) then the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's costs.
May I state for the record that I am a very naive, unassertive person. I have unnatural fear of males that are taller than I am or males with guns. I am incredibly respectful of my elders (the lady in the caddy). When she said she was a widow I probably got emotional. I am severely depressed and when this happened I was young, brand new to a big city and lets face it, no expert in the law. I'm probably the dream-idiot of anyone who takes advantage of a person in that situation. My knowledge of law was
Re: (Score:2)
Evil prevails when good men fail to act. (Score:2, Insightful)
I respect and make it a point not to take the police, firefighters, EMTS and all other first responders who put their lives on the line for strangers not for granted. I think I just got a bad deal. So what if I had to pay some lady's court fees. Those guys put their lives on the line for strangers all the time.
I have a hard time believing that that is a true story, but assuming that it is, then i have to wonder why you seem to think its a nice idea to let police and firefighters have their way. As its said, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act", evil prevailed in your case.
The only thing you achieve by submitting to corruption, is encourage it. Yes they deserve respect for their jobs, but that doesn't give them the right to trample over your rights in the process.
Saying that, reality can be pretty harsh on i
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:2)
Also, you should have sued the old lady for your vehicle damage and injuries. Most personal injury lawyers will work on contingency.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:1)
Please explain.
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:1)
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:2)
That's great and all but at the end of the day they still do it for a paycheck and that's all we should be forced to give them. If people want to show their support and be nice and generous to civil servants I'm all for it. I'll probably help out too. It's when THEY start taking OUR generosity for granted that pisses me off. Anyone that thinks they deserve special treatment above everyone else is an asshole. I don't care whose life you sa
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats, this has got to be the most successful troll I've seen. And to think I thought the one about the CD-store owner not being able to buy his daughter good clothes was overdone. ..
Why don't you google a random fragment of the Record Store Troll [google.com], count the number of hits, the try a fragment from her story [google.com] and see how many hits you get. Hmmmm.... not the same sort of troll at all. For one thing, it has showed up only once. For another, it was posted by an established slashdot user and not an AC. Third, she gives too much specific detail and replies to too many posters to fit the "troll" profile. What is your doubt based on? The fact that you've never been the victim of the "Public Saf
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I am using the wrong definition of troll. I realize that one usage of the word is for a recurring and overused dramatic story based on lies, for the purpose of eliciting a response or emotion from readers. In this case, if you take out the word recurring/overused and keep the part about it being a drama
Re:In America, with this Administration, who knows (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have the money, the guts, and the gusto to use them all and risk everything, you don't have a chance.
Even if you do, you're still just talking about a small chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the entire system nationwide is _in fact_ corrupt, your assertion does nothing to advance any argument that the story is implausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general you pay your own court costs unless the suit is found to be an abuse of process.
It means that there is less penality for filing which is a probelm, but it also keeps the courts open to people who are not wealty.
Not much use in this case (Score:5, Interesting)
I once had the misfortune to work for a company where the CEO was a litigious [noun censored]. This is not good when you are (in my case) Company Secretary. Basically he used to put together a convincing sounding scenario of what he claimed had happened, consult a lawyer, be told we had a good chance of winning. The lawyer would then ask me, as CS, to submit the documents in the case and I would have to tell him that they said something different or did not exist. The lawyer would then tell the CEO to forget it, and the CEO would vow never to work with that bent lawyer again, especially when the bill arrived. This happened with increasing frequency after he actually won a case which, in fact, was really the other side's fault and was clear cut. The one thing he never for one moment considered was that he might be wrong.
The simple fact is, and I take no credit for saying it because any CS would have done the same, without intervention he would have bankrupted to company and not cared, because all he was interested in was having his own way.
I've since learned it is not an uncommon personality type. I think it has much in common with compulsive gambling and drug addiction.
Not, of course, that I would for one microsecond suggest that it has any bearing on this case, except to demonstrate that you cannot assume that losing cases and paying costs will deter litigious people.
Re: (Score:2)
A pre-emptive foreign policy also has a lot to do with it, although I guess that's just a special case of compulsive gambling.
The More Things Change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand compulsive gambling, but drug addiction? That's often a physical addiction, which started because the addict wanted to feel better. I don't see how it related to always thinking you're right.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more to do with why you do it. (Score:2)
Unfortunately, well, if you were a lawyer and a determined litigant with deep pockets came along and made it clear money was no object, would you tell him he had no case or wou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for Geist being included, it's standard practice with libel suits to name every person or entity involved with further disseminating the libelous information; that is, each entity which played a contributory role in spreading the mis-information.
This is in part because an important element in a libel case in Canada is assessing how widely a lib
keep on truckin' (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, well, things have really gone down the tubes lately, if you know what I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I feel bad for the process server who got that assignment.
Re: (Score:2)
First upload yourself to Youtube handing papers to a camera and saying, "you've been served!" Provide a link to a PDF somewhere with the actual documents. Then goof off on the Internet all day posting your links. Just keep telling people "you know what you did" and let your defendants all over the Internet spread the word- doing your process server work for you "virally". Do a brief writeup in your blog, send the URL to the court clerk, and wait
Well of course it can be (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait, you asked if a Blogroll can be Defamatory.
I thought you asked if a Bogroll can be Inflammatory.
Huh? (Score:2)
You`re looking for imflammable.
Dr Nick - It means flammable? What a country!
thank google (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
blogroll defined by wikipedia [google define:blogroll]A blogroll is a collection of links to other weblogs. Blogrolls are found on most weblogs.
Don't know why it's different from "links", but I'm not a blogger.
Re: (Score:2)
So even after reading the definition you can't see a difference. The difference is that a blogroll is a collection of links to other blogs, an important distinction, since links to blogs are not as worthy as links to say newspapers, or scientific journals.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy isn't suing because somebody posted a direct link to the news article, but instead to a site containing a link to the news article. Kinda like the difference between me linking to a news article on cnn, or linking to cnn's homepage because I visit there frequently.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Linking to a site that links to a bad site = ba (Score:1, Funny)
Dear DrEldarion,
Thank you for helping our site attain a higher PageRank by linking to us. We could not have done it without you. As a token of our appreciation, please enjoy a free month of GoogleMail.
Regards,
The Google team
Six degrees of separation (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Six degrees of separation (Score:5, Funny)
So, he would sue Kevin Bacon?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
easy way to deal with him (Score:3, Interesting)
An anonymous reader... (Score:1)
So, is CowbowNeal next?
Yipes! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, hold on... (Score:1)
Okay, unless I'm reading this wrong, he's suing the writer of Blog A because it was linked to Site B which then further linked to Site C which may contain information of a defamatory nature?
No, seriously, what the fuck?
How is that even actionable? I mean, if that's "acceptable", then this guy should be suing Google, Yahoo!, the New York Times, hell, just about everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> because it was linked to Site B which then further linked to Site C
> which may contain information of a defamatory nature?
1) And dee first blog is connected to dee second blog
2) And dee second blog is connected to dee third blog
3) And dee third blog is connected to dee fourth blog
4) ???
5) Profit?
Re: (Score:2)
wow, i see possible scandal for al gore here (Score:1)
he better lawyer up....and all that speculation about him waiting to announce a surprise run for 2008--this could be its undoing!!
~tsk tsk tsk~ ~smirk~
/. is next? (Score:2)
erm... hold on, I lost count.
A screw it, why doesn't that guy simply sue the whole internet, it's much easier.
Re: (Score:1)
slashdot.org [slashdot.org]
Slashdot links to itself. Which means it links to a site that links to a site that links to a site ad ininitum. For each iteration he can sue Slashdot again!
obligatory... (Score:2, Funny)
Jack Thompson (Score:1)
IANAL (Score:4, Funny)
Mr Crookes [removed to avoid potential liability], however [removed to avoid potential liability] and [removed to avoid potential liability]. So, in fact [removed to avoid potential liability] and to be honest [removed just in case].
Have a nice day. DISCLAIMER: The author of this post does not guarantee that your day will be nice. Moreover, the author of this post is not responsible for any damages resulting in your trying to have a nice day.
IANAW (Score:3, Funny)
Sue the Internet (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see how that is possibly off topic in a story about an idiot vs the internet.
Slashdot subs err again... (Score:1)
Canadian law... (Score:4, Informative)
So far "linking" to a page that links to a page that publishes libel isn't illegal. So Geist is very safe provided he doesn't publish [or cause to be published] anything libelous on his own.
The paper analogy would be like suing the corner store that sells a newspaper that happen to have carried a libelous story. That wouldn't hold up in court, neither will this.
Tom
Wildly Litigous? (Score:1)
And it ends where? (Score:2)
Hell, just sue the Internet.
[DELETED] (Score:2)
Freudian Slip (Score:1)
Defamation in BC (Score:2)
Though...what kind of idiot sues a high profile and talented lawyer? Thats just asking to get your
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who wants to distract that lawyer from his pet causes.
can't believe this hasn't been said yet... (Score:1)
Crookes... (Score:2)
sue sue sue (Score:3, Informative)
But then again, sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue
sue sue sue sue and more
sue sue sue suesue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue Crookes sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue wacko sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue 1310 people [digitaltippingpoint.com] sue sue sue This thing is getting a little out of hand, dontcha think?.
And the really funny thing is, I'm a lawyer.
Is he still in the Green Party? (Score:2)
Ofcourse the US Republicans also have some notable computer-illiterates. And the previous Dutch prime minister (Wim Kok, one of the best PMs we've had, actually) didn't even know how to use a mouse.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)