Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

Cyberlibel Damages Awarded In Canada 247

Posted by timothy from the that-was-very-hurtful dept.
mszeto writes "The Globe And Mail is reporting that an Ontario judge has awarded an archaeologist 125k$ in damages after someone smeared her using email. According to the lawyer: 'People seem to think there is a level of anonymity to e-mail and the Internet. And that it's a lawless area. And clearly it is not, nor should it be.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cyberlibel Damages Awarded In Canada More

Cyberlibel Damages Awarded In Canada

Comments Filter:

  • Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by brxndxn ( 461473 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:34PM (#10815720)
    I hope the spammers don't all sue me for sending out millions of emails that say all spammers are evil and that spam should be ignored!

    • The basic defense against libel is: if it's a true statement, it's not libel.

      Since spammers are evil, you should be in the clear... ;-)

      Note: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and please play nice with the other kids.

      steveha
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • The problem with spam is not that people might buy the product. The damage to me has nothing to do with that. It's the time I waste and the bandwidth I pay for that they steal. It's also the fact that spammers are the money behind most of the viruses, spam relays bots, etc, which are jamming the web and costing us billions of dollars. A lot of the large cyber-criminal organizations got their start by working for large spam operations.

          And stuff like the Nigerian scam is a crime. The letter itself is evidence of fraud, if they can catch those that sent it.

        • Shouldn't the problem rest on personal responsibility?

          I agree with that to a certain point. There needs to be _some_ limit to the "free" market. Should the "free" market be allowed to take advantage of someone with lower intellegence? Why? It is their fault they don't have the brains of you or I. Also, there are the different generations. Down here in Sunny Flordia, land of the retired Snow Birds, we get a lot of seniors who grew up in a different generation. A generation that was not filled with a

      • if it's a true statement, it's not libel.

        Note that this is not true in all jurisdictions.

        • Considering that defamation in the form of libel/slander is defined as "issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm" I don't see how that could be the case. There are perhaps jurisdictions where saying harmful but true things are actionable but those are, by definition, not libel/slander.
      • Speaking as someone accused of libel [and successfully backed the person off in one fell swoop of the CCC] I know what constitutes libel [at least in Canada].

        The jist of Libel is [around section 297-8 of the CCC]

        s297 - In sections 303, 304 and 308, "newspaper" means any paper, magazine or periodical containing public news, intelligence or reports of events, or any remarks or observations thereon, printed for sale and published periodically or in parts or numbers, at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days
    • I hope the spammers don't all sue me for sending out millions of emails that say all spammers are evil and that spam should be ignored!

      I hope they ALL do, that way we can find out who they are!

  • Lies! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:34PM (#10815723)
    "People seem to think there is a level of anonymity to e-mail and the Internet."

    Ha!

    • Re:Lies! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Saeger ( 456549 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (jllerraf)> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:42PM (#10816846) Homepage
      Dear "Anonymous" Coward,

      We logged your HTTP POST packet enroute to slashdot.org as it hopped across our "PATRIOT2 blackboxes", which are installed at the border of most ISPs, as required by anti-terrorism law.

      Your IP is 149.101.1.32 and our reverse records indicate that your name and address is none other than ... oh, sorry, we didn't know it was you Sir. Excuse the intrusion and consider your logs erased for "national security" reasons.

      Sincerely,
      Stormtrooper #98562
      New World Order, SubFloor 145

      --

      • [Darth Vader Voice]
        The power of this Orwellian monitoring network is insignificant compared to the power of the force.
        [/Darth Vader Voice]

        *Chokes annoying stormtrooper who interupted porn surfing session.*

  • Except that email can be forged (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:35PM (#10815726)
    SMTP headers can be forged. Windows machines can be 0wn3d. Any Tom, Dick, or Vladimir can set up a rogue SMTP server, claim to be Yahoo! mail, and start spewing email.
    You can't nail someone to the wall until you have a means to prove that they did what you claim.

    • Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iii_rjm ( 551978 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:37PM (#10815738)
      So can papers and signatures. What is your point?
    • This is EXACTLY why I have been saying for a long time now that we NEED to add authentication to SMTP, as this guy is trying to do [bw.org].

      This case merely proves what I've been saying for YEARS now: sooner or later, anonymity cannot be used as an excuse for lawlessness. At some point, you MUST draw the line between anonymity and the need to hold people accountable for their actions and abuses of the email system.

      • Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:4, Informative)

        by kentmartin ( 244833 ) * on Sunday November 14, 2004 @08:17PM (#10816392) Homepage
        Or what about simply SPF [pobox.com].

        Seriously, there has been enough noise made about it lately. I jumped on to set up SPF in all of about 10 minutes, it really was that simple.

        Since then I have been using the Thunderbird Extension for Sender Policy Framework [for.net] as a quick and easy way to see which and how many domains publishing SPF records and have noted a few interesting things.

        Namely, depsite the fact that MS wants their own standard to be thrown out into the marketplace (namely Sender ID), they are publishing SPF records on both Microsoft.com and on Hotmail.com. If I was the kind of guy who used the word "kudos" I would say "Kudos to them". I am no more of a fan of MS than anyone else here, but, those two domains alone represent a not insignificant percentage of spam floating around that can be fairly simply removed with a mail server reconfig. AOL is also publishing, so well done there.

        Gmail are as well of course, but would you expect any less?

        Yahoo are not, which amazes me - I realize they want to push DomainKeys, but, I see no reason for them not to be publishing SPF records as well.

        The one that absolutely staggered me though was Citibank.com. I recall reading somewhere (no link sorry, but a quick google [google.com] illustrates the point) that something like half all the phishing emails floating about are aimed at Citibank. For the sake of a few minutes, they could at least give people who want to, a surefire way of rejecting all phishing emails at MTA time. They must have among the crappest DNS admins on earth, or some very bad policy makers.

        I shall end this spiel with a request. If you administer a DNS, and you relay, or can easily relay through known machines every time (which would be about 99% of us), then please publish SPF records. You don't have to use other people's records yourself to reject mail - just publish your own records so that other can reject mail that is purportedly from you, but isn't.

        The nice thing about all this from the running a receiving MTA perspective, is you can phase it in. Pretty soon, I will be rejecting all mail that is fails SPF checks, but still accepting for people that don't yet publish records.

        So please, do it now, jump over to the SPF link at the top of this mail - there is a webform there which dumbs down creating your SPF record as much as it can be dumbed down, and actually gives you a line to paste into your zone file.

        Spam could be all but gone in a week for those who want to reconfigure their mail servers to reject it if those records are publish. Imagine that - effectively wiping out spam almost instantly!

        If you won't do it for me, do it for the children, oh won't somebody please think of the children.....

    • Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @07:30PM (#10816099) Homepage
      That's why they have neat things like trials and juries that determine what the facts are and make decisions based on that.

    • Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "You can't nail someone to the wall until you have a means to prove that they did what you claim."

      If only that were so.

      Scott Peterson

      sweetcheeks@sanquinton.cdc.ca.gov

  • Canada has loose libel right though? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    But don't the British commonwealth have some kind of crazy overzealous Libel laws where the burden of proof is on the defendant?
    • Yep. Both Canada and the UK have ridiculous defamation laws; bring that up the next time a Canadian or Briton sneers at the American legal system.
      • So in the US it would be legal for someone to go around saying that a respected businessman whilst he was alone working late in the office went though all his colleagues desks and stole all their secret plans? Even though he couldn't possibly prove he didn't (after all, no one else was there), and saying that might have a detrimental effect on his career? Or to put it another way, it's okay to say something about someone if they had the opportunity to do that thing and can't prove that they didn't?

        In th

      • Actually, I think that Canadian defamation law is not that different from American defamation law anymore. English defamation law is more pro-plaintiff in part because the requirement that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted with malice is purely nominal. For practical purposes there is no such requirement. In contrast, in the US a public figure must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice", which is interpreted as meaning that he or she knew that the statement was false or spoke with fl

    • Re:Canada has loose libel right though? (Score:5, Informative)

      by twoshortplanks ( 124523 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @07:12PM (#10815996) Homepage
      Yes and no.

      The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove what they wrote was true, but obviously this only happens after the plaintiff has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did indeed write what they are accused of writing.

      This is obvious. If someone libels me by writing that I committed a crime, then I don't have to prove that I didn't commit that crime in order to sue them - before they throw around accusations like that they have to be able to prove what they said (or I'd be considered guilty until proven innocent.)

      • Uhh...

        Libel is generally (always? IANAL) a civil matter. Like the US, the standard of proof in civil matters is "on the balance of probabilities", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is reserved for criminal matters.

        -Rob

  • Mental Note: (Score:5, Funny)

    by mekkab ( 133181 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:37PM (#10815737) Homepage Journal
    Use anonymous re-mailer before slandering colleagues. Also, remove personal sig with my name, tele number, and address, too.

    Mr. Gates is a big fairy!

    -- /s/

    Robert M. Shankely
    348-8347
    234 Niam St.
    Provo, Utah.
    • Reading between the lines, neither Mr You Made My Wife Leave Me nor the other "homeless man" defendent were worth squat. I fail to see the point in fining someone who has no money. I also wonder about the publicity damage which would accrue from a gold company suing a homeless man. Sure, they're erratic dimwits, but there's not exactly a world shortage of same, and you can't go suing every derelict who abuses you or you'd never get any work done. AFAICT, there's 100% meatheads on both sides of the fence.

  • Yay for the courts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by metalhed77 ( 250273 ) <andrewvc@gmail . c om> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:37PM (#10815740) Homepage
    I don't see anything at all controversial about this ruling.

    • Doesn't anyone think the fine is a bit excessive?

      I do not condone his actions one little bit. I can understand a fine, or even jail time, but I think $125,000 is pretty steep. let's put it in perspective a bit:

      these guys got fined the same amount [spaceforspecies.ca]

      • Re:Yay for the courts (Score:5, Insightful)

        by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer AT alum DOT mit DOT edu> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @07:14PM (#10816008) Homepage

        I think that a pretty severe penalty is called for, for two reasons. First, the impact on Cheryl Ross was quite serious. Universities generally take such ethical issues very seriously. She could have lost her job and been made unemployable as an archaeologist. Furthermore, native bands are very sensitive about anything to do with human remains. Even an unproven allegation could have interfered with her ability to do research. In other words, this was not simply calling her a bad name; it could have ended her career. Secondly, according to the article Holley didn't just spout off in a moment of anger. He actually went to the trouble of falsifying evidence. In other words, what he did was premeditated and unquestionably dishonest. If somebody deliberately falsified evidence in an attempt to destroy your career, I bet you'd think they should pay a pretty severe penalty.

  • Remember kids: (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Always state the facts. Don't make shit up. You can say a product is crap or that you disagree with a company, but have proof to back up your opinions.

  • This is wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zerguy ( 831069 ) <nobody@nBOYSENowhere.gov minus berry> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:38PM (#10815751)
    I think that "cyberlibel" punishments are wrong for one very simple reason:
    It is exceptionally easy to frame someone. I could easily send you an email with a return address of Bill Clinton. It's as easy to forge as the return address on regular mail. If someone claiming to be me went and slandered a bunch of people, should I be punished? Absolutely not. That is why this sort of thing should not be allowed until we have a reliable method for tracing emails (which we almost certainly never will.)

    • What are the facts of the case? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mekkab ( 133181 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:42PM (#10815785) Homepage Journal
      If the "alleged" author actually admits to writing the e-mail, then cyber-libel becomes regular, boring, plain-ol' libel.

      This article doesn't give us enough detail.

      However if you are being "framed" it should be trivial for even the most junior of lawyers to cast enough resonable doubt on the e-mails authenticity.

    • The ruiling didn't throw out reasonable doubt... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Senjutsu ( 614542 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:46PM (#10815817)
      So don't get your shirt in a knot. All the ruiling did was establish that, yes, if you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that John Smith sent the message, "It was just the internet" is not a reasonable defence against Libel charges.
    • I think that "cyberlibel" punishments are wrong for one very simple reason: It is exceptionally easy to frame someone.

      ...and did it occur to you that the entire concept of "framing people" is not new to the justice system? That we have standards of evidence and guilt? Granted the case was in Canada, but in the US, the burden of proof is quite high, at least in criminal cases- in civil cases, it's lower, but you've still got to prove well beyond, on average, what one of us would consider good enough pr

    • But the same can be done with pen and paper. I can write a letter and sign your name at the bottom. This is why it is determined in a court of law where all the facts can be shown and weighed.

      The other option is that anything can said on the internet, no matter the truthfulness or intent of it. I could put up a website about how zerguy is a child molesting crack addict and make sure everyone you know reads it. I could ruin your life with allegations I know are false, and there would be nothing you coul
    • So long as the person bringing suit can show that the email at issue was actually written and sent by the person whose name is on it, the possibility of bogus addresses is not relevant. In other words, I only need to prove one email is authentic. I don't need to prove that it is impossible to send a forged email message. If I can't prove who wrote that one email, no one will be punished. (Actually, a suit is not a criminal action. It is a civil case in which people who lose pay damages to the person who b

  • I think the question on all our minds now is... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When will the Star Wars kid sue?!?!?

  • A scary prescedent? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thewldisntenuff ( 778302 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:40PM (#10815763) Homepage
    Hmph....Does this mean me saying "CmdrTaco sucks*" on a /. discussion mean he can come sue the pants off me? A scary prescendent to be set indeed....There are a hell of a lot of websites, and a lot of personal pages out there that probably slander people left and right...What about them?

    *I've never met Mr. Rob Malda, so I can't attest or unattest to his personality :)

    -thewldisntenuff

    • Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:5, Funny)

      by LurkerXXX ( 667952 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:54PM (#10815887)
      You better be careful, or he will sue you. Then in a few hours, he will forget he'd done it, and he'll sue you again. Dupe lawsuits!

    • Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by twoshortplanks ( 124523 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:59PM (#10815930) Homepage
      I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it that's "fair comment" - at least under my (UK) law anyway. By that I don't mean that I agree with you, I mean that saying that is fine (as it's an opinion and could only be said as.)

      For example, you could say that CmdrTaco does a crap job at running slashdot (that's fair comment, some people might agree, other's might not) but saying that he's crap because he's never had any computer training would be libel (after all, he majored in computer science.) In short, you're stating a fact that isn't true. Like saying someone robbed graves when they did not.

      In short, you can mouth off, but if you say something that isn't true....well, google is always watching.

      • Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Spad ( 470073 ) <[slashdot] [at] [spad.co.uk]> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @07:28PM (#10816084) Homepage
        Correct, you can claim that CmdrTaco is an asshole without any legal worries. However, if - for example - you claimed that he was an asshole because he was using the Slashdot subscription money to fund his drug habit, then you would open yourself up to a libel lawsuit.

        • but (Score:2)

          by Trepidity ( 597 )
          What if he was using the Slashdot subscription money to fund his drug habit? Then you'd be okay.

          (Also, is posting a comment like this insinuating that said claim might be true libel, despite the fact that it does not outright assert it?)
        • But if I said it without malicious intent, as a joke, and if no one believed me anyway (without further evidence), so no one unsubscribed and new subscriptions did not drop as a result of the statement, it shouldn't be actionable.
    • Saying someone sucks, or is a jerk, or has their head firmly embedded up their backside, is not defamation. You have to make some kind of substantial statement of fact (we all understand that the head comment is not meant to be taken literally). These insults are too general and meaningless to qualify.

      Saying someone drinks too much, or enjoys the services of prostitutes, or has their hand in the company till, now that's good ol' fashion defamation.

      So which one applies to the commander?

    • No, because stating that CmdrTaco sucks is an opinion and the law protects your right to make your opinions. If however you said that Mr Malda is the Goatse man and eats live kittens for breakfast and those statements are implied as fact, and you would indeed be guilty of libel.

      Unless of course you know something we don't :)
    • The decision was made in Canada, so it has no bearing at all on courts anywhere else.

      There is also a lot more to libel than saying someone sucks; however, I'm too lazy to bother researching what the elements to libel are right now.

      You'd probably have to show intent and actual damages as a minimum; and there is probably some measure of the type of statement made as to whether or not there is actually libel.
    • 'cmdrtaco sucks' is an opinion
      'cmdrtaco sucks cock' would be an insult
      'cmdrtaco killed my sister' would be libel.

      ianal of course.
  • I could use some money! Quick! Somebody say something mean about me! Call me names! Make sure it is untrue. Looks like "grave robber" is worth $125k (Canadian) I bet I can get a few of those or worse here....

  • Sucks to be poor, even on the internet. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    While the article really diden't delve into any of the facts, I was able to glean that they just sued some poor guy for all his money. The article then mentioned some legal victory of suing a homeless guy for insulting a corporation. I think this really just shows that you are only safe in the legal system from slanderous comments if you have money to back you up, if you are poor, Internet or not, you will be f'd sans reach-around.

    • Please, cry me a river. According to what was reported, the guy ran a scam with the intended effect of ruining someone's career -- surely easily equivalent to $150k in real damages -- and we are supposed to somehow feel that it is and injustice when he gets punished in kind?

      BTW, someone who had $150k in clear assets was not *that* poor. NOW, he's poor.

  • A voice from 1982... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:43PM (#10815786) Homepage Journal
    From a 1982 white paper [geocities.com] concerning cyberlibel:
    For example, if a libelous communication takes place, corporate lawyers for the plaintiff will bring suit against the carrier rather than the individual responsible for the communication. The rationalizations for this clearly unreasonable and contrived position are quite numerous. Without a common carrier status, the carrier will be treading on virgin ground legally and thus be unprotected by precedent. Indeed, the stakes are high enough that the competitor could easily afford to fabricate an event ideal for the purposes of such a suit. This means the first legal precedent could be in favor of holding the carrier responsible for the communications transmitted over its network, thus forcing (or giving an excuse for) the carrier to inspect, edit and censor all communications except, perhaps, simple person-to-person or "electronic mail". This, in turn, would put editorial control right back in the hands of the feudalists. Potential carriers' own lawyers are already hard at work worrying everyone about such a suit. They would like to win the battle against diversity before it begins. This is unlikely because videotex is still driven by technology and therefore by pioneers.

    The question then becomes: How do we best protect against such "legal" tactics? The answer seems to be an early emphasis on secure identification of the source of communications so that there can be no question as to the individual responsible. This would preempt an attempt to hold the carrier liable. Anonymous communications, like Delphi conferencing, could even be supported as long as some individual would be willing to attach his/her name to the communication before distributing it. This would be similar, legally, to a "letters to the editor" column where a writer remains anonymous. Another measure could be to require that only individuals of legal age be allowed to author publishable communications. Yet another measure could be to require anyone who wishes to write and publish information on the network to put in writing, in an agreement separate from the standard customer agreement, that they are liable for any and all communications originating under their name on the network. This would preempt the "stolen password" excuse for holding the carrier liable.

    Well, something like this is now happening in Finland [slashdot.org].

  • easily circumventable? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wrinkledshirt ( 228541 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:47PM (#10815825) Homepage
    IANAL, but I had to read up on this stuf in journalism classes. Couldn't the person have created one of those free anonymous web pages hosted in a foreign country with the libelous accusations, and referenced it with a hyperlink?

    "Cmdr Taco eats babies" -- libelous

    "Cmdr Taco eats babies, says Scandinavian Web Page" -- fair game?
    • I was just surfing through some pages on UK libel law and found this [newsdesk-uk.com]:

      "It's not us saying it - we're just quoting him." One of the most common causes of libel actions is repeating statements made by people you interview and not being able to prove the truth of what they told you. In the early 90s newspapers had to pay damages to the Birmingham Six after they quoted former members of the West Midlands police as saying: "In our eyes their guilt is beyond doubt."

      So, at least in the UK, maybe not such a good i

  • Ooooh Guess what folks... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:50PM (#10815845)
    The internet is NOT immune to law, this person was libeled, and proved it in court. The judge did as he would do in any other libel case and awarded damaged to the victim, just because this is involved the internet does not make it any different to any of the other thousands of cases that go on each year in courts around the world.

    Now, people will say 'oh, but email is notoriously unreliable for purposes of tracking down the origionator', but in most cases that isnt true. You can track email back to the server that sent it, and in this case the victims lawyer managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this message origionated from the defendant. And the fact that the defendant didnt even bother turning up to defend himself isnt a plus point in my humble opinion.
    • This is a good ruling and its a shame there arent more (or any?) like it in the US. Its this "lawless assumption" that lets spyware writers get away with what they do. Like "pay us 19.95 to secure your computer, now we'll open your CD tray for you! Look!" That's trespassing and extortion.

      The harassment issue is a serious one and the less petty vindictive fuckers out there using email or the web to smear someone the better.

  • Caveat Lector (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:52PM (#10815877) Homepage Journal
    But maybe it should be different. Libel in a signed, reputable publication is much more damaging than in anonymous email, as long as the readers can tell the difference. Which we still can. Email is likely to remain 99% crap, like everything else, so this victory really belongs to the old media, which now are judged according to the lower bar of email.
    • Why do you have a desire to post about things you know NOTHING about?!

      There is no element of libel which requires it to be "signed" or in a "reputable publication." Liable can occur via the mail, via the TV, via flyers left on someone's car or from someone yelling out in public. The internet is no different from any of those other means of transmitting information.

      • from someone yelling out in public

        actually spoken word would be slander
      • Liable can occur via the mail, via the TV, via flyers left on someone's car or from someone yelling out in public.

        That would be slander.

      • Why do you have the nerve to add empty insults to your own weak arguments? Specifically, "libel" is printed words, "slander" is spoken words, and generally "defamation" is representation to damage a reputation. They differ in their media, and conmeasureately, their damage. That damage is the subject of legal remedy. Anonymous emails don't damage as much as a NY Times front page headline. Unless they somehow do, as proven in court of justice, in which case of course they're just as serious a crime. Since the
        • I'll say it again, there is NO element of "signed" in libel. If you know of any statute or case that says otherwise, please let me know. If you don't have any such law, then do us a favor and stop ranting about things you know nothing about!

          • Let's ascend the scale from your ridiculous errors, to your mundane errors (though I won't harp on your spelling again, in the context of your criticism of my intellect). Your monotonous cries about my "ranting" about "things [I] know nothing about" are delivered with ALL CAPS SHOUTING, and excessive exclaimation points! Slightly more serious is your demand for a "signed" component to libel law, a strawman argument when I merely contrasted newspaper libel (the paradigmatic example) with the anonymous email
    • But maybe it should be different. Libel in a signed, reputable publication is much more damaging than in anonymous email, as long as the readers can tell the difference.

      No, actually, it's not.

      Google Groups means that, for example, newsgroup posts will now last forever.

      So if you go for a job interview, better hope that there's nothing slanderous about you on Google - or they will bring it up. And possibly not hire you because of it.

      If the 'net was transient, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, it i
      • Yes, it is: much more damaging to be libeled in a national newspaper, even in a paid ad, than in a Google group, though the latter is more searchable. Readers expect more accuracy from reputable, signed publications, so negative info in them is more damaging than in anonymous email (though the difference is probably exagerrated). If they bring up a slanderous Google Groups reference, by definition untrue, you should of course easily defend yourself from it. If you aren't hired nevertheless, that's less a fu
  • People seem to still think the internet is somehow "different", new, and it is not. It is just an innovation using an electronic medium to tranmit information as opposed to paper and ink. Cyberlibal is no different than had this man made flyers from his computer and posted them around town. It is still defamation in written form. As for faking stmp headers, etc. etc., that is why there are courts and burdens of proof.

    Slashdot got one thing correct using the term, "Anyomous Coward". It takes just as m

  • should be changed from:

    In that case, a homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.

    to

    In that case, a now homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.

  • I liked this line... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by farmhick ( 465391 )
    From the article:
    It asserted that she "robbed" human remains from his driveway, in conjunction with one of her supervisors at the university.

    Why is this guy keeping human remains in his driveway?

    I know some families have their own burial plots on their land, but usually they don't put a driveway over it.
    • When you add the fact that, metaphorically, he'd be running said relatives over every day, it would suggest a less-than-friendly relationship...


      I notice he also didn't say if said relatives were alive or dead at the time he buried them.

  • Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by g0at ( 135364 ) <ben@z[ ]at.ca ['ygo' in gap]> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @07:26PM (#10816071) Homepage Journal
    Do we need to cyberinvent new cyberterms whenever an event occurs that has to do with computers?

    -b

  • What are the odds she never collects? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Proudrooster ( 580120 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @07:27PM (#10816075) Homepage
    I am not from Canada and don't know the legal system there and was wondering what are the odds the plantiff will acutally collect the damages? In America you can sue and get a judgement, but collecting the judgement is a whole different matter.

    In fact, the Goldman's still can't get O.J. Simpson to pay up the 33 million dollars [kesq.com] they won from him in a civil trial after the death of their son. I know that a judge can issue a bench warrant or declare someone in contempt for not showing up or paying, but that never seems to amount to much since the police don't actively try to find and arrest the person.
    • Well considering all of his old estate, including his Heisman trophy (which I thought was wrong of the judge to force him to sell), was auctioned off. If that didn't get them the $33 million (which I think is hella excessive, but that's another story entirely) then too fucking bad.

    • Collecting a judgement is much the same in Canada as in the US, so yes, it could be difficult for Ross to collect. In this case an additional factor is the fact that the defendant is native. If he is a status Indian living on reserve, there are further complications. For instance, the land his house is on does not legally belong to him but is technically held in trust for his band by Canada. It cannot be sold to satisfy a judgement.

  • Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SetupWeasel ( 54062 )
    Lying about someone and smearing their image is libel in Canada? We call that "Politics" here in the states.
  • A simple search on Google [google.com]shows Lawrence Godfrey's libel cases going back to 1994.

    So how is this news?

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code. -- Dave Storer

Close