There is an interesting development around a libel action being taken against some Bloggers. The reaction from some in the blogosphere is this is ‘libel chill.” That is where a threat or the taking of legal action for libel is used to stifle free speech. That does happen but not every libel action is libel chill.
I have read the Pleadings in the Action against Google, but not the individual Bloggers. The Google portion of the Action contains some wording of the postings the Plaintiff says gives rise to the allegations of libel against the Bloggers in question. It reads to me as pretty serious stuff...if proven.
The anonymous Bloggers of the world have always bothered me mostly because they can do so much damage to people and reputations given the viral and inter-connected nature of the Internet. They can wreck this havoc with virtual impunity.
I have participated through comments on a posting on Saskboy’s site focused on the recent CBC TV’s The National news item on libel chill and blogging. It is an interesting exchange around some of the issues and implications of defamation, the roles and responsibilities of Bloggers and the necessary restraints on free speech in our laws.
The anonymous Bloggers of the world have always bothered me mostly because they can do so much damage to people and reputations given the viral and inter-connected nature of the Internet. They can wreck this havoc with virtual impunity.
I have participated through comments on a posting on Saskboy’s site focused on the recent CBC TV’s The National news item on libel chill and blogging. It is an interesting exchange around some of the issues and implications of defamation, the roles and responsibilities of Bloggers and the necessary restraints on free speech in our laws.
This is important stuff as we see the evolution of the Internet and Blogging that has enabled every citizen to be a journalist and publisher...or a cyber-bully.
They only need to "learn" it if they actually did something wrong. You seem to me to be pre-judging the case before it even gets to court.
ReplyDeleteBeing sued for linking to a link whick links to a link that may or may not be a problem says to me that if this suit wins, the rest of us may as well stop blogging, if the law decided to use that as a (ridiculous) standard.
Hi Scott. I suggest the "learning" of the law of libel be done as a preventative step not a defensive step after something is posted. Those latter lessons can be expensive.
ReplyDeleteI am not prejudging the case at all. Libel chill is a legal maneuver that is usually a frivolous and vexatious use of the Courts. The Courts take a dim view of the tactic...as they should. If a lawsuit is mere libel chill then a preliminary step to the Courts to strike it down is available. That initiative is not expensive or time consuming.
I see that one defendant already took a preliminary step and brought an issue to the Court and was removed from the law suit. The Court was not satisfied that it was proven that the individual in question was involved in the site when the alleged libel(s) took place.
This is not about stopping blogging but rather appreciating that it is a powerful means to communicate and a very effective way to exercise one’s right of free speech - provided it is done responsibly and within the law.
How many million times has a MSM media unit used the words 'published reports indicate...' or some such thing?
ReplyDeleteSheesh.
.
If this wasn't a frivolous suit, then anyone linking to the people being sued, would also be sued by now. You Ken, by extension.
ReplyDeleteSaskboy 2:30 pm
ReplyDeleteMy sense of the allegations claimed in the so-called "libel chill" Action do not appear frivolous. We have not seen the Defence yet so it is too early to get the whole story. It is enough to say the allegations of libel made by the Plaintiff, but as yet unproven, are not of the "Your Mamma wear Army boots" genre.
Saskboy, your comment is not quite right on who could or should be sued because of linking. I have not link to, identified the parties or republished the allegedly offensive post. I have not mentioned any names, nor have repeated any of the allegedly offensive comments. I have only referred to contents of public documents. I have not republished the alleged libel.
I have not tried to go to the website that is accused of carrying the alleged libel either. The content does not interest me - it is the context that captures my interest. That is the larger question. I also understand the site no longer carries the speific posts at issue anyway.
Bloggers sometimes need to reflect for a moment about the appropriateness of their remarks, primarily do they know what they are publishing to be fact and can THEY prove it.
There are a few posts on this site I wish I had changed before I hit the Publish botton, but none were libelous. In over a year I have only deleted two comments that I judged to be libelous.
As a precaution and in the interest of prudence, I recently started moderating comments. All comments that I have received since moderating them have been published.
Given the volume of postings that I have seen in numerous posts on a wide range of site, topics and rough and tumble nature of Blogging, Bloggers and comments, I think that reflects highly on the responsibility of the Bloggers I link to or follow...including you Saskboy.
Right there you admitted to this case (or others) having a chilling affect to the point where you've limited open and instantaneous Internet communication through your blog (by activating moderation).
ReplyDelete"I have only referred to contents of public documents. I have not republished the alleged libel." And so if I or someone you link to suddenly does link to, or publish the libel, are you at fault? How will the court know when you added the link, or maybe they'll say you're responsible for updating your links?
Don't you see how that will scare people away from linking to others, or having open comment forms on their site? Spammers are bad enough, we don't need sue happy morons intimidating Canadian bloggers too.
Saskboy at 8:06 pm - I totally agree about how linking and open comment sites can add to anxiety because of the potential for being added to an action for libel. I have never denied that anxiety exists. However, not every libel action is libel chill either.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that this is the real world and Bloggers better become more aware and careful as to what they link to, why they are linking, and in what context they are putting around such links in their own posts.
The open, free flowing, democracy enhancing sharing of opinion and commentary at the citizen level on the Internet using Blogs is a great and glorious thing.
BUT that does not release Bloggers from personal responsibility and the obligation to conform to the law. And the law is that republication of a libel can carry potential liability.
The current so-called "libel chill case," may, if it goes to court, shed some light and clarify the application of defamation law to the Internet in Canada. That is a good thing in the larger picture.
I don't think this presents an unreasonable restriction on Bloggers. If you agree with a fellow Blogger's POV on a matter but think they may have gone too far in their post and it may attract libel liability the answer is simple. Write your own piece and don't link and don't refer to the potentially offending site.