p2pnet - rss feed: Wayne Crookes sues Google: II
p2pnet.net news:- “A former campaign manager of the federal Green Party has filed suit in Vancouver against Google, Wikipedia, and openpolitics.ca,” says Only magazine. “Wayne Crookes is suing the organisations for facilitating libels against him”.
“You did not read this here.”
OnlyMagazine.ca is the web site for a fortnightly magazine distributed throughout Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Why, “You did not read this here”? One can only guess, but could it be linked to the fact Vancouver businessman Wayne Crookes, whose dollars helped get Canada’s federal Green Party going, is suing people, including the Wikipedia Foundation?
As the Globe and Mail (carefully) summed it up without linking to, and therefore without saying, anything dangerous, “The hosts of the speed-of-light world of Internet blogs and interactive websites that publish anonymous commentary should be forced to pay when reputations are damaged, says a former Green Party staff member who is suing three such sites”.
That should have said “five such sites”. However, I hadn’t been handed my summons at that point, and neither I nor Only had heard from blogger Mark Francis.
Because, “I too am being sued,” he points out in a p2pnet comment post. On his section 15 blog, he says >>>>>>>>>>>
Some of you may have heard that Google and Wikipedia are being sued for libel. The person doing so is Wayne Crookes, a former Green Party campaign manager (among other roles) and once a major lender of funds to that party.
I am also named as a defendant in another suit he launched last month.
To date, Crookes has something like five lawsuits ongoing, all of them related to commentary on the net regarding the key roles he played in the Party in 2004-2005. The history is too complex to discuss quickly here, and linking to where it appears elsewhere is dangerous as he freely claims linking to sites which he says contains libel is a form of republishing. Indeed, in my case, he has argued that a wiki I helped run during the Green Party of Canada internal elections last summer had a link which linked to a website which had on it one link among many which linked to a site that has content he objects to. (As an aside, when he notified me of this late last November the link had been dead for months, and he did not tell me what material he objected to.)
The general advice given with legal matters such as these is to keep one’s mouth shut, but as an advocate for libel law reform, and as a lover of free speech, I have a feeling that I’ll be blogging about it.
But there’s the rub: Link to me, and you might get sued. It’s not that I am out to libel Wayne Crookes. Indeed, he’s of little interest to me because if it wasn’t him using British Columbia’s ancient and outdated libel laws, then it would be someone else doing the same to someone else. My gaze is fixed upon the law and the ancient precedents which have not evolved to meet modern realities. As for Crookes’ history in the party, I am interested in it as a reader, not as a writer.
This has grown into a huge legal battle. So far, aside from me, he has sued
Google.com
Wikipedia.com
Pbwiki.com
Yahoo.com
MySpace.com
Openpolitics.ca
Domains by Proxy, Inc
Jon Newton of p2pnet
Mike Pilling
Hayley Easto
Kate Holloway
Craig Hubley
Warren De Simone (the case against him was recently dismissed)
Frank Cameron
Catharine Johannson
Gareth White
various anonymous persons
To be clear, this is a key battle over political speech which should never have to have happened, were it not for our legislators failing to keep pace with modern realities.
When I do blog about this, I will not enable the comments. I have no intention of having a lawyer pour over everything other people say; nor do I wish to personally agonize over what other people write. Current libel law is so bent out of shape that you could probably be driven into bankruptcy for claiming that a specific person says the sky is blue!
(”I see pink, Sir! You have defamed me! You must prove me wrong or pay damages!”)
Okay, I jest, but the reality is not far off. Heck, even a media lawyer is worried about publishing anything. See the following two posts by Rob Hyndman:
ocial (Media) Host Liability - BC Libel Lawsuit
Comment Deleted Because of Libel Chill
The Internet is under attack, and, in the end, either companies like Google will have to firewall Canada as they did with China, or our laws will have to be updated.
What happens next is largely up to you. I have little faith that our courts can do much more than move in baby steps.
That being said, I assure you all, I have been in court before and have fought hard against huge odds. I went all the way then, and I will be going all the way now. I have no illusions about the costs, both fiscal and personal; but I also firmly believe that this must be fought tooth and nail, to the last breath. This is more important than me. This is more important than you. This is something that needs doing for the health of our country.
To function properly as a society, we must be free to critically discuss public figures. No matter what you may hear others say, that is what this is about.
My statement of defense is not yet filed. That will happen soon. When it is ready, you will be hearing about it.
In the meantime, I advise you to Google the name ‘Wayne Crookes’ liberally. There’s lots developing out there.
I asked Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) staff counsel David Fewer what he thought about the lawsuits.
He said CIPPIC would be keeping a close eye on the proceedings, going on:
In a Web 2.0 world, anyone can be a publisher. In this way, the internet acts as a great engine for freedom of expression. Unfortunately, we’re seeing this benefit threatened by litigation targeting parties who are more and more removed from allegedly defamatory content.
Innocent intermediaries, disseminators, and participatory forums like wikis, blogs, and news sites facilitate public discourse, and shouldn’t have to go to court to defend innocuous practices such as merely linking to another website.
Definitely stay tuned.
Cheers!
Jon Newton - p2pnet
Also See:
suing people - p2pnet in new online libel case, April 21, 2007
p2pnet - Wayne Crookes sues Google, Wikipedia, April 21, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by governBryan Adams slams Net radio hikement restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the endSurvey: How Did Copyright Infringement Become Equated with Robbery? (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Got yerself a lawyer yet Jon?
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Not yet.
Cheers!
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I thought you have one already who’s representing you in the other libel suit that’s against you. Can’t you just use him?
SiSi
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
He’s pro bono, and I can’t reach him until Thursday. And how many pro bono clients does one lawyer want or need? : )
Cheers!
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Well to me, if he is a PUBLIC FIGURE, then he is fair game.
He can sue all he wants, but some things to consider:
First, the copmpanies he is going after are BIG companies and can hire top law firms to represent them. So he is not going to find this fight an easy one.
Second as I said, he was in public service and I think that any judge will look at this very carefully….because they do NOT want to set a legal precedant for any Tom, Dick or Harry public figure to start suing people anytime they don’t agree with what has been said about them.
Third, there is freedom of speech that the courts will also have to consider and how a negative ruling may affect it.
It is very easy to start a lawsuit….it is MUCH harder to win it if you do not have the legal rescources to do so.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:34 am
The difficulty, in defamation cases, is that the onus is on the defendant to claim an exception to libel. such as truth. If you fail to properly defend yourself, you can be subject to pretty severe penalties.
At the very least, you’ll need to hire or beg a lawyer to assist in preparing your defence. This is wrong in a democracy. The onus should be on the person claiming defamation to prove their case.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I read all these articles of everyone being sued about something that was said about him.
I sure would like to know what it was. I tried searching the other day and read some things but nothing exactly saying what was considered false.
And I know that posting a link to explain it more would not be the best thing to do, but Id still like to know. Especially seeing I am on Van Isle and have voted in local politics and would very much like to know if it has anything to do with the Green Party and in which way.
I guess Im off to find out….
May 31st, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Why Does Google Publish Libel?
“At a time when Google proposes to amass ever more sensitive and personal information on Internet users worldwide, Google’s lack of responsibility in actively distributing unsupported libel has given many, real cause for concern. It is the unique status of libel law in America that allows Google immunity from prosecution from anything they publish on www.google.com. And yes, that includes anything they’d like to publish about you” claims Brian Retkin Director dotWORLDS.
London, England 5/31/2007 6:24 AM GMT (TransWorldNews - Top Story)
By allowing defamation, libel and character assassination to be posted on their Search Engine by the unverified, the alias and the anonymous, Google undermines and threatens individuals and corporations alike†says Retkin “Alarmingly, Google operates such a policy without fear of accountability, responsibility or compensation for any unjustified degradation suffered by individuals or for the potentially huge costs incurred by businesses supplying bona fida goods and services to the economyâ€.
“Google’s complete lack of care in this field is certainly not reflected in their own ambition as they adapt their Search Engine results to accommodate their own sensitivities†says Retkin “In facilitating their growth globally, Google often filters offensive material when catering to new markets with tighter controls. Unfortunately for almost everyone else, or at least those without a few million dollars in the bank to fight back, should Google distribute unsubstantiated and damaging libel about you, there’s little that you can do about it – at least not for a few years as that’s how long they keep their information currentâ€.
Is this the same Google that’s now begging for even more personal information about you, your family, your lifestyle and any other sensitive data you might care provide? “Well, yes it is†says Retkin “Today, Google needs you. Google needs you for their databases, for their marketing projects and for umpteen other schemes under development. On this subject at least, Google can’t wait to help you out. The questions that arise are whether or not Google can be trusted to use the information responsibly and whether, on past performance, their proposals should even be considered?â€
Why has this been such a worry to so many? “In our case and for some time†say Retkin, our company dotWORLDS has been trying to persuade Google to remove numerous grossly libellous articles published on their Search Engine. Google’s initial response was that they had no responsibility for any content displayed on their websites and that complaints should be directed to the author. However, as these articles were written and posted anonymously (an option available to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the Internet) there was no way of tracing the culprit(s) even though we were fairly certain it came from one or more of our competitors.â€
dotWORLDS feel that these libellous postings would probably never have been seen but for the Search Engine, as they believe that the attacks on them are all but indistinguishable from so many other unsubstantiated and obscure grudge web pages on the net. “Rather†say dotWORLDS “it is Google’s web-crawl system that allows for just about anything, no matter how inaccurate, spurious, nonsensical or even illegal to be gathered unscreened, recorded, indexed and ranked, later to be disseminated at Google’s inclination to millions Internet users across the worldâ€
There are rulings that Google can rely on in cases such as dotWORLDS and they are the same rulings that would probably govern the use of your private information should Google get hold of it. For example:
1) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (USA), 1996….…This Act specifically states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.” That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.
2) Excerpt from BBC report from November 2006 entitled “Bloggers and US internet providers cannot be liable for posting defamatory comments written by third parties, the California Supreme Court has ruled” …….Overturning a decision by the San Francisco appeal court, the court ruled that people claiming they were defamed online could now only seek damages from the original author of the comments - and not the website which re-posted it. The court ruled that that Internet Service Providers were protected by US Federal law that said providers of chat rooms or news groups are not considered the publishers of information furnished by others. “The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications,” said Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.
Still, it’s not all bad news. Using legal argument, dotWORLDS estimate that they have forced Google to remove over 1500 libellous links from Google’s websites worldwide (eg: google.co.uk, google.fr etc) – with the notable exception of Google’s American website www.google.com. Even so, dotWORLDS are convinced that despite the differing libel laws, they’re moving closer to fulfilling even that challenge. More recently dotWORLDS claim they discovered that Google had begun re-publishing libel in the UK, that under threat of court action from dotWORLDS, Google had agreed to withdraw. “We believe that Google have now committed a serious offence under English law†say dotWORLDS
Search for dotWORLDS on Google’s UK website (www.google.co.uk) and dotWORLDS claim you won’t find much of the libel remaining. DotWORLDS say it was a very different story not so long ago although much has been achieved since then. What you will find instead are a number of legal notices at the bottom of the search pages to the effect “In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org”.
Whilst this is a victory for dotWORLDS, it is by no means a total victory. Make exactly the same dotWORLDS search on Google’s USA website (www.google.com) and included on the information displayed you will see the libel that Google has deleted on its other websites. Even more disappointing for dotWORLDS is that there is little or no mention of the Google/dotWORLDS dispute “Where is the balance?†says Retkin “We haven’t seen dotWORLDS legal requests to Google, nor any of Google’s deletions notices that have been posted on Google’s other websites. We haven’t even see the hyperlinks to information on the deletions dotWORLDS forced Google to make. This alone should be of great concern to anyone relying on Google’s information as truth (although why shouldn’t they). In the case of dotWORLDS, not only is Google potentially misinforming their American users but they are also putting them at risk of immediate legal action should they repeat the libel publicly. In a lengthy and expensive hearing, the plea ‘I saw it on Google’ is not a defense. It is only Google that has protectionâ€.
Whether or not Google wish to remove libellous content on their USA website, having already made a judgement call to delete it in the UK, should the same information on the Google/dotWORLDS dispute be displayed on Google USA. “Yes†say dotWORLDS “by refusing to publish crucial information on their own home ground in the same way, Google’s claim that they are not the arbiter of the Internet becomes spurious. Have Google intentionally censured their own content and if so, what is the reason? Coming directly from Google office, this information on the dispute should be the first thing displayed. However, on Google’s USA, website the information it doesn’t even seem to exist - at least not where it’s supposed to“.
Google for us was about relevancy, accuracy and quality, say dotWORLDS “but out of approximately 8 billion results currently available, suddenly somehow more than 1 billion are related to Google. Can there really be 1 billion interesting, relevant and/or different things to say about them? Perhaps the quest is now for quantity whatever the cost? Perhaps Google believe that the Search Engine with the most web pages can triumph over all others. Perhaps this has become a race to an indeterminate finish line. If this is so, perhaps this is the answer to the question: Why does Google publish libel? Perhaps it’s just because Google can“.