Wayne Crookes loses Net chill case
p2pnet news | Freedom:- Has the cookie at last started to crumble for Wayne Crookes, the Canadian businessman who’s single handedly trying to sue the Net?
The British Columbia Supreme Court has dismissed with costs one of his libel lawsuits, says respected Canadian law professor Dr Michael Geist.
Based in Vancouver, BC, Crookes maintains linking to something which links to something which offends him is sufficient grounds for a defamation lawsuit.
His effort succeeded in putting a definite chill on significant numbers of Canadian print and electronic media outlets which avoided mention of the case for fear of becoming victims.
p2pnet offered him unlimited editorial space in its most prominent position to explain the reasons behind his claims, but he declined.
“If successful, the suits would effectively require websites – including anyone who permits comments on a blog or includes links to other sites – to proactively monitor and remove content that may raise liability concerns,” Geist posted in May, going on:
“They will also call into question the ability of domain name registrants to guard their privacy by refusing to publicly disclose their identities.
“In response, it is likely that many sites will simply drop the ability to post comments, since the challenge of monitoring and verifying every comment will be too onerous.
“Alternatively, many sites may abandon Canada altogether by establishing their online presence in the United States. Courts in the U.S. have repeatedly denied attempts to hold intermediaries liable for content posted by third parties on the grounds that a 1996 statute provided them with immunity for such postings.
“Canada would do well to introduce a similar provision, since the consequences for defamatory speech should rest with those directly responsible, not mere bystanders with deep pockets.”
Of course, in Canada, with its antiquated laws, almost anything is grounds for a libel lawsuit.
p2pnet is being sued by Nikki Hemming, the woman who runs Kazaa, the discredited p2p application owned by Australia’s Sharman Networks.
But Crookes’ contention is more fallacious than most.
Geist is, like p2pnet, Google, Wikimedia, Pbwiki, Yahoo, MySpace, Openpolitics.ca, Domains by Proxy, Michael Pilling, Hayley Easto, Kate Holloway, Craig Hubley, Frank Cameron, Catharine Johannson, Gareth White and anonymous persons, among those Crookes is trying to sue.
Says Geist, of the case just dismissed:
The suit against Yahoo!, MySpace and a group of individual defendants, which centred on postings on a Yahoo Groups forum, was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Yahoo successfully argued that it was not subject to B.C. jurisdiction in this case since it has no offices in Canada (as opposed to Yahoo Canada), is not registered to do business in Canada, and does not maintain servers for Yahoo Groups in Canada.
Given the lack of connection to Canada, the court ruled that Crookes needed to demonstrate that the alleged defamation was committed here. In order to do so, he needed to show that the allegedly defamatory postings were “accessed, downloaded, and read by someone in British Columbia.”
The judge concluded that Crookes failed to tender such evidence and therefore dismissed the case.
Other arguments – including a real and substantial connection analysis or the jurisdictional clause in the Yahoo terms of use were not addressed by the court.
Definitely stay tuned.
(Thanks, Mark)
Also See:
Geist posted in May – Wayne Crookes v The Net, May 1, 2007
sued by Nikki Hemming – Free speech, libel and the internet age, July 31, 2007
discredited p2p application – Michelle Santangelo vs the RIAA, July 16, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:23 am
LOL! Take that….. idiot!
September 7th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Would have been nicer if the merits of the case was the deciding factor, and not
jurisditional issues. He lost, but nothing was decided, nothing to prevent more
suits in the future.
Without a decidion on merits, others will simply figure out a way around the jursidictional
problem.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
That doesn’t mean that they will win, simply because they found a way around the jurisdictional problem.
You can sue anyone for anything, that does not mean you will win!
Suing someone is one thing….winning is quite another.
September 8th, 2007 at 9:59 am
” You can sue anyone for anything, that does not mean you will win! ”
You’re absolutely correct.
All I’m saying is that a decision on the actual merits of the case, right off the
bat, would pretty much put a stop to this kind of crap.
Besides,
If you look at the RIAA cases .. and these net chill cases ARE similar …
The point isn’t always winning ….
The point is pitting an incredible financial machine against someone who can’t afford to
fight back , forcing a settlement.
In MOST of them anyway.
This one is different in that Crookes has actually chosen SOME targets than can afford the fight.
I suspect ( my opinion only ) is that there is some large financial backing behind this, in the
hope of setting a precedent that will allow financial censorship on the net, and Crookes
is merely the figurehead.
That is why a CLEAR decision on the case merits is needed.
September 9th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Well I do agree that a settlement is needed for this case.
But as far as the RIAA cases, most of them that were not “won” were settled out of court. Because the RIAA seems to be afraid of setting a legal precedant that could be used against them in future cases. That seems to set them apart from cases like this, where this guy just wants to sue everyone that HE feels slanders hm and win big for it.
Again, his whole legal case is not very sound to begin with. Because once you start to make demands on websites about what they write…where does it end? With “big broither” watching your every move? Like I said, he can sue all he wants, but that does not mean anything. I really don’t see him having a leg to stand on because “policing” websites for saying things about people would just be too great a task. Kinda like the drug war….you can see how great THAT is going.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Your blog regarding Wayne Crookes loses Net chill case looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for myspace proxies..
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:46 am
Just heard about this. Amazing.
Since the Yahoo suit was dismissed for having no jurisdiction, does that not mean that he could find no one in BC who would help him by admitting they saw this stuff? That is, no one in the whole giant province of BC would help him?
If true then he must not have any reputation to speak of, therefore how can he claim damages? Anyone with a reputation could have found one person living in BC to claim they saw the stuff and were affected by it.
Am I missing something?