Apple and Cheickh Bangoura
p2pnet.net News View:- With Apple’s Computer’s attempt to sue three online journalists into revealing the identities of confidential sources a hot item, another important freedom of the press Net case is also in process.
Ex-United Nations official Cheickh Bangoura was fired in 1997 after two Washington Post articles accused him of sexual harassment and financial improprieties.
A UN tribunal later found the allegations baseless and said he should be compensated and reinstated.
Bangoura, now a Canadian citizen living in Ontario, sued the Post for libel, arguing that because the newspaper posted the story on its website, his reputation had been damaged.
Moving to have the case dismissed, the Post maintained that if it went ahead in Ontario, any news organization anywhere could be sued over material posted on its site.
Last year, Mr Justice Romain Pitt of the Ontario Superior Court ruled, “Those who publish via the Internet are aware of the global reach of their publications, and must consider the legal consequences in the jurisdiction of the subjects of their articles,” said the Globe & Mail, going on:
“The Post appealed the decision, and in a hearing before the Court of Appeal yesterday, it was joined by the media coalition in arguing that Judge Pitt’s ruling went too far. The ruling ‘will discourage and inhibit a free flow of information,’ Paul Schabas, a Toronto lawyer representing the Post, told the court. ‘It will have a chilling effect on speech.’
“He added that the Post had seven subscribers in Ontario when the article appeared and only one person paid to access the story through the newspaper’s on-line archive service. He also said Mr. Bangoura didn’t move to Ontario until 2000, long after the story appeared.”
Now Reporters Without Borders has jumped in with a letter to Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler.
It says:
“Reporters Without Borders would like to inform you of its position on a question of law that is currently being considered by a Canadian court in the libel case of Cheickh Bangoura v. Washington Post. We are concerned that this case will have important consequences for press freedom and online freedom of expression that will extend far beyond Canada’s borders. We moreover think it would be useful if the federal authorities were to adopt a public position on this issue, without thereby intervening in the court case.
“The question that the judge in this case must answer is the following : can a journalist whose article has been published on the Internet be sued anywhere it can be downloaded ? Ruling that it can, as the Ontario court initially did, implies that any individual who posts something online could be sued over it in any country in the world. If upheld on appeal, this ruling could dissuade very many journalists from publishing their articles online.
“The Reporters Without Borders position on this question was clearly expressed during the preparatory meeting of the World Summit on the Information Society last month in Geneva. In our view, a country’s jurisdiction over online content in civil or criminal law applies exclusively to content hosted on its territory or content addressed specifically to its Internet users.”
More than 50 of, “the world’s largest media organizations have banded together to overturn an Ontario court ruling that they say threatens free speech and development of the Internet,” says the Globe & Mail story.
It’d be nice if they also banded together over the Apple case.
And the same applies to RWB.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
============
See:-
confidential sources – Online freedom of speech, p2pnet, March 10, 2005
Globe & Mail – Media giants join forces to fight Ontario ruling, March 14, 2005
Reporters Without Borders - Libel suit against Washington Post could have major impact on free expression, March 11, 2005
March 17th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
i’m sorry but i respectfully disagree that such a ruling would be detrimental to freedom of the press.
In this case there is direct proof of harm to an individual, and that proof of harm comes from either accidental or deliberate failure to FACT CHECK information.
This lack of fact checking seems pandemic in the news lately, and i believe a ruling against them for libel is both valid and an important impetus for them to stop reporting outright lies and propaganda.