Canadian Free Speech wiki
p2pnet.net News:- Do you allow comments on your blog? And if you do, does it mean you, or any other blogger or wiki operator, can be held responsible for something someone else posts on your site?
These are the two key questions on p2pnetroundtable, a wiki started for, “lawyers, activists and bloggers seeking to help change Canadian laws impairing freedom of speech online and preserve the freedoms of the online press”.
Because in Canada, at least, Yes, a site operator can be sued for libel / defamation for something which appears on the site ———
——— no matter who posted it.
In other words, in Canada, the universal human rights tenet Innocent until proved Guilty goes out the window.
Until now, governments and corporate media have been in almost complete control of mainstream print and electronic communications, meaning they also controlled what we saw or heard.
In the digital 21st century, however, a paradigm shift is occuring. People now talk to each other direct, sharing information and ideas p2p – person to person.
And that’s something which terrifies the conglomerates and Powers that Used to Be.
A new Canadian Freedom of Expression movement has been sparked by the fact Australia’s Sharman Networks, the multi-million-dollar owner of the discredited p2p application Kazaa, and Kazaa ceo Nikki Hemming, were suing p2pnet. We say ‘were’ because Sharman has abandoned its case, leaving Hemming to continue alone.
As Michael Geist posted in June, we’re all journalists now, and that means anyone can become a libel suit victim without warning.
Ask Michael Pilling who runs OpenPolitics.ca. He’s being sued by, “A former director of the Green Party of Canada” after he, the politician, “objected to several comments posted on the site” and not at all incidentally, Pilling and Newton plan to work together.
Where will it all lead? And how can Canadians get the libel laws, created to answer the needs of a century now long gone, fixed?
If you’d like to contribute to the wiki discussion on Freedom of Speech in Canada, the password is rivoli. And with that in mind, Canadian indie artist and performer Neil Leyton has organized a Freedom benefit concert at, Yup, the Rivoli, a famous Toronto dinner / dance club on August 5. Preceding it will be a Round Table at Toronto’s Centre for Social Innovation, 215 Spadina Avenue, Suite 120, Toronto, from 3 – 5 pm. Topics will include:
- US journalism libel exception/protection extended to bloggers; UK government loses “McLibel” suit at the European Court of Human Rights; and how these international precedent-setting cases might apply to Canadian law.
- Overview of Canadian defamation law
- Current Canadian position on jurisdiction-shopping by defamation plaintiffs
- Current Canadian position on liability of the host for comments
- What is the appropriate standard for liability of the host? Does it / should it matter if the host is an “editor”?
- Should the law of defamation survive in a world in which anyone and everyone – not just the powerful – can have their own soapbox?
- If the victim of a bloglibel can immediately respond by commenting on the offending post, do we need the law of defamation to remedy the libel?
- Blogs are often a vehicle for the expression of opinions and not a source of facts or data upon which a reasonable person would rely. They are often full of subjective speculation and rhetorical hyperbole. Should such content be subjected to a different standard?
Stay tuned.
Also See:
suing p2pnet – Free speech in Canada, June 2, 2006
abandoned its case – Sharman drops p2pnet libel case, July 12, 2006
libel suit victim – We’re all journalists now, June 5, 2006
work together – Dear Nikki: Don’t drop p2pnet case, Jul;y 19, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 25th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Lets say you wright a blog about Joe.
Then Joe wrights something in the reply.
Joe then sue’s owner for what was written on that blog.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
yeh – lets. the more the merrier
July 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Joe could also create a google blog under a false name and write all sorts of smut about himself. He can then sue google for defamtion.
Joe could also write a letter to the newspaper under a false name and then sue the newspaper and the person under whose name appeared the letter, because of what was said about him on the newspaper.
Joe could also sue his mother also, if he has enough money to hire a lawyer. That is the only requirement, have money.