p2pnet.net News:- With the self-funding p2pnet vs Nikki Hemming defamation / Online Freedom of Speech case echoing loudly in the background, the California Supreme Court, “is set to hear arguments in San Francisco Tuesday on whether someone who posts a defamatory comment by another person on the Internet can be sued for libel,” says CBS, going on:

“Two civil liberties groups say the court’s eventual ruling, due in three months, could have far-reaching implications for free speech on the Internet.

“While the case before the court concerns individuals – a Canadian doctor seeking to sue a women’s health activist for posting a third person’s comment about him – the court’s ruling could also determine whether Internet service providers can be held liable when they knowingly allow defamatory remarks to be posted.”

EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) lawyer Kurt is quoted as saying, “it would be a disaster” if the state high court allows such lawsuits.

And the same will apply in Canada if the case brought against p2pnet by Hemming succeeds.

“Canada’s libel laws are currently the most outdated and repressive in the English speaking world,” said well-known media lawyer Dan Burnett, who’s representing p2pnet in the Kazaa Kase, recently.

In the US, the EFF has joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to find that the federal Communications Decency Act protects individuals and Internet service providers from such lawsuits, says CBS.

On the p2pnet Kazaa Kase, “Both Sharman Networks and Hemming sued p2pnet last spring, claiming that an article and accompanying comments posted by readers of the site were libellous,” says Dr Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, says the BBC.

“Jon Newton, the owner of the site, has vigorously disputed the suit, pointing to the need to protect free speech and to ensure that defamation laws cannot be used to stifle comment. Sharman Networks recently dropped its claim; however the Hemming suit continues.

“The case places the spotlight on the liability of internet intermediaries. The importance of the issue extends well beyond just internet service providers – corporate websites that allow for user feedback, education websites featuring chatrooms, or even individual bloggers who permit comments face the prospect of demands to remove content that is alleged to violate the law.”

The p2pnet case, “case highlights the challenges the law of defamation faces to accommodate participatory forums,” said the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), going on that it demonstrates the need for two legal adaptations, one judicial and the other legislative:

1. Judicial Adaptation – The Courts must interpret the law of defamation in a responsible manner that keeps pace with the speed of technological change.

Intermediaries and disseminators play a much different role in facilitating public discourse today than they did in the past. Defenses for innocent dissemination must recognize this reality. CIPPIC calls on judges faced with Internet based defamation actions to interpret defenses to liability, such as the defense of innocent dissemination, in a liberal manner consistent with freedom on expression and the realities of the role participatory forums like Newton’s play in Canada’s democracy.

2. Legislative Adaptation – Judicial defenses to defamation actions react. Freedom of expression’s value to Canadian society suggests that participatory forums require proactive support. It is time for Canada to adapt “safe harbour” legislation for innocent dissemination by Internet intermediaries like Jon. ISPs, website hosts, and bloggers permitting public participation require legislation that, provided that they meet the requirements of the safe harbour, relieves them of liability for third party posts at the outset, and so would relieve them of the need to mount a defense in the first place.

Stay tuned.

Also See:
self-funding – Dear P2PNet …….., August 19, 2006
CBS – State Supreme Court To Hear Internet Libel Case, September 4, 2006
most outdated and repressive – p2pnet’s Toronto trip, August 8, 2006
Sharman Networks – Kazaa owner’s DRM plan, August 4, 2006
BBC – Free speech, libel and the internet age, July 31, 2006

Please help p2pnet to overcome the Kazaa / Hemming libel lawsuit. Every penny counts. Canada’s antiquated defamation law chills online freedom of speech .