Media Organizations Join Forces to Fight Canadian Ruling 313
csaila writes "Some of the world's big media outlets (including CBC, CNN, Guardian, The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, Reuters, and -- as well as Amazon, AOL, Google and Yahoo) are appealing a Canadian court ruling threatening both free speech and the Net. The ruling stems from a former UN employee who successfully sued the Washington Post in Ontario for libel, arguing that because the Post's Web site carried the story. his reputation had been "damaged" in that province."
Media Lies Protection Appeal (Score:5, Interesting)
The only (Score:4, Interesting)
Was the media telling the truth about this guy's character or action or whatever?
Re:I am embarassed to be an Ontarian (Score:3, Interesting)
"The story?" (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all clear how this affects free speach one way or another.
Re:Not sure I get this one. (Score:3, Interesting)
Arguing where the suit is allowed to be filed is just what you do when you're uncertain of your ability to win on the facts
Re:Media Lies Protection Appeal (Score:5, Interesting)
If this sort of thing is allowed to continue, how long before I can be convicted under some foreign dictatorship's censorship laws for something I said a thousand miles away?
CP/M vs. DOS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not sure I get this one. (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it interesting how they indeed refuse such things, yet demand from other countries that they extradite their citizens to the USA so the USA can apply its own law abroad? In a specific case they went to the point of taking military action even (tho the guy in question no doubt deserved it)
If people wonder why outsiders consider the USA bad and hypocrit, think about those things again maybe.
Re:I am embarassed to be an Ontarian (Score:1, Interesting)
Freedom of speech is about the freedom to state opinion or fact and when stating facts the onus is on the speaker to backup those facts.
Re:Err, no (Score:1, Interesting)
hypothetical (Score:1, Interesting)
If a media outlet prints, online or otherwise, something which is libelous and goes on to sell and profit from that libelous story, why shouldn't they be held accountable in the location they sold that information?
Indeed, the Washington Post does sell subscriptions in Ontario. Why should media outlets be any different than any other product with respect to liabilities in the place of sale?
Not a surprise - this happens a lot in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more significant is the freedom of the press, where journalists had their personal files seized unilaterally by police who were trying to investigate a "leak" in their department due to corruption [www.caj.ca]. At least those reporters in the US who refused to identify their sources probably still have what they have.
The reality, however, is that the only cure for the negative aspects of free speech is more free speech. As long as someone is not specifically attempting to incite violence or other acts of crime against an individual, or is commiting libel, they should be able to say whatever they want. A great article on the erosion of free speech rights in Canada is available here [nationalreview.com].
One thing is certain - even though the US may not be to many
Re:Media Lies Protection Appeal (Score:3, Interesting)
The Post is in a good position to remedy some of the damage without merely paying the guy to feel better, about lost business opportunities and personal recriminations. They should prominently publish a retraction, because they didn't execute the well understood practice in their field, journalism, of substantiating allegations before publishing them. The facts would have been better known at the time if they Post had done so. They did not, and should remedy the damage that they can through publication. Including in the archived versions, which otherwise will continue to do damage. The Post, I'd guess, preferred a $5M damage settlement to the damage to their own credibility they'd suffer if they made their irresponsible acts more public. Especially when more people learned that they could hold the Post accountable for the lying it does all the time. They got off cheap.
Over how much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this decision really threatening free speech and the gloabl dissemination of information? If that information is libelous, I surely hope so. Sounds to me like some companies that benefit from glabalization aren't liking some of the effects. For a $7000 (Canadian, even) judgement, there sure is a lot of heavy lawyering going on.
Everything everywhere. Wasn't that the point?
Re:Misinformation (Score:3, Interesting)
If so, fine, run the case in the country where the act was done. Hell, that would be quicker cheaper and easier than an appellate battle in the wrong country. The fact that the outcome is "correct" does not make it valid. It's still wrong and it simply sets president for more broken cases across the globe where the result *will* be wrong.
There was no argument to show that D.C. was better than Ontario, so it was left in Ontario.
How about the fact that the publishing was done there? When someone does something they should be subject to the law where they do it. The fact that this post can be seen everywhere on earth does not mean I should be subject to every law on earth.
If I say Allah does not exist, well the "damage" may be in Iran, but there's no way in hell I'm supposed to know Iranian law nor should I be subject to Iranian law.
Just because I say the judge in this case is an idiot does not mean I should be subject to Canadian law when I post it. Just because I mention someone else does not mean I am supposed to reseach and be bound by the law where THEY are. Is teh Post supposed to be suject to Chineese law when they write about the head of the Chineese government, or when they write about Taiwan? Are they supposed to be subject to Cuban law when they write about Castro?
Should Canadians be subject to US law when they write about Bush?
-