Poet,
This is a good point. Generally, I have seen in the states that courts allow more leeway for "libelous" type speech when it is directed toward "public" people or entities. It is always a difficult question to resolve. I am not familiar with the Canadian jurisprudence system at all, have assumed ours were quite similar. IMO, this order, though understandable from the company viewpoint based on physical threats,is way overreaching in a western country. The judgement to make available messages that there is no reason to believe even to pertain to that company seem way off base. It is wrong to falsely accuse someone of a crime. I think the appropriate way to handle this is for the company to charge an individual and use the publicly available "libelous" statements that he/she published as evidence. On the other hand, my preference is to err on the side of free speech and tolerate a bunch of crap as a result. The end result,if this policy were enforced, would be silly disclaimers and a lack of honesty. I always want to know what someone thinks honestly and we will lose this, if folks think they can be hauled into court for something they said on a chat line,even if it's wrong. Let's assume for sake of discussion that someone knew something negative about an officer's past or present conduct. Might that person NOT bring it forward, due to fear of legal repercussions, even though it may be true,but unproven in court,therefore libelous? Just thoughts to consider. |
