Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dantecristo who wrote (5227)	10/23/2003 9:31:11 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 10/23/03 - The Globe and Mail: Ontario court overturns decision on Web-based libel and slander; 'Broad social ramifications' of the issue require more thorough judicial attention Ontario court overturns decision on Web-based libel and slander 'Broad social ramifications' of the issue require more thorough judicial attention By KIRK MAKIN JUSTICE REPORTER Thursday, October 23, 2003 - Page A9 The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a ruling stating that anybody who posts defamatory information on the Internet is a broadcaster and can be sued as if they were a regular newspaper or broadcast outlet. The court ruled 3-0 yesterday that the issues are far too complex and involve such "broad social ramifications" that they should not have been disposed of by a lower court summary judgment. The ruling was a victory for Thunder Bay city clerk Elaine Bahlieda, whose defamation lawsuit against Thunder Bay city councillor Orville Santa was short-circuited by a trial judge. The suit can now go ahead. Ms. Bahlieda alleged that Mr. Santa libelled her by posting material harmful to her reputation in 2001. It was the first time a Canadian court had decided the issue of whether an Internet posting qualifies as a broadcast under provincial libel and slander legislation. "Our client is strongly of the view that it would be inappropriate to extend the special protection over broadcasts to the Internet without the authority of the legislature," Ms. Bahlieda's lawyer, Peter Downard, said in an interview yesterday. In her trial ruling, Madam Justice Helen Pierce of Ontario Superior Court barred the lawsuit because it was not launched within the normal time allotment pertaining to broadcast material. She stated that while the Internet uses the same "infrastructure" as radio and television, it can reach a wider audience than either. Judge Pierce said that in light of Ms. Bahlieda having failed to launch her lawsuit within the allowable period for broadcast statements, it could not proceed to trial. However, Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry stressed yesterday that experts disagree over whether the factors that apply to conventional broadcasts apply equally to the Internet. He said there is also dispute about whether publication over the Internet should be seen as "immediate." The ruling by Judge Pierce had meant that strict limits apply to the length of time broadcast plaintiffs have to initiate a libel action. Plaintiffs would have six weeks from the time they learned of an offensive posting in which to initiate the lawsuit. They would have three months in which to file a full statement of claim. Judge Pierce's decision also meant that defendants would be exposed to far higher damages than had been the case, since a defamatory statement on the Internet can potentially be read by so many people around the world. (She also ruled that a portion of the claim relating to statements that Mr. Santa made and faxed can continue.) People have always been subject to lawsuits for posting defamatory material, but not on the basis that they had broadcast the offensive material. The principle behind a limitation period is to give a defendant an opportunity to apologize or retract his or her statement. © 2003 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globetechnology.com