She is being sued for allowing a post by Kathy to stand on her site, for comments made by others

So what. Newspapers are held responsible for what their writers write. So should Kate.

I hope that we can all put our differences aside and support Kate in this law suit.

Fuck that. If Kate doesn’t want to get sued she should delete the libelous comments from her blog and issue an apology to Warman. Otherwise she deserves to be skewered along with the rest of the libelers.

The blogosphere won’t be stifled by lawyers just as newspapers haven’t been stifled by lawyers. And what’s really at stake here is the right to defend yourself against defamation of character.

coming from one of the net’s gentler and more subtle spaces, i will be watching the circus unfold over the next while. the trollosphere is dashing madly back and forth crying doom and we are hearing the little whispers of ‘you’re gonna get it because on account of swears and being mean’. in a sense this is a test case that might serve to set some parameters for the blogosphere that could, in the long run, be productive in seeing blogs taken more seriously.

the thing is, that if kate’s case gets tossed then precedent is set. i’ve gone through comments at major news outlets, ctv the globe etc, and seen sda quality comment threads, including some base and potentially actionable stuff. if kate gets walloped, there’s a certain sense that she had it coming from a purely combative and ideological perspective. that said it would contribute to a chilling effect on the blogs. many of us would need to reconsider our approaches.

the thing is that her whole schtick seems to be to set up a scenario and allow her commenteriat to do the dirty work. an extensive examination of the comments at sda would likely offer a trove of delights for the litigiously inclined. but just about any “controversial” site could be playing unwitting host to a time bomb in the comments. hell, the kinder and gentler sites could be sitting on that sort of bomb without sufficient attention being paid.

as for supporting kate, i’ll pass. she has more than enough support from her minions and fellow travelers, she can play the martyr and clutch the pearls and i’ll follow the case from the sidelines. neither will i support warman as regards sda and kate. he would appear to have a more substantial case against the others named. but the whole damn business from the outset is just icky and i don’t care for any of the players.

PSA,

That was a really insightful comment and I know exactly what you mean.

When I had my blog several years ago, I had a standing order that I would never link to her site. I found and still find much of the commentary there the work of a skillful demagogue feeding the mob with predictable results.

In this case, I had to think about this a lot. I really wrestled with this one but the issues at stake are larger than the personalities involved. I really believe that there is much to lose. While I despise much of the commentary on SDA, I think we should fight for her right and ours to be able to continue to express her and our point of view without having to consult legal counsel on a regular basis.

While I despise much of the commentary on SDA, I think we should fight for her right and ours to be able to continue to express her and our point of view without having to consult legal counsel on a regular basis.

But this isn’t about expressing our points of view TH, it’s about making false allegations about someone, in short, lying. There is a huge difference between the two in my opinion.

For example, you own blog ABC. Some lunatic posts a horrendously libelous comment on your blog while you are asleep, away from the computer, on holidays or at work for the day. The person libeled reads it before you do. They sue. Some of the damage is done.

If you go away for a period of time, disable comments.

Apply the same case to a group blog where a another poster writes something that someone finds objectionable well before you can catch it.

Again, I don’t think it’s about writing something objectionable, but something illegal. And in reality, what is the longest that most of us go between checking our blogs? An hour? Given, there may be some instances where you can’t check it for longer, but I would hope that you’d done your due diligence and were smart enough to find bloggers to blog with who wouldn’t post unsupported lies.

Finally, it is the link angle here that really scares me. You link to a post that has a sentence in it that someone finds defamatory. So too do 100 other bloggers. All 100 get sued as well as all of the blog rolls like Progressives, Liblogs and so on.

I agree that the whole blog roll thing is troublesome, but not direct links. If you are actively linking to a post without reading it all and ensuring it’s safe for publication well then, too bad.

Again, I think it is simple. We are not talking about people who disagree with each other’s political positions, but a fabricated statement that was made over and over without any proof and a statement which one of the defendants was counseled not to publish because it could be considered slander.

Do we have to be more careful? Sure. But I think it makes the blogosphere a more honest and perhaps, accepted medium.

“Again, I don’t think it’s about writing something objectionable, but something illegal”

You are confusing criminal law with civil. This isn’t about what is legal, it’s about what is actionable.

“Do we have to be more careful? Sure. But I think it makes the blogosphere a more honest and perhaps, accepted medium.”

I hope you and PSA are right. I am more cynical and have a feeling that it will only lead to more bloggers getting sued, more leaving the “trade” and the rest of us shifting to starting new ones on knitting, sewing and other “un-suable” past-times. That would be a shame.

TH,

In at least Kate’s example this is a ground breaking case. It is most certainly about libel but it is attempting to draw the lines around defamation on the Internet. I think it goes too far. If Warman wins, we lose. That’s my theory.

It certainly will set a precedent but again, I think it’s a good one. Clean up your own back yard and make sure you know who you’re getting into bed with. If you take your time and do your homework, promote reasonable and civil debate, and make sure your commentators know the rules, you should be fine.

I’m no fan of Kate, but the facts of this case appear to be these: she went to the US for a dog-show, leaving Kathy Shaidle to mind her apartment. Kathy libelled someone and then retracted, before Kate even returned.

Hard cases make bad law. I don’t like the case against Kate much in this instance. If she’s found liable when she may have been unaware of the whole thing, then we are all a little less safe in our bloggy dens.

It’s a bit like lending someone your car, and that person commits a hit-and-run. Are you liable? Well, yes, if you know the person is a danger behind the wheel, or has been drinking, or has no licence, etc., you might well share in the liability. But if it’s simply a matter of lending the car, then I can’t see it, myself.

Of course, this is merely an analogy, and I don’t know the jurisprudence on internet defamation. But this is one time, perhaps the only time, that I would tend to lean towards Kate’s defence. She’ll have to roll on Shaidle, though, as they say on Law and Order.

“At this point, I don’t share your optimism. The allegations against Kate, if established by precedent, will send a chill through the blogosphere. Comments, links, and guest bloggers could become a huge liability for the owner of every blog in this country.”

There is already a precedent. Warman has had nothing to do with establishing it. You host libelous material on your site, you can be held responsible for it (even if its in the comments).

Also, I have commented on Buckets work and linked to it and even maybe helped him a little bit with it. I have a summa this morning, with a picture of a scantily clad woman. Check it out.

Reading some of these comments, you’d think there is no context whatsoever for these suits beyond some allegedly libellous comments. Interesting.

“Interesting.”

Oh, I know. The ironies abound. The notion, for instance, that Kathy Shaidle is weeping and playing St. Sebastian because a former CHRC employee got sick of being accused of posting racial insults tamer than most of Kathy Shaidle writes every day…hilarious.

That’s exactly it MW. This is not a free speech issue it is one about defamation.

I have ruffled a few feathers with this post, I know, but my intent is not to suggest that I support libelous commentary. I think both Kathy and Ezra are in deep by their blind refusal to recognize that their recent rants confuse this as an issue of free speech. They should know better.

My intent is also not to justify Kate’s role in this only to suggest that the precedents that could come as a result of her losing would be significant to the blogosphere. I have no affection for Kate or SDA. I do for this little place we call Stageleft.

Thanks Mark. I only found out about your predicament yesterday. Quite a story indeed. I appreciate your input on this thread and hope it all works out for you.

If the enemies of freedom succeed and I believe some of them are posting here, you will all be wishing you had set aside your petty political bias and stood up for Kate and others who are working to keep us free.

Freedoms are lost one at a time and little by little. You people here may see those gradual losses as victories for your side. I tell you now, you will regret being so narrow minded about what freedom actually means and how important every bit of it is to ‘true human rights’ and the democratic system. It is indeed a flawed system, but so far appears to be the best one available for the average schmuck. Thinking people will take human freedoms over human rights any day. Remember this … “A handful of might is worth a bagful of right”. Government who give you your rights will think nothing of taking them away on a whim. Freedom is another matter.

People who live in countries that are farther down the road to where Canada is heading are either, continually in revolt or they are drinking heavily. You cannot imagine what a completely controlled state is until you have lived it.

Slagging Kate and Kathy and dumping on Ezra is a very big mistake. It is Warman who would have us living in a police state. Kate and the others want a state where you occasionally may be insulted and have your feelings hurt.

Big difference.

If you really don’t see this, you are beyond help and I pity you and everyone else, if you should manage to have your way.

A very brave post, for someone on the port side of the equation, as Dawg would have it.

And the usual suspects seem to have shown up and produced nothing but snark and prejudice. That such adolescent pissing is balanced by some good commentary does shows that there is at least some hope for true dialogue.

As for the technical view, I’m sure at least Levant and the Post will be able to afford the very best experts. As I’ve said before, this could very well be a “not proveable” case, which means a loss for the defendants. If it is true anyone could have made the Cools post, the ONLY way to be sure would be to produce an HRC file, if it ever existed, and if it still exists.

The fact is, it is preposterous that a quasi-judicial commission would enable its agents to post on websites without ANY sort of record of who used what names, on what sites and when. No oversight, no supervision, nothing.

If the transcripts of the recent Lemire hearing in Ottawa are correct, for instance, there are at least four HRC employees who had official access. How would they know? Just a guess, maybe? Common knowledge in the office? Or does a record exist?

What if you link a post at another site that is totally clean when you link, but later develops potentially defamatory comments?

The real libel chill is not coming from Warman, it’s coming from Canada’s archaic libel laws. The fact that these laws are for once used (by Warman) AGAINST prominent conservatives is an interesting development that I’ll continue to follow.

The issues in this matter are simple:

1. Will a precedent be established that legitimizes SLAPPs to silence discussions on the internet about subjects deemed “too offensive” to someone who has the means and the will to sue his detractors into oblivion?

2. How does an individual protect himself from a cyber lynch-mob of the type that can be found in the dark corners of the internet?

3. Who do you want holding the hammer that squelches speech that is deemed “too offensive” for public consumption?

The linking issue is much deeper than you might imagine. If the linking matter is upheld as a culpability then the entire world of distributed information is at risk. Consider: online (or not) bibliographies for articles, libraries and other bibliographic devices.
It is not possible for a blog owner to police all of the potential links that may flow from a post. It is patently unreasonable to expect a blogger, or any writer to do so.
But an even deeper question, still not fully resolved: Where is the line between comments on a blog being a written document as in a article, op-ed, or letter to the editor, or a conversation? Comments made in a conversation, shouted out at a public rally, in a public park amongst participants and non-participants, how are these different from comments on a blog? At what point do you define a “conversation” as only being about “spoken” words…? Think carefully before you answer this. Think about where technology is going in communication and what has been enabled as “conversation” by technology. Think carefully about what happens in terms of where you draw the line.
Libel law in Canada does not require injury to occur, which is a serious shortcoming. It is not required to prove injury to win a libel suit in Canada (Canada’s libel laws are very different than in the US), only to be open to the possibility to be injured.

“If the enemies of freedom succeed and I believe some of them are posting here, you will all be wishing you had set aside your petty political bias and stood up for Kate and others who are working to keep us free.
Freedoms are lost one at a time and little by little. You people here may see those gradual losses as victories for your side. I tell you now, you will regret being so narrow minded about what freedom actually means and how important every bit of it is to ‘true human rights’ and the democratic system.”

so many pearls, so much clutching. wipe those earnest tears from your downy cheek john and take slow deep breaths, it’ll be okay. you don’t want to be sued, don’t defame people. the “freedom” to drag someone’s name through the mud for, in your own words, petty political bias is what our troglodyte friends are fighting for. i’m worried about considerably more important losses of freedom. conservative canada’s desire to snuggle up against the bosom of america, handing over rights of privacy and free transit in the false name of security. biometric sharing, hell the collection of biometric data strikes me as an affront to freedom.

the entire last seven years of american rule has been a parade of freedom in decline, sacrificed on the unholy altar of security and canada is edging closer to that mindset all the time. but go ahead, throw yourself to the floor and bawl like a babe denied sweets because some loathsome toads are being scolded in the courts for skating to close to the lines of fair comment. in the mean time freedoms and rights that actually matter are being bartered off to corporate lobbyists and pressure groups. bill c-10, christers writing legislation to put their own moral stamp on what films qualify for tax breaks? that’s not a freedom of speech issue? data packet shaping by isps and trunk providers, deciding what kind of files and transfer protocols you can use online? where are the brave protectors of freedom? ssshh, they sleeping in the foetal position, exhausted from crying over the fate of their favourite bullies. the eagerly awaited copyright reform that is likely to mimic the failed dmca, crimping your right to fair dealing and opening the door to the hyper litigious media industries to pry into your use of digital media and information.

you want a chill, go look up the thousands of suits filed against moms, dads and children and the ruin of lives that has resulted. grow the fuck up, you whining goober. kate and kathy and ezra are where they are because they thought they had something to prove and the impunity to slag warman, now the courts will afford them the opportunity to prove something. the laws aren’t new, it isn’t abut freedom of speech and it isn’t about the hrc. it is about libel. did they libel the man? the court will rule and that is how the system works, that old rule of law thing that conservatives only like when it isn’t pointed at themselves.

After a visit to Occam’s, where we’re having a good old jaw about this very same topic (with great civility - moronosphere, take note, it CAN be done, you know), I’m noting the emergence of another one of those delightful “When WE Do It/When THEY Do It” leitmotifs.

The train of thought seems to go something like this: Richard Warman is a disgusting hatemonger, so determining whether or not he’s being libeled isn’t relevant. However, it doesn’t matter that Kathy Shaidle is a disgusting hatemonger too: in her case, you must put aside your personal views and defend her right to attribute malfeasance to Warman, because he’s a disgusting hatemonger.

Is it just me, or is there something weird about that train of thought?

Gosh, you figure?

This argument is “about” framing the legal action against Shaildle, Ezra et al. in a context that presents them as “victims”, yet another layer of hilarity when one considers their fondness for deriding folks who think that splattered Iraqi civilians or suicidal rez school survivors are “victims”. Hell, no, let’s save that label for Ezra.

Laugh? Weep? Puke? Can’t decide.

Funny you should raise that, Paul; just last week I was rereading Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, and thinking how well it captures the spirit of Guantanamo.

These days I don’t think Americans have much in the way of good advice for Canadians when it comes to the loss of civil liberty.

Oh. I get it now. Canadians aren’t actually _nice_.
You’re all just bullied by bureaucrats into a eunuch-like blandness.

I wouldn’t say our blandness is eunuch-like. I think that quality a bit too exotic.

Anyway, no one should complain; if weren’t for Canadians, how would the Americans and the British know they’re so interesting? Seriously, without Canada, what would North Dakota do?