What if I can monitor IP addresses of my posters and someone posts something offensive to someone reading the comments? The ruling this judge just brought down says that I must reveal the information and IP address I have for the poster, during discovery. In other words, if I understand it correctly, before any evidence has been presented that the posting was in fact offensive. This is not the HRC's that have made this ruling, it is a real judge in a real court case. Check out the details here.
An Ontario court has ordered the owners of the FreeDominion.ca to disclose all personal information on eight anonymous posters to the chat site. The required information includes email and IP addresses. The case arises from a lawsuit launched by Richard Warman, the anti-hate fighter, against the site and the posters. The court focused heavily on the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, which contain a strong duty of disclosure on litigants......
According to the defendants in the case, they are unsure if they have the resources to appeal. This particular decision feels like a judge anxious to order to disclosure, despite the weight of authority that provides some measure of privacy protection for anonymous posters. Indeed, the public policy issue is characterized as "we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service." Leaving aside the fact that sites blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service is not much of a threshold (Facebook is blocked to the OPS), the public policy issue is not the merits of the particular website. Rather, it is the privacy and free speech rights of the posters to that site.
And more here at Celestial Junk.
This should concern all bloggers and posters of all political stripes. You can post something on-line, and according to this ruling, the site you posted it on will be forced by law to give out your IP address. It also sounds like a site being hosted in the US will not protect you.
Now, I do have a site meter that records the last 100 IP addresses of everyone who accesses this site, but I do not keep those addresses and they are not the full IP address, so I couldn't track anyone down even if I wanted to. I would imagine that blogger.com does keep some sort of record, I'm not sure about it though. Maybe someone more computer savvy would know.
The point. No blogger or poster to a blog site is safe from an individual who's feelings have been hurt by someone who reads your comments. If that doesn't scare you, I bet you were busy listening to banned foreigner Galloway and screaming about his right to free speech, forgetting that here, in our own country, those freedoms are being taken away by HRC's and now judges!
This is an individual that didn't like comments made about him on a conservative website, and he has now taken the owners of the site to court. That is not enough for him though, he is going after anonymous posters who posted comments about him as well. The judge has ruled that those anonymous posters have no right to privacy, even though no ruling against them has yet been made by that judge. It appears that the HRC's have crept into the real courts and influenced real judges.
Don't think it couldn't happen to you because you are anonymous. It appears you have NO right to be anonymous anymore!
15 comments:
What a country, while the same time this judge ruled as he/she did, we have a muslim woman wanting to testify anonomously in court, via a veil.
The commenters, should treat your blog as your home,imho.If they want to hang out,fine but be respectful or leave.
The impersonating someone else thing, is childish and those people should be banned, from blog sites. They offer nothing.
It will be a sad day, when mouthy useless comments, ruin it for everyone else but sadder if they are controlled by courts.
It is sort of ironic that the vilest of comments, often come from the very people that sue.
This case you referenced, in particular.
You know, Hunter, I saw free speech die years ago. We live in a benevolent police state, as far as I am concerned. As for the HRCs - good grief.
Read last week's MacLean's: a woman in BC worked at McD's and she developed a skin problem from washing her hands as often as required by hygiene-obsessed (thank God) McD's. McD's bent over backward to help her out but after a couple of years, they had to let her go because nothing helped and McD's has to practice good hygiene for the safety of its customers.
Instead of looking for another line of work, this lady went to the BCHRT and...although the HRT found nothing wrong with what McD's did and found nothing wrong with the employee's dismissal, the HRT did conclude that her human rights were violated because she had to wash her hands. McD's was fined and can no longer require that its employees wash their hands.
So, the rights of a lazy trouble-maker trump the health and safety of millions of Canadians but that's okay.
I am so disgusted by this. The way I figure it, if any McD's customer falls ill, he or she should be able to file a complaint against this lady and the HRT for doing this. Canada - I no longer know my own country.
I think this ruling involves two different questions:
1. what kind of language should commenters be liable for on blogs or forums
2. should the privacy of commenters override any other consideration
On point 1 - liability:
• Most blog commenters comment under a nickname, not their true identity.
• Any offensive language (which I deplore) is directed at faceless, nameless persons.
• Thus can there be true "defamation of character" of a commenter posting under an assumed name?
• If courts decide yes, there are already laws against libel, defamation of character, slander etc.
• From what I've previously read on such cases, baiting and entrapment are being used to flush out certain kinds of commenters.
• Are baiting and entrapment not liable actions in and of themselves?
On point 2 - the privacy issue:
On this I disagree with you, Hunter.
• We live in a violent age, where senseless random acts are committed.
• Some of those who commit such acts talk about their intentions on blogs and forums.
• As a recent case showed, tragic events can be prevented by readers of such veiled threats.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1409390
• Blog administrators should therefore have to divulge the information and IP address of any poster if required to do so by the proper authorities.
The sticky point here is what constitutes "offensive language" and which body should rule on it.
There are already laws that cover defamation, and HRCs apparently have overstepped their bounds by dealing with such cases.
The HRCs should return to settling the sort of cases they were originally meant to settle, such as employment equity.
There's a big difference between hate speech and being offensive. I find you, Huntsy, to be quite offensive. However, there's no law against being stupid. Lucky for you.
I do not think this case is about the kind of language that was used. The defendants are being sued for defamation, not for being offensive. To suggest this is about offensive language unfairly trivializes the circumstances.
Defamation is a civil tort, and is actionable in our courts.
I believe this case also has nothing to do with HRC's. It is in a court of law.
I am certainly no expert in civil litigation, but I believe it is common to order disclosure of relevant information in civil tort cases. In this case, the defendants provided a forum which 8 people allegedly used to defame the character of Richard Warman. As such, they are responsible for providing that forum and permitting the defamation - or so Warman is alleging. Only the Courts have the authority to determine whether that is actionable.
That said, I believe a newspaper is responsible if they publish defamatory comments, even if those comments are in a letter to the editor written by a private citizen.
"That said, I believe a newspaper is responsible if they publish defamatory comments, even if those comments are in a letter to the editor written by a private citizen." - unless the host newspaper adds a disclaimer to say that the paper is not in agreement. Radio uses this sort of tactic in a different manner - as in the opinions of the moderator do not reflect those of this station nor parent company.
It is a bit of a slippery slope when addresses etc. are given up. Unless really strictly controlled, it could be abused.
At the moment - speaking of HRCs - it takes almost nothing to file a frivolous complaint and have an HRC tie up the "defendant" for a year or so, at great expense, and then drop it.
Our courts are filled with frivolous suits which are usually the result of zealous lawyers looking for a fat fee based on settlement.
As an example - a woman in the maritimes, a couple of Christmases back, spilled her McD's hot chocolate on her blouse and sued the company because the lid was not firmly affixed. Apparently, soiling her blouse caused her great distress and emotional turmoil. This sort of suit should never end up in court.
The times I was insulted on a certain former MP's blog - I could have filed complaints with an HRC or a court and...would the IP addresses been released?
Slippery slope. What I'd like to see is more comment moderation.
East, I agree with you that a newspaper should not be held responsible for defamatory statements contained in a letter to the editor, although I doubt such a letter would even make it to the letters section.
And as for disclosing IP addresses, that would be OK, IMO, under very strict rules. As I previously said "if required to do so by the proper authorities."
As per the Canadian Encyclopedia:
"Defamation law protects an individual's reputation and good name. Defamation law does, however, restrict freedom of speech. Thus, in deciding defamation actions, the courts must carefully balance these 2 important values."
In the civil case in question, perhaps both sides have used questionable methods to champion their own cause. Since I'm no expert on torts - or distorts ;-) for that matter - one can only hope the right decision is eventually arrived at.
Where I disagree with you, East, is where you say "What I'd like to see is more comment moderation."
Leaving aside the question of defamation of character, I do not think blog administrators generally should use more comment moderation.
Let me explain. Of course, a blog administrator can warn commenters, as Hunter does above the comment box, that no foul language is tolerated here.
Also, a blog administrator, being the initiator of the blog, has the right to determine which topics (s)he wants to cover.
Where I have a difficulty, though, is with blog administrators having the right to arbitrarily decide which comment is worthy of publication or not.
Although I docilely submit to that rule - otherwise I would not have an opportunity to voice an opinion anywhere - I do so with some misgivings when some commenters are arbitrarily banned for "pesky" behaviour.
As long as the "pesky" character observes certain boundaries, does not use foul language, and does not engage in constant personal attacks and insults, I see no valid reason for banning the person nor for "moderating" or editing the person's comment.
A case in point: if you read some of the "moderated" comments under the columns and news reports of newspaper websites, there can be a stream of silly put-downs getting through, yet a well-documented response - by yours truly of course ;-) - is rejected.
So, what criteria is being applied? At times it seems to depend solely on the mood of the moderator - not always a reliable gauge.
I am not talking about my personal opinion. I believe the courts have already held newspapers liable for the contents of their letter pages. Of course, I stand to be corrected on this.
This is different from radio because a newspaper receives the letter and then makes a decision to publish it, as opposed to radio where there is no similar weeding out process (other than the 8 second delay button).
No worries, Gabby - I always respect your opinion even if we're not completely in agreement. You always provide a rational and logical other side of the coin in these situations and I like seeing that other side when it is presented as you present it.
McD's was fined and can no longer require that its employees wash their hands.
That is not what the ruling says.
The finding was that McD's did not try hard enough to accommodate her disability. That is why they were fined. Accommodating in no way involves putting public health at risk.
In essence, Ms. Datt argued that McDonald’s failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship when it failed to inform itself of the nature and extent of her disability and whether she could meet its hand-washing policies. Ms. Datt also argued that McDonald’s failed to accommodate her when it failed to determine if her duties could be altered to accommodate her disability or, whether there was another job that she could perform within its organization.
They may not have been able to accommodate her anyway since, other than sweeping floors and counting the money, most jobs there do require frequent hand washing.
Anyone who has employees should know you have to follow, to the letter, the procedures for terminating someone, otherwise you may find yourself losing a wrongful dismissal suit. A company as large as McD's has buildings full of lawyers specializing in this kind of law, so they should have known better.
Thanks for that, East (@ 1:53:00 PM).
Maybe our calm disagreements sans drama and personal attacks can serve as an example, even to some of our parliamentarians?
Oui, c'est vrai, je rêve en couleurs ...
LS - Read the MacLean's article - McDonald's bent over backward for Beena Datt. Bottom line, however, is that she should have sought other employment. Any place where handling food is part of the job requires hygiene. She obviously was no longer capable of following the policy so she should have at least tried to find employment elsewhere instead of doing what she did.
She no longer works at McDonalds and she will have to find alternate employment anyway so what was the point. Read the MacLeans article and you'll see that McDonalds went beyond what could be expected to help her out and she repaid them by running to the HRT. Washing one's hands when handling food is NOT a violation of human rights.
No matter how you slice the cake, she is a trouble-maker who was too darned selfish and lazy to take responsibility for her skin condition and find a job where she as not required to wash her hands.
Personally, I am sick of people who are so quick to run to some sort of legal route instead of taking personal responsibility for their lives.
EoE: So do you retract your claim that McD's "can no longer require that its employees wash their hands."? Because that claim is untrue.
You say "Washing one's hands when handling food is NOT a violation of human rights". That statement is true, but it is irrelevant to the actual case. It looks like you say that as if someone is claiming it is. Nobody is claiming we should have food preparers not wash their hands. Your claim that her case trumps the health of everyone else is simply untrue.
You can certainly argue the lady is a troublemaker, and making a human rights case is a surprise, but this is not a case of "health is compromised for political correctness". Really, the only argument that can be attempted is that McD actually tried hard enough for her, contrary to the ruling's view.
Post a Comment