New Law Protects Internet Privacy Rights - Warman vs Fourniers and John Does
On April 8, 2010, a precedent-setting case regarding internet law was heard in the Ontario Divisional Court.
The case was an Appeal of a lower court motion decision in the case of Warman vs Fourniers and John Does. The ruling being appealed stated that the defendants were to turn over personal information such as IP addresses and email addresses for anonymous posters who were alleged to have defamed the plaintiff. The defendants' position was that online anonymity should be protected until it is clear that there is a strong case that a "John Doe" has broken the law.
The Divisional Court decision that was released this afternoon changed the rules of disclosure in civil litigation so that plaintiffs must now prove a prima facie case against John Does before site administrators are required to turn over personal information about them. The ruling states, in part:
In addition, because this proceeding engages a freedom of expression interest, as well as a privacy interest, a more robust standard is required to address the chilling effect on freedom of expression that will result from disclosure....
...In the circumstances of a website promoting political discussion, the possibility of a defence of fair comment reinforces the need to establish the elements of defamation on a prima facie basis in order to have due consideration to the interest in freedom of expression.
The text of the decision can be read here: http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/appeal_ruling.pdf
This case is a huge step forward toward changing the law to accommodate new technology.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT
Connie Fournier
(613) 888-1169
connie@freedominion.ca
http://www.freedominion.com.pa
So, a serial litigator like Warman must now prove his case before any details can be released by a third party. Warman must also now pay $10,000 for his frivolous lawsuit. It's funny because he is attempting to hurt Connie and Mark in their pocketbook, but he has ended up paying. I wonder how much money his supporters have given him.
This is only one win in a long process towards freedom for Connie and Mark, but it is important to all people who want to freely discuss issues on the internet. Anyone who has a blog can breath a sigh of relief because even trolls who post are now protected, and I will not have to reveal their IP addresses if someone takes issue with what they post, as long as it isn't "hate". I wonder why no-one has sued sites like Rabble.ca yet? Could it be that Conservatives are the true supporters of freedom of speech, and don't need to sue anyone because they are secure in their beliefs?
Conservative bloggers still need to be careful, because when lefties are losing an argument, their first impulse is to sue. They are masters at name calling, swearing and denigrating anyone who doesn't agree with their position. Let a Conservative tweet about supporting the Canucks instead of the Canadiens and it becomes an issue during question period. This is your opposition in action. My 16 year old is more mature.
This is a good day for freedom of speech on the internet.
4 comments:
Seems like an excellent judgment.
Many years ago I wrote a letter to the editor expressing a point of view and a day later received a phone call at my home threatening my family with hard. So much for "freedom of speech". I was very careful after that in doing any writing or speaking out. I was in effect self censored out of fear.
I can now post FNF comments with impunity!!
It is kind of a tricky business because the more abbrasive posts tend to do better traffic (at least that I have observed on my own site) and people who say or write controversial things tend to get more attention than those who use normal pragmatism. The nature of the system really feeds itself.
I never put these two together but I just read this in Sarah Palin’s book. Her son, Track, was 17 and in the ER with a dislocated shoulder (hockey) and it took her some time to get to the hospital (she was with one of her daughters and cell coverage was spotty). He had lain there for a few hours, in pain and wanting some water to drink but the hospital could not do a thing without parental consent because he was a minor. Here is what she wrote, that got me enraged:
‘I even wondered out loud about why this big, strapping, nearly grown man who was overcome with pain couldn’t even get a drink of water without parental consent, yet a thirteen-year-old girl could undergo a painful, invasive and scary abortion and no parent even had to be notified’.
I have the feeling that I’ll read about her changing the parental notification laws later in the book.
Why don't conservative sue?
1) You can't get blood from a stone. If the offender does not have "wealth" the courts can't order the seizure of assets that don't exist.
The government made a serious error granting the HRC to act without ensuring both sides of a dispute have an equal access to the same resources. The accuser does not bear any costs.
Post a Comment