Law

Brian Burke says anonymous bloggers have deliberately set out to ruin his good name.  As his defamation suit against those bloggers goes forward, perhaps it is time to begin a discussion about whether internet anonymity should be restricted, writes J-Source law editor Thomas Rose.

Prosecuting and jailing citizens for defamatory libel smacks of show trials we’d expect from countries such as Russia and China, says media lawyer and Law Times columnist Alan Shanoff. Yet the archaic law remains on the books and was recently used to imprison an Ottawa restaurant owner for publishing false material concerning an online restaurant reviewer. It's time to abolish the crime and leave libel to the civil courts, he argues in a February 11, 2013 column.

Internet users who post hyperlinks to libellous material posted on other websites cannot be sued for repeating the libel, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled. The Oct. 19 ruling in Crookes v. Newton protects one of the most basic functions of the Internet -- the ability of users to share links to material posted online, even material they have not fully reviewed and they may not agree with. The court recognized that simply posting a link to material that may be libellous is a far cry from publishing or repeating the libel, let alone endorsing what has been said in the linked post.

Read the ruling in Crookes v.Newton, 2011 SCC 47.

Read the Globe and Mail report.

Read CBC senior legal counsel Daniel Henry’s analysis of the ruling.

An Ontario judge has tossed a libel action against three political bloggers, arguing that web-based political discussions are forums for “the parry and thrust” of vigorous debate and participants whose reputations have been attacked should fight back with words, not legal action.