Google, Wikipedia Sued By Politician Confused About How The Internet Works
from the nice-work dept
In the US, when someone threatens to sue a site like Google or Wikipedia because of postings made by its users that are defamatory, you just point them to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that makes it clear that service providers aren't liable for what their users say -- a law that makes a lot of sense. Courts have been getting faster and faster at throwing out those types of cases. Unfortunately, it sounds like Canada doesn't have a similar law (or case history). In Vancouver, a former Green Party staff member is apparently suing Google, Wikipedia and a Canadian political website over postings on all three that he felt were defamatory. The guy is quoted as saying: "I'm determined that the people who have acted so irresponsibly will find that there are consequences." That's nice... but if that's the case, why isn't he actually suing those responsible? He's suing the tools providers. Does he sue the phone company if someone says something bad about him over the phone? There's simply no reason to sue the tools providers instead of those actually responsible. The end result, of course, is that he's only going to get a lot more attention drawn to the fact that a lot of people don't think very highly of him and expressed that opinion in online forums. That hardly seems likely to improve his reputation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not sure about the phone company analogy
The user-generated content issue is about using a platform to broadcast information to multiple people, at whatever time they choose to receive it (connectionless, in the lingo). A much better analogy would be the home-made cable shows that are apparently popular in the US. (Well, I've seen it on Wayne's World, so it must be true.) Even more so if they're then made available on demand, as mainstream shows are on cable here in the UK.
If Wayne said that XXX blows goats on his cable show and, crucially, that cable show wasn't being broadcast live (i.e. the company had the opportunity to edit it), who would get sued? I would guess that this has happened, so someone should be able to answer this one.
If it's Wayne, then that's a much stronger analogy. If it's the cable company, at least you've got something else to complain about!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure about the phone company analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure about the phone company analogy
The internet could be described as a 'delayed many-to-many communication channel.' Delayed, because it has to be stored to be accessed, and many-to-many, because the interactions of many people affect what many people see, both through links to other sites which affect Google PageRank and through editing pages like Wikipedia. Other than that, no, there is no reason Google or Wikipedia should be sued. In order to control what is on their respective sites their companies would no longer be profitable in the extreme. With the billions of pages on Google and millions of articles on Wikipedia, not to mention the fluid nature of both (changes are rapid and always occuring, with MANY edits per second on Wikipedia alone) to police that would be intractable. This is similar to phone networks, in order for a major phone provider to censor everything they would have to monitor possibly millions of calls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure about the phone company analogy
Your weak analogy would be better served if you agree that it is appropriate to sue "TV Guide" for the goat blowing remark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure about the phone company analogy
Ummmm.... comments on blogspot, an article on wikipedia and a Canadian forum. Sounds like content more than linking.
Still inappropriate to shoot the messenger, of course, but it's not *quite* as stupid as sueing someone for a link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure about the phone company analogy
On top of all this, he's a canadian =P. That just makes it all worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a better analogy
it's not the school's fault if a nasty note is posted, though it would be fair to ask them to remove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Sue me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhm.. what do you think happens to guns used in a murder, you think? They get free psychotherapy and compensations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: guns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
whats your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Other countries have restrictive gun laws to significantly reduce or prevent shootings, murders, accidents involving guns.
Americans are so stuuuuuupid.
When will the US grow up and become a civilised society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real person to sue
You're really missing out on the real culprit here. Everyone should just sue Al Gore, since HE invented the internet!
Ok.. in truth, that perceived claim is a bit bogus anywhere, as he never really claimed to have "invented" the internet, but said
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Anyhow... Sue him, sue everybody! And waste more taxc payers time and money in the process... Just great. Stupid lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid! stupid! stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more defamation
you're a moron.
there. sue me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the...?
Who is suing who?
Also, referring to a "Green Party staff member" as a politician is a bit of a stretch, isnt it? I dont consider their candidates real politicians, much less the guy who runs the printer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tools
Don't blame me for that comment.
Blame techdirt for publishing this article which allows idiots like you and me to share our opinions on a free and open forum.
But then again, by your comment about Canada, I take it you are an American...and therefore do not a whole hell of a lot about anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure about the phone company analogy
Really? And where are these? Hint: Not in these United States.
There is no censorship, per se, in the US. The FCC can fine broadcasters after the fact, IFF they receive complaints. That's it. The FCC does not act in the absence of complaints regarding broadcasting standards.
As for the cable shows, I can see how local decency laws could be used as a threat to local cable providers. I can even see a local cable provider caving in--or claiming that these decency laws are forcing them to self-censor.
No way these would stand up in court. Common carrier argument wins every time. It's an issue of scale: A common carrier can't afford to police the content, even if it's small, because this prevents it from growing--and providing a necessary service.
That is, a common carrier isn't just an entity with a lot of traffic for a lot of customers. The traffic has to be deemed as necessary service--thus the common carrier's efforts to police the content would impair or interrupt the service.
Finally, censorship is never, ever required in the US. See also Freedom of Speech. The only legal censoring is done by the content provider, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure about the phone company analogy
Actually, the FCC has zero control over cable television. Tehy can't even fine cable. If Cartoon Network wanted to have one of it's characters scream fuck at 4 in the afternoon, it could, and the FCC could do jack to stop it.
The FCC only has jurisdiction over BROADCAST channels (read: those picked up with a television antenna.)
The reason cable networks don't air certain words comes down to self-censorship, not any government mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure about the phone company analo
"My poor 12 year old child was traumatized! He'd never heard that word before, and we've had to take him to therapy because of this"
yeah... right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue for our own imperfect intelligence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Gore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibility...
The people responsible for the statements are the ones who posted them, ffs.
As to the analogies, the way I see it is this:
It's the same as suing a nightclub for allowing riffraff in, who then start a fight with you. If the club-staff didn't do enough to stop the ruckus once they were alerted to it, *then* I suppose there's a liability. Even then, you've got to prove who was at fault to determine who gets rightfully kicked out.
That would kinda be the point in suing the people who made the statements in the first place. Once they're proven to have made libellous statements, *THEN* you can remove the content. Until then, why would the service provider censor something which, until that key point, may not be libellous?
Man A: That guy blew a goat.
That guy: No I did not, that's a lie.
Man A: No it's not, 's truth.
That guy: Prove it, or I'll sue.
Man A: Prove you didn't.
You make the call...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Responsibility...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Letter To Wayne Crookes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open Letter To Wayne Crookes
There's way more interesting things going on in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The legal situation in Canada
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf03241e.html#E13E6
Two-word summary - it's complicated :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
similar issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: similar issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Green Party Politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate some site???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Dirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techdirt is in trouble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do lawsuits ever work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crookes has truths to hide
Libel law in Canada is a mess which heavily favours the plaintiff. And, most iimportantly, there are no penalties for abusing the law.
By saying what I did above, Crookes could very well send this site a legal letter demanding that you erase this comment and post an apology (he does this often). If you refuse to do either, and even if you did, he could then file a lawsuit anyway, irritate you for a year or two, and then back out. He could even take you all the way through trial, lose, and merely pay _some_ of your costs.
In a case Crookes filed last year, one of the defendants was recently released from the case (Warren de Simone) by the judge because he was innocent and did not belong in the suit.
Crookes penalty? Crookes had to pay half of the poor person’s costs.
Half?
The problem Crookes has is that while he did a good thing — he lent the GPC lots of money — he also bargained his way into a position of having a lot of unelected power in the Party. He was in a complete conflict of interest in that he was managing many aspects of the Party, able to influence how the Party spent its money, while also having a pecuniary interest in the Party. That is a big no-no, and caused a lot of talk. His response? Sue people until they regret discussing the matter.
If we learned anything from Adscam, it is that the governance of political parties is a matter of public interest.
Sorry about being anonymous, but I am a chilly little worm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crookes is suing a blogger too
http://section15.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-am-being-sued-by-wayne-crookes.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is about political free speech, not about who
The issue really isn't whether the host bears liability. Not once they have been notified, anyway, and exercised some moderation powers, as most of the defendants here did. In that case they've taken it on themselves.
The real issue is whether, if unsatisfied with the moderation, the individual who feels wronged (or pretends to) can proceed to sue the moderators (despite having accepted their intervention) and get identifying information about everyone who's expressed a political opinion.
If they can, there's nothing to prevent China or Russia from filing similar suits. We have no problem presumably with handing over IP numbers of people breaking actual criminal laws, but thin civil cases? It exposes every global dissident.
To really understand this case and how insidious it is, you have to look at the actual nature of the content. It's all politics. The "gang of Crookes" are not accused of stealing anything, they were accused of taking over a political party undemocratically.
http://openpolitics.ca/GPC+Council+Crisis
http://uncrooked.pbwiki.com/the%20 lawsuit%20documents
http://p2pnet.net/story/12037
http://technorati.com/tag/Wayne+Crookes
I f Crookes gets everything he wants, that's the end for any serious political debate on the net. Not just in Canada but anywhere a BC libel suit can compel service providers to hand over identiyfing information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more lawsuits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meaning of life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the gang now includes Harper
http://yawiki.org/proc/Wayne_Crookes
Meanwhile the Yahoo suit was also thrown out since, despite being the largest single donor ever to a political party that is most popular in BC, Crookes could not find one single person from BC willing to say they saw the Yahoogroups post which was private. Tells you how many good and grateful friends he made bringing this party into existence, which suggests his critics may have some point.
Anyone who runs a forum or wiki and wants to protect them selves from abusive use of outside-the-US English speaking countries' laws should probably read this analysis from UK that explains how to set up policies so you can use the "Reynolds defense"
http://uk.openingpolitics.org/index.php?title=Reynolds_defense
To show how truly idiotic and anti-democratic libel laws are in Canada, the Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed another one of these political libel suits against the official opposition party to shut them up in a bribery case. Here's what the suit is over. It looks like typical political stuff.
"Harper knew of Conservative bribery"
http://www.liberal.ca/story_13642_e.aspx
The Liberals haven't taken it down so they are standing by it.
No need to provide the other side of the story, because if the guilty party responds with a libel suit instead of the truth, you can be absolutely sure that the story is exactly as it was presented by his opponents. He's guilty as hell, and it's the opposition's job to catch him. Let's hope the judge says so.
Apparently this happens all the time in Canada. Wikipedia says that this "political libel" suit is legal *only* in Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/political_libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's about democracy not the Internet
It's not "Google, Wikipedia Sued By Politician Confused About How The Internet Works" - who cares how the message got out?
It's "Google, Wikipedia sued by politician confused about how democracy works".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suing sites that host libel
And before anyone responds by saying that with websites the process is automatic - rather than volitional - I would ask the following question: does anyone FORCE those websites to post comments automatically? No? Then they remain responsible for what they publish just as newspapers are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia is a piece of garbage
Wikipedia is just a forum for big business to put the little guy out of business. Any business can go on and make up any story about the competition. There is no morality and no social conscience in the offices of Shepard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, their attorneys.
They are not concerned with the damages that will occur to our society, nor the high unemployment rate worldwide, caused in part by their scheme to make everyone poor. When you damage an individual's reputation, all the vendors who served that individual will be getting less business from him because he is making less money, and the trend just goes in a downward spiral. All Wikipedia cares about is getting donations from big foundations and their officers all have chalets in the South of France.
I don't recommend suing them. I recommend breaking their legs--it's cheaper, and all you need is a baseball bat. Forget the lawyers, they are losers,and the judges are paid off. Break their legs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]