Canada Gets A 'Responsible Communication' Defense Against Libel Claims
from the that's-a-start dept
In the past, we've see some ridiculous defamation lawsuits filed in Canada, because (unlike the US), Canada's defamation laws don't have free speech protections included in them. Luckily, the Canadian Supreme Court has seen it reasonable to clarify Canada's defamation laws by detailing a "responsible communication" defense, which allows any publisher (beyond just newspapers) to present a claim that they published the material responsibly, given the situation at hand. It's nice to see various countries realize that draconian defamation laws may present a serious chilling effect on speech.
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
Filed Under: canada, defamation, responsible communication
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Still, I have to give to this guy props.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GM4Lt5k24s
The part we all missed was a request from Ballmer for "Give Me Your Badge". Other than that, even if it was fake, it was well played. It seems spot on, in every other way.
But before we find ourselves caught up in this one person's interpretation, we all should remain open to alternative interpretations as run through the marketing department.
I am listening to "Bond Street" By Burt Bacharach off his "Something Big" CD if that means anything to you.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/bond-street/id77111254?i=77111271
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
responsible communication
Excerpt from Supreme Court ruling
The defence of public interest responsible communication will apply where:
A. The publication is on a matter of public interest
and:
B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:
* The seriousness of the allegation;
* The public importance of the matter;
* The urgency of the matter;
* The status and reliability of the source;
* Whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;
* Whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
* Whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and
* Any other relevant circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice but...
I am sure the judges would take offense if the members of parliament started sending people to prison and finding others not guilty randomly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh... Was: Nice but...
Laws aren't just what Parliament passes. They're also what the prosecutors enforce and how the Courts rule.
1) In Canada's British-based legal system, libel wasn't/isn't generally protected by the truth of one's statements. If I'm wrong, any lawyers out there, please correct me.
2) OK, so if Parliament passes a law which is unconstitutional, is the Supreme Court of Canada supposed to remain silent? What's the point of having other laws and a Constitution, then? And a Charter of Rights, eh?
3) Read the ruling:
Q: "Should the Common Law Provide a Defence Based on Responsible Communication in the Public Interest?"
A..further down: "It asserts that the existing law is inconsistent with the principle of freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter."
...
" Freedom of expression and respect for vigorous debate on matters of public interest have long been seen as fundamental to Canadian democracy. Many years before the Charter this Court, in the Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, per Duff C.J., suggested that the Canadian Constitution contained an implied right of free expression on political matters. That principle, affirmed in cases like Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, and Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, has stood the test of time."
This was a clarification of what the law was/is, not a rewriting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vagueness
what does this mean and the one above
* Whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
if its justifiable then its a fact and thus is not libel or slanderous by the definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]