Legal: Canadian law precendent re: Libel online
 

Be careful! It looks like anonymity is no longer assured if you're going to dish the dirt on someone!

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...r-lawsuit.html

Google forced to reveal model's tormentor
Last Updated: Wednesday, August 19, 2009

A Canadian model has finally confronted an anonymous female blogger who called her offensive names on a Google website.

Liskula Cohen, who successfully sued Google to unmask the blogger, told Good Morning America on Wednesday that she called her tormentor and said she forgives her.

Cohen, who got her start in modelling in Toronto, did not reveal the blogger's name but said she was an acquaintance whom Cohen saw at parties and restaurants.

The Vogue cover girl says she has not ruled out suing the blogger.

The anonymous remarks targeting Cohen's hygiene and sexual habits were posted on Google's Blogger.com.

The blogger's lawyer, Anne Salisbury, argued in court that although the comments may have been disgusting they were opinions and protected as free speech.

Do lower court rulings set legal precedent in Canada?

i dont get how she won. or why the accused blogger was in court .. wasnt she suing google ? was she suing to have the posts removed or to identify the blogger, kinda silly to show up in court if you wanted to protect your anon post ?

You shouldn't be free to say whatever you want. Pretty fucked up to say whatever you want about someone or a company and not have to stand behind it. Let alone have the website be like we didn't do it, so we aren't removing it.

I love the contradiction. I forgive you, but I may still sue you.

Alright, dug up a better article with more info:

http://www.canada.com/Model+wins+sui...179/story.html

Model wins suit against Google

Canadian successful in uncovering who called her a 'skank'

By David Wylie, Canwest News ServiceAugust 20, 2009



A Canadian supermodel has won a precedent-setting court battle to unmask an anonymous blogger who called her a "skank" on the Internet.

In a case with potentially far-reaching repercussions in the ever-expanding world of blogging, Toronto-native Liskula Cohen sought to unmask the writer who maligned her on the "Skanks in NYC" blog so that she could sue for defamation.

A Manhattan judge has now ruled the 1990s Vogue cover model was entitled to the writer's identity and ordered Google, which runs the platform Blogger, to turn it over, which Google did, providing the writer's e-mail address.

Cohen, 37, who has modelled for Giorgio Armani and Versace, was outraged after being called a "40-something" who "may have been hot 10 years ago" in articles posted in August 2008 that included photos of her.

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden wrote in her decision "the thrust of the blog is that Cohen is a sexually promiscuous woman," reported ABC's Good Morning America.

In an interview with the U.S. network, Cohen said the first person she called after learning the identity of the writer was the offending blogger herself, whom it turns out Cohen knew personally.

"I just dialled her up," said Cohen. "I said 'no more lawyers, it's OK. I forgive you.' "

Pressed by the interviewer over whether she really forgives the blogger, Cohen was adamant she does. "I know who it is. I know why she did it. It's because she doesn't have anything else to do. It's sad."

Cohen told ABC the blogger was a woman who was a regular at dinners and parties. "Thank God it was her; she's an irrelevant person in my life," Cohen added.

It is unclear whether Cohen stills intends to take legal action.

Google eventually removed the blog, but continued to refuse to divulge the writer's identity until the court ordered it too.

In Quebec recently, a judge ordered a web forum to be closed because someone called a mayor of small town a bitch and said she was crazy... Freedom of speech is slipping away around here...

Freedom of speech rocks. :thumbsup

as long as its free :winkwink:

I'm glad you are not agaisnt it :thumbsup

Free speech is and should be absolute

however that should NOT indemnify you from the consequences of your actions.

there's a lot of things people do that has consequences on others that are not legally actionable... There's also a difference between opinion, insults and malicious lies that can be proven false... Take a site like PerezHilton who often claims that this or that person is a slut or skank... Photos and reported behavior of those people tend to support the legitimity of that opinion... Even if it hurts the persons' reputation, should we be not allowed to make those type of observations or offer those opinions?

p.s. I haven't read the blog discussed in this thread so I am not necessarily defending her but haven't read anywhere in the articles where it mentioned "malicious lies"..

Orwellian Double-Think there btw...

Absolute free speech doesn't exist if there is punishment for the consequences of your words.. Whether you get arrested by the police for it or have to give away money, consequence of a lawsuit..

If in a country talking smack(ex. using words like crook, dishonest, dictator) about the President or politicians would allow them to sue you to your last cent, would you consider that absolute free speech is in effect in that country?


Hate speech laws also prevent free speech from being absolute..

when i saw on news yesterday it was clear it was not a freedom of speech issue. nobodies speech was stopped. a person was saying stuff that was actionable and there is no right to be anonymous so the courts granted the paperwork google demanded to release the identity of the blogger. google did not fail. google told the model that she needed a court order for them to release the identity of the blogger as their tos states. so she went to the courts and got one. google just appeared as well and also put up a small fight. of course there was already other such cases anyways where peoples identities were exposed. the models lawyer has also said it is not over yet which we all know that means they will go for damages from the blogger.
this all just says you can say what you want but if you say things that are libelous people can find out who you are.

i just say: free speech should not give you the right to insult people without having to fear consequences. if you say something be prepared to back it up. however you do that when you call someone else "skank" - lol

my point was kinda that , how do they know the statements were libelous without first contacting the person. they mentioned comments about hygiene , probably ( stinky pussy ) or something she called her. Well what if she really did have a stinky pussy and poor hygiene..

The comments seemed more like opinions

------------
was outraged after being called a "40-something" who "may have been hot 10 years ago"

Fire!!!!

there were many post. lots of names called lots of trolling. model wants day in court to now say prove it.

then whywould they post those in the article ? why not post whatever was the libelous statement, or if lewd , describe the context and why it would be potentially libelous.

The law itself seems so open to interpretation its impossible to get a proper definition.

what i was getting it is this.

Lets say i own microsoft and an ex employee is saying that i mix sawdust in the company meals on some blog on blogger.

Lets say i am mixing in sawdust and he can prove it.

From the sounds of it i can force google to give me his name even though the allegations are true.

What if i dont intend on suing him i just want to find out who the whistleblower is ?

I obviously don't need to prove the statements are libelous as how can that be proven without knowing who the party is first.

Saying i mix sawdust in the company meals would be libelous if i didn't, but if i did it wouldnt be.