Ontario judge orders website to reveal identity data on anonymous posters - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Dion · 03-26-2009, 02:26 PM

Be careful what you post or say on a message board.

Quote:

An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a pair of website owners to turn over identifying information about eight people being accused of defamation after posting anonymous comments.

"In my view, the defendants are under an obligation to disclose all documents in their power and control," Justice Stanley Kershman said in a ruling delivered Monday to defendants Connie Wilkins-Fournier and Mark Fournier of Kingston, Ont., who run the website Free Dominion.

Kershman also ordered the couple to pay $5,000 in costs to the plaintiff in the case, Ottawa human rights lawyer Richard Warman, described by Kershman as an "anti-hate speech advocate."

Quote:

Fournier, posting on the Free Dominion website late Monday, said the ruling has a number of implications.

"Most importantly it means that anyone can gain access to a Canadian forum owner's confidential records on its members simply by filing a lawsuit (that could later be dropped) against the forum operator."

Quote:

Warman had requested, for use in a court action, access to documents that would assist in identifying the anonymous posters and their locations, such as:

Email addresses and all personal information.
The IP addresses of their computers.
Documents concerning the establishment and operation of the website, such as hosting agreements, billing information, and website registrant names

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...s-posters.html

VladtheImpaler · 03-26-2009, 02:31 PM

I guess freedom of speech is OK as long as it's not speech about you.

PsYcNeT · 03-26-2009, 02:34 PM

Wow.

In the US, countless suits like that have been slapped down numerous times.

KevanGuy · 03-26-2009, 02:34 PM

Thanks for posting that Dion. This issue seems to pop up around here every couple months or so. Pho is the resident expert but it is good for all of us to read it.

Yeah_Baby · 03-26-2009, 02:34 PM

So much for the internet not having borders.

PsYcNeT · 03-26-2009, 02:37 PM

Regardless of this ruling, I still don't see anyone winning a lawsuit against someone posting things on the internet/blog/forum.

CaptainCrunch · 03-26-2009, 02:40 PM

Holy Crap, its time to put CalgaryPuck on wheels and haul ass to lalapolooza

burn_this_city · 03-26-2009, 02:45 PM

Pretty ridiculous. I wonder what was posted or said.

Locke · 03-26-2009, 02:58 PM

That judge is such an ass.

Hack&Lube · 03-26-2009, 03:02 PM

hope it is crushed on appeal, it shouldn't stand up against the body of law against it.

GoinAllTheWay · 03-26-2009, 03:05 PM

Rediculous.....

Dion · 03-26-2009, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

hope it is crushed on appeal, it shouldn't stand up against the body of law against it.

From the article...

Quote:

However, he said the couple did not have the funds to appeal and will likely have to comply with the ruling.

Yeah_Baby · 03-26-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

From the article...

If I was a net neutrality lobbyist I would fund is appeal.

Hack&Lube · 03-26-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

From the article...

I think somebody will step up when this ruling becomes more well known in the media. Some sort of electronic rights group like the EFF or free speech lobby group. All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. This ruling is pure evil.

mikey_the_redneck · 03-26-2009, 03:09 PM

Wish I lived in the land of the free.........

Titan · 03-26-2009, 03:23 PM

Not to be contrarian and I am not sure if I agree with the ruling or not but is it fair if you are regularly defamed on an influential message board and you are powerless to stop it?

What if I decided to defame Ken King for example. Posted personal info about him and such. Truly defamatory stuff. Should I be able to hide behind an alias on a message board? Probably not. Hate speech is hate speech no matter how it is disseminated. I think this is a tougher issue than we give it credit for.

Another and probably better example is a kiddie porn site. Should they be "free" to post whatever they want. Most of us would say no. Interesting issue.

Dion · 03-26-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I think somebody will step up when this ruling becomes more well known in the media. Some sort of electronic rights group like the EFF or free speech lobby group. All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. This ruling is pure evil.

This issue has been in the media for quite awhile. It's only recently that there has been a ruling.

Yeah_Baby · 03-26-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Just ran into Kyle Wellwood arriving at the ACC. He seemed kind of depressed. Told him to keep his chins up."

Shazam · 03-26-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

Not to be contrarian and I am not sure if I agree with the ruling or not but is it fair if you are regularly defamed on an influential message board and you are powerless to stop it?

What if I decided to defame Ken King for example. Posted personal info about him and such. Truly defamatory stuff. Should I be able to hide behind an alias on a message board? Probably not. Hate speech is hate speech no matter how it is disseminated. I think this is a tougher issue than we give it credit for.

It's not defamation/libel if it's true.

The problem that you run into is where opinion becomes defamation. According to some of the lesser lights on this board, the answer is supposedly "never"

Devils'Advocate · 03-26-2009, 03:34 PM

I think a better example would be if I had a picture of you and posted it all around the internet saying you are a child molester that has raped kids as young as 3. Your boss sees it and says he can't chance having you around the workplace because there is an onsite daycare and he fears lawsuits.

I think defamation has a stronger case for a limitation of free speech than hate speech or even inciting panic.