Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
As for the disclosure order, I too am concerned about the precedent, but it is true that if a person has made allegedly defamatory statements on a public forum, they should not be able to hide behind the anonymity of the web. Obviously, I think the court needs to make some preliminary assessment of whether the postings would be defamatory if proven before ordering this type of disclosure, but I would imagine that to be part of the process.
|
Why couldn't they run the whole trial and then after it's been determined compel the disclosure? The "defendant" could be represented by crown lawyers as well, I mean what other evidence could be brought forward than what was said, it seems the defence could be run without the actual John Doe.
So the $5000 to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff, is that because they refused to provide the details to begin with? It's obviously not "punishment" for allowing the comments to be posted to begin with.
Just trying to translate this decision into implications for this forum and what kinds of things could put us at risk.