Quote:
Originally Posted by V
I'm pretty convinced that there's a video too. But based on the severity of the claims, and the fact that none of it was backed up makes me think that the Star is open for a libel suit.
|
I'd say no, based on my understanding of the laws. Journalists don't need to be right to be protected from libel charges. In the Star's case, their argument is this: under the rulings regarding responsible communications on matters of public interest, they need to meet two requirements:
a) that it's a matter of public interest. (I don't think there's any question that it is, in this case. Especially given that Canada adopts a broad view of what matters of public interest are.)
b) that it was reported in a diligent manner. This means that the decision to publish based on what information they had at that time was a diligent decision.
This second requirement consists of several considerations:
i) the seriousness of the allegation - the more serious the allegation, the greater the diligence necessary. Drug use is probably a less serious allegation than corruption. There was no trafficking or anything here.
ii) the public importance - the more important it is, the less diligent the source can be in publishing. I'm honestly not sure where the crack scandal fits on the importance scale, but I would lean towards less important.
iii) urgency - if there's a need to publish the article immediately without further time for diligence, that's a factor. For the Star, this would be one of the key defenses: the Gawker article was out there. The Star had been sitting on their evidence for a couple weeks apparently trying to gather further evidence, but as soon as Gawker published their article, then it became urgent for them to add their evidence to the conversation.
iv) status and reliability of the sources: a mixed bag in this case. Obviously there were drug dealers involved, but if the journalists saw video evidence themselves, then for them it's based on hard evidence that they've seen, and not on a source.
v) whether the plaintiff's story was sought and accurately reported. The original story in the Star contains quotes from Ford's lawyer, as well as an account of trying to reach the office and the now fired Towhey hanging up on them.
vi) Whether inclusion of the defamatory statement was necessary. In this case, the Star was very careful with their language and never specifically stated that it was the mayor, only that it appeared to be. If they had said conclusively that it was him, or made further accusations like wondering if he was protecting criminals, than those might be unnecessary defamatory statements.
vii) Whether the defamatory statement's public interest lay in the fact that it was made, rather than its truth. In this case, the fact that Somali drug dealers were shopping what appeared to be a video of Rob Ford smoking crack is newsworthy, whether the video turned out to be a hoax or not.
I think there's more than enough there for the Star to make a very solid claim that they acted with diligence. Points ii and iv above lean against them, while the other five points lean in their favour, sometimes strongly so. I'd actually like to see Ford attempt to sue the Star, because I'd be very curious to see how the courts interpret it. They might have a better argument against Gawker (at least under Canadian laws... but I think American laws would apply since it's a US hosted site, and then there would be an entirely different set of factors).