Ontario judge orders website to reveal identity data on anonymous posters

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Shazam

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

As a rule of thumb but only when decided by a court. How do you get to court if you don't know who to serve?

the example of accusing someone of being a molester is a very good illustration, on the assumption it is false.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by Locke

That judge is such an ass.

oh oh...

[photon]

We've been contacted lots of times by companies that see a negative posting on the forums about their company asking to remove it or they'll do something about it.

Usually if the post is either obviously truthful or obviously opinion, I just ignore it.

In other cases I've asked them to specify which post is defamatory (they usually don't say, I think they want every post about their company removed) specify which exact sentence was untruthful, and offer to help them get in contact with the poster to remedy the situation from a customer service point of view (i.e. if the company did bad by the customer, they can fix it). I've never got past that point as companies really don't seem to care for much except not having their name given negative publicity. Though I think we've actually edited a post or two as a result because it did look iffy to us.

The scary part is they ordered the couple to pay $5k. I'd like to know how much effort they put into moderating their site (didn't RTFA yet).

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?

I agree, people should still be responsible for what they say, Internet or not.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by photon

We've been contacted lots of times by companies that see a negative posting on the forums about their company asking to remove it or they'll do something about it.

Usually if the post is either obviously truthful or obviously opinion, I just ignore it.

In other cases I've asked them to specify which post is defamatory (they usually don't say, I think they want every post about their company removed) specify which exact sentence was untruthful, and offer to help them get in contact with the poster to remedy the situation from a customer service point of view (i.e. if the company did bad by the customer, they can fix it). I've never got past that point as companies really don't seem to care for much except not having their name given negative publicity. Though I think we've actually edited a post or two as a result because it did look iffy to us.

The scary part is they ordered the couple to pay $5k. I'd like to know how much effort they put into moderating their site (didn't RTFA yet).



I agree, people should still be responsible for what they say, Internet or not.

I used to visit the site in question right up until the time that this stuff was going on. The moderators on the site were pretty complicit in the kind of stuff that was being said and certainly didn't do much in the way of dissuading people form taking extremely aggressive stances on the Human Rights cases and related activities of Richard Warman. Warnings were posted by many of the more moderate posters, but FD's owners saw this as a chance to take the fight to the streets (so to speak). They've been legal fundraising for this on a daily basis since the thing started, but it's been a long time since I've checked in there, and I don't know how generous their membership has been.

I do know of at least one other poster on this site that formerly frequented that forum, but I will leave that person to bring it up if they choose.

In my view, these people got the fight that they were spoiling for, and can't complain too much.

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.

[onetwo_threefour]

Just to add.... Warman did provide detailed particulars of the offending posts and specific requests to remove posts, which the site owners posted and mocked.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Just to add.... Warman did provide detailed particulars of the offending posts and specific requests to remove posts, which the site owners posted and mocked.

It looked like one of the posts mentioned was cited as being from the Ottawa Citizen. If the post in question came from another, cited, source, shouldn't he be going after that one instead?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Wow.

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

There's an interesting case upcoming in the US, I haven't followed all that closely but this story fills in most of the details.

http://www.portfolio.com/news-market...?page=1#page=1

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

It looked like one of the posts mentioned was cited as being from the Ottawa Citizen. If the post in question came from another, cited, source, shouldn't he be going after that one instead?

Maybe?

You could suggest that, but people are entitled to sue any publisher of a defamatory statement, not just the original one.

The following thread has links to the threads discussing Warman's actions against FD. (Third post)

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB...c.php?t=115209

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I used to visit the site in question right up until the time that this stuff was going on. The moderators on the site were pretty complicit in the kind of stuff that was being said and certainly didn't do much in the way of dissuading people form taking extremely aggressive stances on the Human Rights cases and related activities of Richard Warman. Warnings were posted by many of the more moderate posters, but FD's owners saw this as a chance to take the fight to the streets (so to speak). They've been legal fundraising for this on a daily basis since the thing started, but it's been a long time since I've checked in there, and I don't know how generous their membership has been.

I do know of at least one other poster on this site that formerly frequented that forum, but I will leave that person to bring it up if they choose.

In my view, these people got the fight that they were spoiling for, and can't complain too much.

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.

I would echo those comments and might even be the other person you refer to.

They have an entire section on the site devoted to this.

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB...forum.php?f=70

I seldom post over there now and have not contributed to this effort; mostly because I have been on the other end before.

I can see a need in some cases for IP's to be revealed so criminals can be identified and victims see some sort of justice.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

It looked like one of the posts mentioned was cited as being from the Ottawa Citizen. If the post in question came from another, cited, source, shouldn't he be going after that one instead?

The law is usually that he should be going after the original source as well, not instead. If I publish something libelous, everyone who repeats that, even if they cite me as the source, is also guilty. Which is why reporting on libel cases is usually really vague about what's said, at least in traditional media. It remains to be seen how that will transfer to digital media: If I post a link to a newspaper article that commits libel, am I then guilty of it as well? What if I also copy and paste the offending text into my post?

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I would echo those comments and might even be the other person you refer to.

They have an entire section on the site devoted to this.

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB...forum.php?f=70

I seldom post over there now and have not contributed to this effort; mostly because I have been on the other end before.

I can see a need in some cases for IP's to be revealed so criminals can be identified and victims see some sort of justice.

Yeah, it was you I was thinking of First Lady, but I wasn't going to start telling tales. I think both you and I changed our posting habits there around that time, although I've always been further to the left (economically, at any rate) than you.

It just seems to me that this decision isn't that surprising, although I have not read it. However, if the Court hasn't done any preliminary assessment of whether the statements would qualify as defamatory if not proven, then I would agree that it's a bad decision.

[Yeah_Baby]

lol did I post in this thread and not the twitter one?

[metallicat]

Let's just say freedominion is not exactly the place for principled conservatism that they say. I've enjoyed reading some threads over there during major happenings in politics, but it has way too many extreme viewpoints amongst members.

[photon]

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.

[HOZ]

RICK WARMAN...remember that name! Serial complainant.

I know Lavant is not everyone's favourite person but he has a good run down on the guy.

Warman has made a good living being offended for other but he pockets the money.

The real punishment is the process -- biased, slow, uncertain, capricious, lawless, costly, unfair. The process is designed to so demoralize political dissidents as to make them abandon hope, leave the jurisdiction, or spiral down in a rage. Many people who are caught in HRCs actually become, over time, the caricature that they are accused of being -- they're turned into obsessive cranks, which is a wholly predictable outcome when a Canadian expecting Canadian justice is subjected to Soviet-style 'justice.'

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

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

I don't think you know what "net neutrality" means...

[fredr123]

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/image...n_decision.pdf

Copy of the decision, in case it hasn't been posted already and anyone is interested.

[Swarly]

wow if they ever release my message board info then John Smith of 123 street is going to be in a LOT of trouble.

[Kipper is King]

Calgarypuck is going to move the server to SeaLand now, right? As an added bonus, it may be cool enough within SeaLand for the server to survive Trade Deadline Day!

[Azure]

Yeah, lets move the server to Switzerland.

The government can go screw themselves. And I hope they just read my post too.