SCC upholds new defence to defamation for journalists

[fredr123]

Via Michael Geist, the Supreme Court of Canada today released its decision in Grant v. Torstar (Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61).

Grant brought a defamation action against the Toronto Star and a couple reporters for comments they ran about a new golf course development on Grant's property. The action was defended on the basis of a new "responsible journalism defence." The trial judge found in favour of the Plaintiff but was overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal and found:

The law of defamation should be modified to provide greater protection for communications on matters of public interest. The current law with respect to statements that are reliable and important to public debate does not give adequate weight to the constitutional value of free expression.

It's available to bloggers and new media too! At paragraphs 96-97 of the judgment, the Supreme Court writes:

[96] A second preliminary question is what the new defence should be called. In arguments before us, the defence was referred to as the responsible journalism test. This has the value of capturing the essence of the defence in succinct style. However, the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets. I agree with Lord Hoffmann that the new defence is “available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium”: Jameel, at para. 54.

[97] A review of recent defamation case law suggests that many actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media. While established journalistic standards provide a useful guide by which to evaluate the conduct of journalists and non-journalists alike, the applicable standards will necessarily evolve to keep pace with the norms of new communications media. For this reason, it is more accurate to refer to the new defence as responsible communication on matters of public interest.

[troutman]

Reform of Libel law is a big topic in the UK right now.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...e/project/333/

English PEN and Index on Censorship launched their 'Free Speech Is Not For Sale' report in early November. It detailed the chilling effect of English libel law on freedom of expression in the UK and across the world. Following the case of the science writer Simon Singh being sued for libel for an article in the Guardian, Sense About Science's campaign for scientific and academic freedom from libel threats has attracted nearly 20,000 supporters. Together, as a coalition, we are campaigning for major libel law reform.


This campaign takes over from the work we have been doing to Keep Libel Laws out of Science (for more, see below). England's libel laws are unjust, against the public interest and internationally criticised - there is urgent need for reform. For the first time in over a century we have an opportunity to change our unfair and repressive libel laws. We are calling on politicians to support a bill for major reform of the libel laws now, in the interests of fairness and free speech.

http://www.libelreform.org/

[VladtheImpaler]

Everyone tries to sue for defamation in England - you only need a tenuous connection to the UK to be able to bring an action there.

[fredr123]

In a companion case also released today, Quan v. Cusson (2009 SCC 62), the Supreme Court succinctly describes the new defence of "responsible communciation of matters of public interest" and details when it applies at para 28:

[28] In Grant, at para. 126, we hold that the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest applies where:

A) The publication is on a matter of public interest, and
B) The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:

a) the seriousness of the allegation;
b) the public importance of the matter;
c) the urgency of the matter;
d) the status and reliability of the source;
e) whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;
f) whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
g) whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and
h) any other relevant circumstances.

[29] The judge decides whether the publication was on a matter of public interest. If so, the jury then decides whether the standard of responsibility has been met.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Everyone tries to sue for defamation in England - you only need a tenuous connection to the UK to be able to bring an action there.

And by tenuous, it means something silly like literally like one single webpage hit registered in the UK.

Those libel laws are probably also why UK tabloids always seem to attack the most vulnerable celebrities instead of the powerful and bold ones ones with money.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

And by tenuous, it means something silly like literally like one single webpage hit registered in the UK.

That's why UK tabloids always seem to attack the most vulnerable celebrities instead of the powerful and bold ones ones with money.

Yep. A Ukrainian robber baron sued a Ukrainian online newsmagazine in the UK over an allegation made in Ukrainian language on a website registered in Ukraine because "it was read in UK".

[troutman]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Yep. A Ukrainian robber baron sued a Ukrainian online newsmagazine in the UK over an allegation made in Ukrainian language on a website registered in Ukraine because "it was read in UK".

Proposed Reform:

We recommend: No case should be heard in this jurisdiction unless at least 10 per cent of copies of the relevant publication have been circulated here

[VladtheImpaler]

Bingo, I would reject any British sign-ups...

[photon]

Most of the time any signups we get from the UK are spammers for some reason. I can't remember the last time a legit user signed up from there.

[mykalberta]

I dont get it.

So if I write in an email to a friend that I think developer X company is the biggest pile of garbage on the face of the earth and that email gets forwarded by others and by others until eventually being read by developer X they can sue me for defamation.

But, if I write the same thing in a blog I am protected by some sort of news free speech legeslation.

Wwwicked. Time to start a blog and stop sending emails

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I dont get it.

So if I write in an email to a friend that I think developer X company is the biggest pile of garbage on the face of the earth and that email gets forwarded by others and by others until eventually being read by developer X they can sue me for defamation.

But, if I write the same thing in a blog I am protected by some sort of news free speech legeslation.

Wwwicked. Time to start a blog and stop sending emails

There are a number of requirements for you to meet before the new defence could be successfully relied upon. It's not carte blanche to wage a campaign against everyone on your s**t list.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I dont get it.

So if I write in an email to a friend that I think developer X company is the biggest pile of garbage on the face of the earth and that email gets forwarded by others and by others until eventually being read by developer X they can sue me for defamation.

But, if I write the same thing in a blog I am protected by some sort of news free speech legeslation.

Wwwicked. Time to start a blog and stop sending emails

You just have to take reasonable steps to verify that information and try to get developer X's side of the story.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by fredr123

There are a number of requirements for you to meet before the new defence could be successfully relied upon. It's not carte blanche to wage a campaign against everyone on your s**t list.

But it does provide more protection then writing the same thing in an email correct?

I still think the whole email being used as defamation if you didnt even send the email to other certain parties and it was frowarded by others is complete BS. Maybe an annoymous blog hosted in Europe is the way to write such things.