Posted on 03/10/2005 11:29:53 PM PST by dila813
Internet libel case threatens free speech, coalition says as appeal hearing opens
TORONTO — More than 50 of the world's largest media organizations have banded together to overturn an Ontario court ruling that they say threatens free speech and development of the Internet.
"This is a case of free expression," Brian McLeod Rogers, a Toronto lawyer representing the media coalition, told the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday.
The 52-member coalition includes CNN, The New York Times, Time magazine, The Times of London, Google and Yahoo, as well as Canadian media such as The Globe and Mail, CanWest Publications Inc., CTV and CBC.
The case involves Cheickh Bangoura, a former senior official with the United Nations in Africa who now lives in Oakville, Ont.
The UN fired Mr. Bangoura in 1997 after two articles in The Washington Post accused him of sexual harassment and financial improprieties. A UN tribunal later found the allegations baseless and said he should be compensated and reinstated.
Mr. Bangoura, a Canadian citizen, sued the Post for libel and argued that because the newspaper posted the story on its website, his reputation had been damaged in Ontario.
The newspaper moved to have the case dismissed and argued that if it were allowed to proceed in Ontario, any news organization could be sued anywhere over material posted on its website.
In a decision issued last year, Mr. Justice Romain Pitt of the Ontario Superior Court said the case could go ahead in Ontario. "Those who publish via the Internet are aware of the global reach of their publications, and must consider the legal consequences in the jurisdiction of the subjects of their articles," he wrote.
The Post appealed the decision, and in a hearing before the Court of Appeal yesterday, it was joined by the media coalition in arguing that Judge Pitt's ruling went too far. The ruling "will discourage and inhibit a free flow of information," Paul Schabas, a Toronto lawyer representing the Post, told the court. "It will have a chilling effect on speech."
He added that the Post had seven subscribers in Ontario when the article appeared and only one person paid to access the story through the newspaper's on-line archive service. He also said Mr. Bangoura didn't move to Ontario until 2000, long after the story appeared.
In a filing to the court, the media coalition said its intervention in the case "speaks of the deep concern with the judgment under appeal and its implications for all those who value freedom of expression. The extraordinary nature of the ruling presents real dangers to the continued development of the Internet and global communications."
Kikélola Roach, a Toronto lawyer representing Mr. Bangoura, said the ruling should stand because the case presents some unique circumstances. Ms. Roach said the Post continues to offer a short summary of the stories on its website that contain defamatory information about Mr. Bangoura. "The damage is ongoing," she told the court.
She added that Mr. Bangoura sued in Ontario because he is trying to re-establish a career here and the availability of the article on-line hurts those efforts. "The place where he is trying to vindicate his reputation is important," she told the court.
In an interview outside the court, Mr. Bangoura said he is confident the ruling will be upheld. "I have total confidence in our system of justice," he said, surrounded by a small group of friends and family.
Mr. Bangoura, 46, grew up in Guinea and studied in Germany, where he earned a law degree and a PhD in international law. He spent a decade working at the UN, first in Austria and later in West Africa where he directed a regional drug-control program.
Yesterday, he said he is not intimidated by the collection of giant media organizations lined up against him. "Those articles affect my future," he said sternly, adding that he has had trouble finding work in his field since being dismissed by the UN.
He said he is frustrated at suggestions he should not be allowed to sue the Post in Ontario. "I live here. I am working here. My family is here, I have two children born here. This is my home."
Sued in defense of the United Nations.
I don't think we've got a dog in this fight... whoever loses, we win.
"...two articles in The Washington Post accused him of sexual harassment and financial improprieties. A UN tribunal later found the allegations baseless and said he should be compensated and reinstated.
"Mr. Bangoura, a Canadian citizen, sued the Post for libel and argued that because the newspaper posted the story on its website, his reputation had been damaged in Ontario...."
Thoughts with the most important one LAST, spoken as a journalist, not an attorney:
1. Truth is its own defense.
2. This court taking this is a VERY bad precedent, with precedent setting implications for plaintiff court-shopping in Togo, Antarctica, Greenland, pick your venue....and International Criminal Court jurisdiction implications.
3. ANYTHING the U.N. denounces automatically gains credibility in my eyes. Thus I am in favor of the MSM defendants prevailing here. Strange bedfellows, etc....
4. I think this could be a red herring floated up from the very bottom (top) of the UN and DNC HQ with Hillary and the UN's June Internet Regulation conference well in mind.
Key FR threads:
UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1348247/posts
UNITED NATIONS ESTABLISHES WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1278546/posts
Hillary's Secret War -- What Hillary Clinton wants to do to your freedom of speech and the Internet--and WHY!
http://www.richardpoe.com/hillaryssecretwar.html
Buckhead Ping on this one!
One of their radio stations even dropped C2CAM because sNoory dared to have a show that pointeed that that most
terrorists are Islamists.
LOL. What a revelation, huh.
Ontario, IIRC. On the harassment by CAIR's Canadian cousin.
I'm about a 100mi south of Montreal.
I watch CTV just to spite the "big 3" networks' programming. Well, mostly for CBS. But, CTV follows CSI with ER,
and besides, the local CBS atation really did a number on their news, all but making it useless.
And carrying Dan Blather, and Lettermane hosting Bill Clinton....
Anyway, I used to listen to the daily Radio Canada Intl broadcast, (CBC on shortwave), until they screwed up the schedule last fall.
Screw the UN, Canada, Africa, Cofe Tofee, EU and the world dogshow court
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I haven't listened to Shortwave much since Highschool. Kinda miss it. Under good skip conditions, I could pick up stuff in Russia, Australia.. too cool. So, yeah, completely understand.
This actually hits all the Internet. If you can be sued for what you post in the US by someone in another country which has different laws and they can win, we are in deep do-do. Many arguments here on FR would be hate speech in Canada and GB.
What about Islamic Law? Think the smothering influence of CAIR world-wide.
I am with the MSM on this one.
<< One of their radio stations even dropped C2CAM because sNoory dared to have a show that pointeed that that most terrorists are Islamists.
LOL. What a revelation, huh. >>
Even Ms Laura Schlesenger PhD was banned from live broadcasting up there for daring [The wicked wicked Truth-teller!] to suggest [The indulgences] of [Queers and lesbians] were biological abnormalities.
I guess in Canada the activities of the 98.75% who behave as God and Nature intended are the abnormal and sodomists get it right?]
Typical liberal behavior. If you disagree with them on substance, you disagree. If they disagree, they hate you and paint to you as hating them. In their world, black and white switch places.. right and wrong switch places. The Christian perspective is to hate no one - love everyone and deal with the behavior. Liberals cannot seperate these things. The behavior is the person in their world. So, yes, in their mind they are right; but, they'll hate and demonize you where you may just state they are wrong and leave it at that. This is why we hear from liberals the concept of "accept me as I am". They want you to think the way they do and excuse the behavior and treat the behavior as them. That is not proper; but...
What are the chances that any judgement will be enforceable? Slim to none, and Slim just left town with his friends Jack and Squat.
There may be a reciprocity agreements between Canada and the U.S. on this one. Also, any assets owned by the media company in question in Canada could be seized to cover the judgement. That way, if you can't sue in the U.S. venue shop to Canada to get what you want. This is a very bad precedent to set.
No agreement could trump the 1st Amendment. If any such agreement existed, this would be the perfect excuse to jettison it.
<< In their world, black and white switch places.. right and wrong switch places. The Christian perspective is to hate no one - love everyone and deal with the behavior. Liberals cannot seperate these things. The behavior is the person in their world. So, yes, in their mind they are right; but, they'll hate and demonize you where you may just state they are wrong and leave it at that. >>
Spot on.
Even here on FR, where all of the truly psychotic liberals are quickly run off and -- with the exception of a few supercilliously-sanctimoniously simpering once-great british twits left around simply to upset me [ /paranoia ] -- and only the "moderates" remain, I often sit bubbling with mirth and laughing my head off with my wife [Who thinks I am nuts to bother] as I string together some words with which to express my disagreement with and/or my disdain at some assininity or other -- only to be blown away by the intensity of the projection of the very atributes you've described in the straight-for-the-jugular hatred that greets my attack on the idea of the original post.
The content of the character of our opponents that is revealed and projected in their every outburst should both warn us of the danger they pose -- and give pause to any hope that we might ever expect them to show up on the battlefield of ideas!
LOL. Another Miller Jr.
<< LOL. Another Miller Jr. >>
Walter M?
No. Dennis. I was commenting on the stringing together of words LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.