Transcript The Internet & Defamation

Social Media, the Internet and
Defamation
September 19, 2012
for the CBA Research Lawyers Section, Calgary
Dan Carroll, Q.C.
Field LLP
[email protected]
www.fieldlaw.com
Disclaimer
This presentation is intended for
general educational purposes only
and is not legal advice.
Consult your lawyer for advice
specific to your circumstances.
Intersection of the Internet and
the Law
“Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.”
“This is yet another case that reveals the
ineffectiveness of Family Court in a bitter
custody/access dispute, where the parties
require therapeutic intervention rather than
legal attention. Here, a husband and wife have
been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense
as to surely amount to a personality disorder
requiring treatment.”
Bruni v. Bruni
2010 ONSC 6568
How did this judge reach this conclusion?
Intersection of the Internet and
the Law
“In recent years, the evidence in family trials
typically includes reams of text messages
between the parties, helpfully laying bare
their true characters. Assessing credibility is
not nearly as difficult as it was before the use
of e-mails and text messages became prolific.
Parties are not shy about splattering their
spleens throughout cyberspace.”
Does cyberspace = a new mode of “no
holds barred” communication?
The Internet and Defamation
• The Internet presents a communication revolution. It
makes instantaneous global communication available
cheaply to anyone with a computer and an Internet
connection. It enables individuals, institutions, and
companies to communicate with a potentially vast
global audience. It is a medium which does not respect
the geographical boundaries. Concomitant with the
utopian possibility of creating virtual communities,
enabling aspects of identity to be explored, and
heralding a new and global age of free speech and
democracy, the Internet is also potentially a medium of
virtually limitless international defamation.
•
Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia, 2004 CanLII 12938 (ONCA) citing Mathew
Collins, The Law of Defamation and the Internet (Oxford University Press,
2001)
5
Elements of Defamation
• Publication
• Of a statement that
identifies the
complainant
• Where the statement
is such that it would
lower the estimation
the complainant in the
mind of a right thinking
citizen
• To third parties
• Words or pictures:
reasonably understood
to refer to complainant
• Injury to reputation: the
test is objective
What is “publication”?
• Crookes v. Newton (2011 SCC 47)
• Newton ran a website with his commentary
on free speech and the Internet. The site did
not defame Crookes, but it contained links to
articles on other websites that did.
• Issue: Do links count as “publication” in
defamation law, opening the site and its
publisher to liability?
• Answer: No
What is Defamatory?
Example, from Twitter
• Horizon Group Management Ltd. v. Amanda
Bonnen (2010 Cook County, Illinois)
– Amanda: tenant
– Sued by Horizon: management company
• Allegation: the Tweet contained false and
defamatory matter of the Plaintiff, namely: “…Who
said sleeping in a moldy apartment wasn’t bad for
you? Horizon really thinks it’s OK.”
• Case dismissed: “The Court finds the Tweet nonactionable as a matter of law.” No reasons.
What is Defamatory?
Another example, from Facebook
• She “acquired AIDS while on a cruise to
Africa…While in Africa she was seen f**king a
horse..I kinda feel bad for (her) but then again I
feel WORSE for the horse…”
• “…it was not from an African cruise….it was from
sharing needles with different heroin addicts,
this…caused the HIV virus…she then persisted to
sc**w a baboon which caused the epidemic to
spread”
• She “got aids when she hired a male prostitute
who came dressed as a sexy fireman…”
What is Defamatory?
Example from Facebook, continued
• “She” is identified (through a doctored
picture of her as “the devil”)
• Action was dismissed. The posts were:
– “a puerile attempt by adolescents to outdo
each other”
– “a vulgar attempt at humor”
– But did “not contain… statements of fact.”
– cyberbullying but not defamation
• 2010 New York, NY Supreme Court
Is the Internet to be treated
differently? Yes.
• Baglow v. Smith - action by a politician for
online defamation against a political
commentator based on a what was said in a
blog - “one of the Taliban’s more vocal
supporters”
• trial court, 2011 ONSC 5131: the action is
dismissed summarily on the basis of not
capable of being defamatory and fair
comment. Court gives weight to the fact the
remarks made in a blogging thread over the
11
Internet.
Is the Internet to be treated
differently? Maybe.
• appeal court, 2012 ONCA 407: the trial
decision is overturned
• A full trial is ordered on the questions,
amongst others:
– Are the legal considerations that apply to
publication over the social media - Twitter,
Facebook or blogs - different from those
applied to traditional media?
– Are statements made in the modern day
equivalent of a live debate capable of being
12
defamatory?
Who Sues? Politicians!
• Example: The City Centre Airport Saga
• Blogger named “Darren Holmes”,
supposedly a Seattle journalist, writes a post
including this allegation against Stephen
Mandel:
– “A land developer Mayor votes to close an airport to be converted into
residential development. A group arises to protest the decision during
an election and, in response, the Mayor creates a counter group to
promote his decision to close the airport. And the counter group is
given office space and phone lines by one of the biggest land
developers in the city.”
Who Sues? Politicians!
• Implication that the Mayor has a financial
interest in downtown airport redevelopment
• Press reveals “Darren Holmes” doesn’t
exist. The blogger is Nathan Black,
coordinator of Envision Edmonton petition to
keep the airport open.
• Mayor sues Black for defamation, seeks
$500,000 punitive damages
Who Sues? Politicians!
• Mayor successfully gets the action “sealed”
– Unclear why judge sealed it. No grounds for keeping the suit
secret. Media quickly applies to have it unsealed and
succeeds.
• To link the blog to Black, Mayor gets
Norwich order against:
– Twitter
– Wordpress (the blog website)
• Automattic Inc. (Wordpress’ parent co.)
– MagicJack
• YMAX Corp. (MagicJack’s parent co.)
– GMAX (the hosting company)
– Shaw (the Internet Service Provider)
Who Sues? Politicians!
• Starts proceedings in San Francisco (U.S.
Federal Court) to enforce the Alberta court
order for access to identifying information
• Six U.S. companies get roped in, plus Shaw
• Expensive, time consuming
• Suit eventually dropped once press gets
wind of it
• ...and Mandel realizes it is a bad idea!
More Politicians
• Kent v. Martin et al.: Journalist Arthur Kent ran in
the 2008 Alberta provincial election. Just before
Election Day Martin, a National Post columnist,
published an (allegedly) defamatory column about
Kent. Martin wrote:
– “Senior campaign strategists in Alberta cannot recall
a worse case of a shooting-star candidate, someone
so self-absorbed that Kent has actually mocked the
party for failing to treat him with a desired level of
reverence.”
– “The “Stud Scud” will land in politics with a thud. He
should pray to lose so his “star” qualities will find
another place to shine.”
More Politicians
• Kent lost the election and sued for $8 million in
damages
– The largest defamation award against a media
defendant in Canadian history is $1.3 million
• One of Martin’s sources was Kent’s lawyer and
Official Agent, who is now being sued, too.
• There have been nearly a dozen procedural
applications to add defendants, get costs, seek
summary judgement, consolidate actions,.etc.
• Litigation is ongoing…
Have These Politicians Missed
the Boat?
• Cases since 2008 suggest defamation suits by
public figures against newspapers are an uphill
battle.
– If the speech meets the “fair comment” or
“responsible communication” tests, can only be
defeated by proving malice.
– Tough road for plaintiffs since most of the evidence
is in the possession (or mind!) of the defendant
• New emphasis on freedom of expression over
protection of reputation
Interlocutory Remedies
• Interim Injunction - to remove posting
– CNR v. Google, 2010 ONSC 3121
• Norwich Order - to disclose author
– York University v. Bell Canada, 2009 CanLii
46447 (ONSC)
• Sealing Order - to seal Court file
– A.B. v. Bragg Communications, 2011 NBCA
26, leave to appeal to SCC granted October
2011
20
Defenses to Defamation
• Deny any one or more of the three essential
elements
– Not published
– Doesn’t identify the complainant
– Not defamatory – not capable of being
defamatory: e.g. name calling, parody,
Twitter?
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of Statutory Notice (Defamation Act)
Truth/Justification
Fair Comment
Responsible Communication
Privilege: Absolute, Qualified, Statutory
Defenses to Defamation
Lack of Statutory Notice
• Defamation Act (Alberta), s.13
• Recently raised in an Internet publication
case:
– Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre v. CBC,
2012 ABQB 48, summary judgement sought
– Does the Defamation Act apply to the
program posted on CBC website?
– If so, when does the act of defamation occur
for calculation of time - date of posting, or
continuous?
– remitted for consideration at trial
Defenses to Defamation
Truth/Justification
• Applies to statements of fact
– Onus on the defendant to prove the truth of
the “sting” – the substance – of the
defamatory statements
– Must be provably true by the laws of
evidence
• Witnesses
• Documents
– Big downside risk - failure to prove truth
results in a higher damages awards and
higher costs awards against a defendant
Defenses to Defamation
Fair Comment
• WIC Radio v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40
• Applies to statement of comment, not fact
– On a matter of public interest
– Based on fact
– Recognizable as comment
– Fairly made, in the sense that a person could
honestly express the opinion based on
proven facts
– Made without malice
Defenses to Defamation
Responsible Communication
• Quan v. Cusso, 2009 SCC 62
• Applies to statements of fact
– must relate to the public interest
– must have been published “responsibly”
• e.g. based upon information a reasonable person
would accept as reliable, even though later it may
not be possible later to prove the truth of the
defamatory statement of fact on admissible
evidence
• e.g. a fair and neutral report of both sides of a
dispute
Responsible Communication
Quan v. Cusson
• An OPP constable (Cusson) travelled to
New York after 9/11
• not through his employer: on his own
• presented himself, with his dog, Ranger, as
an RCMP-trained search and rescue team
• They weren’t.
Cusson & dog
Responsible Communication
Quan v. Cusson
• Cusson was portrayed as a hero in the
media. There were reports he saved two
businessmen from the rubble.
• But his story unraveled, New York
authorities banned Cusson from WTC site.
• Ontario press reports he had no K-9 training
and that he violated OPP rules by taking his
uniform and gun out of the province.
Responsible Communication
Quan v. Cusson
• Cusson sues.
• After a jury trial he recovers a damages
award of $100,000.
• Eventually the Supreme Court decides this
case (with companion Grant v. Torstar,
2009 SCC 61) - establishes the new
defense of “responsible communication on
matters of public interest”
• Requirements?
Responsible Communication
Quan v. Cusson
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”)
(h) any other relevant circumstances.
Malice Defeats some Defenses
to Defamation
• Malice defeats fair comment and responsible
communication defenses, but not truth.
• Malice is established by showing, for example:
– Defendant's dominant motive was to injure the
claimant, or
– Defendant was intentionally dishonest or was
reckless (cavalier) as to the truth, or
– Defendant acted from an ulterior motive conflicting
with the interest or duty giving rise to the defense.
• If proven, malice also results in a higher damages
award and a higher costs award against a
defendant.
Malice in Practice
• Astley v. Verdun - the defendant Verdun was a
shareholder in BMO; plaintiff Astley was a Director
• Verdun waged a years-long public crusade against
Astley, calling him “a white-collar criminal who
should be jailed for fraud”
– One vehicle for his publication: shareholder
proposals. Bank Act requires they be published in
proxy circulars
• Jury rejected Verdun’s defence that he was a
“shareholder’s rights advocate”
– He pleaded qualified privilege, fair comment, and
responsible communication; all rejected by jury
– Found Verdun was actuated by malice; he had an
unreasonable fixation on Astley
Malice in Practice
• Jury awarded $650,000 in damages
• Plus $215,000 in legal fees
• Lesson: while malice is hard to prove, if
successful, damage awards can be very
large
– the defamation was serious,
– the defendant’s reputation was strong, and
– the defamatory publication inflicted major
damages to reputation affecting livelihood
Damages
• Damages are assumed in defamation
actions; they needn’t be pleaded
– Statements that lower your reputation in the
community are considered inherently
damaging without proof of concrete effects
– but such proof will increase the award
• Damages range from nominal ($1) to
exorbitant ($1.6 million: Hill v. Church of
Scientology)
Unpredictable Awards
• In Angle v. LaPierre, 2006 ABQB 198
parents mounted personal attacks from a
website they maintained, against a school
principal, teachers and staff.
• Principal, teachers, staff and teachers’ union
(ATA) sued.
• Damage awards ranged from $23,500
(principal) to $1 (teachers’ union).
Criminal Libel
• Criminal libel prosecutions are rare, but they
do happen.
• A former Drumheller town councillor was
recently arraigned on charges of defamatory
libel stemming from a Facebook post
– She’s elected to have her case heard by a
Court of Queen’s Bench judge and jury
– Slated for preliminary hearing in October
2012
Criminal Libel
• Many of the accused in these cases are
mentally unstable, often fixated on the
defendants and extremely litigious.
• R. v. Knight, 2010 ABCA 2 -- Mr. Knight
sent several letters to the Alberta Mental
Health Ethics Committee alleging a nurse
had sexual relations with and attempted to
extort money from severely disabled
patients.
Criminal Libel
• The nurse was Mr. Knight’s ex-wife. Knight
continued harassing her.
• He was eventually charged with criminal
libel under Criminal Code, s.300 and
convicted.
• On appeal, Knight presented new medical
evidence that he was delusional and not
criminally responsible.
• The appeal was dismissed as the evidence
was not raised at trial and it would not prove
him NCR in any case.
Criminal Libel
• R. v Simoes, reported in the Ottawa Citizen
September 6, 2012
• Simoes sent “highly sexualized emails”
about and posted a “racy dating site profile”
of the victim
• the victim had posted online a strongly
negative review of Simoes’ restaurant
• issues with respect to proof the accused
was the person sending the emails and
posting the profile
• convicted - sentencing: November 8, 2012
From the Supremes
• “An individual’s reputation is not to be treated as
regrettable but unavoidable road kill on the
highway of public controversy…”
• “but nor should an overly solicitous regard for
personal reputation be permitted to ‘chill’
freewheeling debate on matters of public interest.”
Justice Binnie
WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson
2008 SCC 40
From the Supremes
• Freedom of expression
• Vigorous debate
• Charter s.2(b) –
“Everyone has…
freedom of thought,
belief, opinion and
expression, including
freedom of the press
and other media of
communication.”
• Protection of reputation
• Personal integrity and
privacy
• The good reputation of
an individual represents
and reflects the innate
dignity of the individual,
a concept that underlies
all the Charter rights
From the Supremes
• “..the traditional media are rapidly being
complemented by new ways of
communicating on matters of public interest,
many of them online…”
• “A review of recent defamation 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.”
From the Supremes
• “While established journalistic standards
provide a useful guide by which to evaluate
the conduct of journalists and nonjournalists alike, the applicable standards
will necessarily evolve to keep pace with the
norms of the new communications media.”
Chief Justice McLachlin
Grant v. Torstar Corp.
2009 SCC 61
Issues to Watch
• Does a new standard for defamatory
character apply to the Internet and its
various forms of social media? Baglow v.
Smith
• Is a sealing order available for a defamation
case? - A.B. v. Bragg Communications
• How will the various defenses play out in the
context of the Internet? e.g. Alberta
Adolescent Recovery Centre v. CBC
• Whither Arthur Kent?
44
This presentation will be
available for download.
www.fieldlaw.com
People
Dan Carroll, Q.C.
Presentations