This is an important story especially for bloggers. We often repeat stuff, and comment on it (look at this post). Imagine how hard it is to withdraw material that has been re posted. The only solution is not to post online. Not much of a solution:
http://bit.ly/a0aipR
Media lawyers not warm on climate scientist's lawsuit
April 23, 2010
Tracey Tyler
Legal Affairs Reporter
Media law experts say a libel lawsuit filed by a leading Canadian climate scientist could have enormous implications for newspapers and other online publishers, forcing them to police the Internet for stories picked up by everyone from bloggers to Twitterers.
The concerns arise out of a statement of claim filed by Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modelling, over a series of articles published in the National Post between Dec. 9, 2009, and Feb. 2 of this year.
Weaver alleges the pieces, including a column which accused him of joining the "left coast Suzuki-PR-industrial complex" on global warming, were designed to destroy his reputation internationally.
In his claim, he is asking the Supreme Court of British Columbia to order the Post to not only remove the articles from its own Internet site and any electronic databases where they are accessible, but to assist Weaver in obtaining their removal from any other website.
Toronto media lawyer Brian Rogers said this might be considered essential by someone who believes they have been the subject of a defamatory story that has "gone everywhere."
But it would also impose a major new responsibility on mainstream media such as newspapers, which have direct control over a very limited aspect of their publications and can't control what search engines and bloggers wish to do with a story once published, he said.
2 comments:
If the claims of libel are successful, a judge might be happy if, in trying to remove reposted libelous content, the Newspaper applied whatever methods it normally uses to enforce copyright against websites that post its content online without permission.
Re-posting libelous content should be dicey though, right?
As us bloggers do repost, should we not be responsible for what we do? I wouldn't want to be liable right away, but should I not have a duty to acknowledge corrections that come about as the result of a libel finding?
As for the media companies, if they are found guilty in such cases, should not the task to track down the dissemination not just be left up to the plaintiff to do? If it's hard for the guilty defendant to do, is it fair to leave it up to the plaintiff?
There must be a reasonable level of responsibility for the publisher to take. It is very easy to ask the Google engine to report on which links link back to key pages. From there, the publisher could be required to issue notices to those hits, or at least to their hosting services. I don't think this is a onerous task. It doesn't hit everyone, and doesn't account for future reports, but it is more fair than leaving the whole mess up to the successful plaintiff to fix. There would be a fair limit to what can be done, and once the guilty defendant shows their fair attempt, they are released.
This is somewhat analogous to a publisher recalling books from bookstores. It won't get everyone, and it certainly won't get back those sold, but it's something.
Post a Comment