airbus320

Since this is a Canadian court ruling, I am posting this in our forum.

"A Nova Scotia judge has ordered a newspaper and Google Inc. to cough up whatever details they possess about the identities of people who posted comments anonymously about Halifax's top firefighters.

Halifax fire Chief Bill Mosher and Deputy Chief Stephen Thurber are considering a lawsuit against people who posted critical comments about them on the website of the Coast, a weekly newspaper.

The comments were in a discussion forum and were related to stories published in the paper about racism in the fire department.

They are also considering a lawsuit against the author of e-mails about them who used a Gmail account.

Justice Heather Robertson of Nova Scotia Supreme Court quickly granted the uncontested application by the lawyer for the firefighters.

Judge Robertson says people who post comments anonymously have to be held to account for their actions.

Kyle Shaw, editor and co-founder of the Coast, says his newspaper will comply with the order and provide the names and e-mail addresses of the commentators once a formal request is received."
Source: G&M

This ruling is of a lower court and can be appealed.

It does however beg the question of being held accountable for anonymous comments on a website....and on this forum.

Any comments

Stranger

Hopefully someone will appeal?

I cannot believe there are no precedents about this sort of issue? Maybe not in Canada, but at least in the US?

tcook052

Would this mean we can't say things like AC will involuntarily reroute your grandmother through Timbuktu? Interesting.

Yet another reminder that the real world and online world still aren't in synch, at least IMHO.

global happy traveller

i am split on this..... on one hand, we need freedom of speech to express our views..... however at the same time, some BS comments / non-factual degrading acqusations must be controlled

airbus320

I am also of two minds.
On one hand, freedom of speech should be upheld as it is the law of the land.
On the other hand, anonymity cannot be used to protect one from being accountable for some opinions and statements made on BB.

laidback71

Does it include the freedom to speak anonymously? It's easy to take a stand without putting your name to it. But once you have to identify yourself, how many are willing to speak up?

lcohen999

If I know my Canadian Law, we don't have Freedom of Speech (in the same manner that the American's do)

Personally, I do not mind this at all. Racist, bigoted remarks have no place in Canadian society


As for online forums...well....I think that is the same as someone talking in a crowded room. Although didn't the US do that in the McCarty area with "communists"?

laidback71

We will see more of these going forward. Last year a NY city model sued to find out the identity of an anonymous blogger who was posting derogatory comments about her.

I have noticed that the comments on the Globe and Mail website are disabled on articles dealing with legal issues. It's probably more to protect themselves than the posters.

DaveTO

Freedom of Speech means that people can't tell you that you are prohibited from saying your mind. However, once you do exercise this right, you will be held liable if you say (or type) things that are damaging and untrue.

I hardly think that anything that we say here would actually cause monetary damage to AC. Taken to the extreme, if I posted a thread saying that XXX airline prevented me from using the bathroom on their plane because I'm a certain race/sex/age etc., when it never happened, and it caused the airline to lose money, then I should be held accountable.

zorn

Since I'm always right, I have nothing to worry about.

RCyyz

I think the interesting thing here is that we're talking about Canadian law and its applicability. The consequences of breaking Canadian law range from a warning to going to jail for a really long time, but how does one apply the remedy if the lawbreaker is not physically in Canada?

That said, I do think that if it's a case of slander (such as in a chat room) or libel (posting here for example) then the injured entity should be able to identify who the offender is and try to engage in court proceedings. The internet is not a hiding place from the law nor is it a place where one can shirk all personal responsibility. IMHO, trying to hide behind the anonimity of a handle is akin to trying claim ignorance of the law. Similarly, trying to flaunt Freedom of Speech ignores the basic fact that a Freedom does not imply a Right to create untruths or to spread lies, deceit or malcontent.

So I do think it's fair game to reveal the details of an alleged offender in order to allow for court proceedings to occur. But, if the offender is outside the borders of Canada then I think things more or less end there. For example, it would not be reasonable IMHO to hold FlyerTalk guilty for something that someone posts here. But it might be reasonable to require that FT ban a person or at minimum, ban that handle from ever posting again.

Even there though there are difficulties. FT is a US-based entity so Canadian law probably doesn't apply. As a courtesy I think FT would probably comply and ban someone if asked to do so, but other boards might not do so.

payam81

This is just a lower court ruling. These rulings are reversed routinely on appeal. I wouldn't worry just yet. But from all the fuss the issue of freedom of speech online has been generating I smell some serious cases coming out soon.

RCyyz

We have freedom of expression, but to be honest I don't know what the difference is. It's possible that expression is a broader term than speech.

payam81

I guess the difference is that in Canada, Tamils get to block a freeway and use their kids as human shields and get away with it. That's freedom of expression.

RCyyz

Funny thing is, as soon as winter started to set in, I didn't see their continuous protest outside the US Consulate anymore. Go figure ...


I actually hope something like this does make it to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do think this is something of national importance so unless Parliament proactively addresses the situation, then we'll have to depend on the good old Supreme Court to set direction.