We Are All Journalists Now |
| Print | |
|
Monday June 05, 2006
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, BBC version, homepage version) examines the implications of the recent California appellate court decision involving Apple Computer and two online news sites. I argue that the implications of the California decision are profound as they may change more than just journalism. The California appeals court was faced with a novel question - are online journalists entitled to the same legal protections as their offline counterparts? Apple argued that they are not, maintaining that the sites were not
engaged in "legitimate journalistic activities" and that online
journalists "were not among the class of journalists protected by the
statute." Apology to Wayne Crookes In August 2006, a message was posted on this blog by a third party that wrongly defamed Wayne Crookes. When I learnt of this I removed it, however, it was later reposted and regrettably, I neglected to remove it promptly after I was advised of the reposting. I apologize completely for any embarrassment or distress that I may have caused Mr. Crookes. Mr. Crookes is a distinguished businessman in the province of British Columbia. He is the founder of West Coast Title Search Ltd, a pre-eminent legal services firm in B.C., and his company has provided trustworthy services to innumerable companies and individuals since 1969. Comments (11)
Luvie
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
... Thanks for that article. After learning about the P2Pnet lawsuit, I found myself double checking everything I wrote, rewriting things i was about to post to a blog. In effect it made me scared to voice my opinion as it came to me, and to some extent it still does. After learning of these Canadian lawsuits it really made me wonder what i was allowed to say and not say. Can I pick apart a news item and try reading between the lines and share my thoughts? Can the comments of someone else influance my writting with out being scared of a lawsuit? I can't afford to be sued by a million dollar machine on outdated laws. I'm just an average person. I hope the Canadian outcome address the core issues |
|
CANADIAN CITIZEN There does seem to be a problem for Canadians to suppress the TRUTH @ http://cdntaxscam.blogspot.com/ |
|
The Corporation ruse It never fails to amaze me how corporations will constantly cry 'copyright', for everything that's ever published about them or their work on the internet. I'm really hoping that this new directive will start to permeate to governments of all countries and eventually enable common sense. Corporations will always use the ability to produce wealth and jobs to society, as a ruse for its unquestioning arrogance and what is often seen as greed. I always admired Steve Jobs as genius of marketing, I still do. He always seemed to be about more than business (I guess I fell for the hype)... |
|
so, off to school... Unfortunately only a very few 'journalists' have the training, experience and ethical codes that help to ensure an accurate and impartial news media, online or off. If we are all 'journalists' we should all be held to the same standards and that means a steep learning curve for the average blogger. In this particular case there was a genuine issue that I didn't see addressed. It was not a matter of protecting a whistle blower, but somebody who effectively engaged in corporate espionage. Should amateur (even commercial) websites be allowed to protect the anonymity of such people? |
|
BBC It apears the BBC picked up on your article! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5048556.stm :) ty. |
|
... Michael Pilling of openpolitics.ca has become somewhat of a fringe cyber-celebrity recently after finding himself on the wrong end of a libel suit. Too bad for his freshly minted allies that Mr. Pilling is hardly a champion of free speech, but rather a second rate pamphleteer trying to settle a score. So before his Warholian fifteen minutes are up, let’s put some context into Mr. Pilling’s free speech rant. First, Mr. Pilling was fired by the Green Party of Canada. He did not resign on principle. He was not laid-off. He was fired. Can we all spell malice? Now he runs a web site to drum up attacks against his real and imaginary foes. Call him on it and it’s a knee-jerk Charter test case. Since he’s sorely lacking a credible defense for his publishing endeavours, Mr. Pilling has chosen to cast himself as the victim. More power to him for creativity, but for those hoping to tie their civil rights agenda to his mast, be careful: not all victims are created equally. One of those newly minted allies is none other than internet law professor Michael Geist who recently argued that the proliferation of blogs means that “we are all journalists now.” The only problem is that Mr. Pilling is no journalist and certainly doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned lynching. Because Mr. Pilling has a double standard: open season on foes and a blank cheque for pals. Case in point was a posting regarding the business activities of Ottawa businessman Peter Fabian. Let’s simply say the posting was less than flattering, albeit accurate. But try and find the posting on openpolitics today. Gone I tell you. Surely, it had nothing to do with Mr. Fabian’s past financial support of Michael Pilling? Separating himself from mere cyber riffraff, Mr. Pilling has actually crafted admirable Terms of Use for his site, which include a ban on postings that include deliberately misleading or false information, abusive or vulgar language, content intended to threaten or intimidate or material which violates any applicable laws (including copyright law). Unless, of course, the postings happen to target someone with whom Mr. Pilling has an axe to grind. But those who write the Terms of Use must also live by the Terms of Use. And it’s here where Mr. Pilling’s site drifts from credible public discourse into personal rant board. Demonstrating his blissful ignorance of the law, Mr. Pilling believes that it’s fair comment to compare his enemies to Nazis or mafia hoods. Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard will be happy to enlighten Mr. Pilling on how far that fair comment defense will take you. The “but you’re a public figure” rebuttal doesn’t go much further either. Mr. Pilling might want to check with Yves Duhaime or Tom Mulcair on that point as well. And while he now tries to hide behind the Charter of Rights, Mr. Pilling is actually no slouch when it comes to possible civil liability as his Terms of Use clearly advise: “Be aware that your IP address is recorded with all posts and edits to aid in enforcement of these rules.” Sadly for Mr. Pilling, the law doesn’t allow you to have it both ways and as he himself may soon learn neither can he. |
|
... OMBUDS COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Complainant: Constantine Kritsonis COMPLAINT: Mr. Kritsonis complained that he had been required to remove a link to “OpenPolitics.ca” from his GPC candidate’s webpage. The Internal Election Fairness Committee (IEFC) had received a complaint about the site and links to it from Mr. Kritsonis’s page, and requested that he either remove it or have the link to his site removed from the GPC website. NOTE: Chris Bradshaw stood aside from this report for reasons of apprehension of bias. FINDINGS: A. The OpenPolitics website’s stated Mission is “ to support civic engagement and the open exchange of ideas via the internet.” We find this is a laudable intention and we support it. Reasoned discussion of a variety of opinions and ideas can help to educate, and to explore avenues for improving our political structures. B. Parts of the OpenPolitics site contained material that was arguably defamatory, and at the time this report is being drafted, it still does. The Ombuds Committee has examined parts of the OpenPolitics.ca site, and we note that it is a very large site, and that certain parts of it contain statements that are arguably defamatory. One example of arguably defamatory material is this: “Failing to fire everyone, in Hubley's view, is to sanction all of the unethical tactics and all of the false and misleading statements (and even the intimidation) of the staff in 2005 and in Jan.06.” These words state, or strongly imply, that “staff” (a small identifiable group consisting of identifiable persons) used unethical tactics and made “false and misleading statements.” We are aware that Mr. Pilling, who runs the OpenPolitics site, does not approve of the requirement in defamation law that a person making a statement of fact that is designed to make others think badly of an individual or a group of people must be able to prove the truth of that statement, but we disagree with him. Anyone making derogatory statements about others is, and should be, responsible for knowing and being able to prove to the standard required by a court that the factual basis for the statement is true. We note that some of the more potentially defamatory content that was published on OpenPolitics.ca has disappeared since Mr. Kritsonis was requested to remove the link from his site. The passage quoted above was originally more detailed, as when we first checked it, the following material appeared there: “However this was not the only instance of over-control by GPC fulltime staff. Some others who had been implicated in conflict of interest, breaches of provincial laws, lawsuits against whistleblowers, intimidating the press, writing extremely misleading press releases, and even threatening to file false police reports included: Nara Manickam? - an accountant - a paid GPC auditor? and GPO auditor? Beth McKinnon? - GPC Ontario organizer? Matt Takach?, Beth's boss, who refused to hear complaints about her conduct regarding Trinity-Spadina FED? during the election Kevin Colton - GPC Organizing Chair - a volunteer Michael Marshall - former GPC-NS staffer Van Ferrier? of GPC Media Team Daniel Arenas? of GPC Media Team Derek Pinto? of GPC Media Team” We agree that this passage is potentially defamatory against all the named parties. We are using only one example, but in our opinion there was other equally defamatory material at other locations on the site as well. C. The IEFC was justified in requiring that a link to OpenPolitics.ca be removed from candidate's sites (that were linked to the GPC site) because (a) the OpenPpolitics site contained arguably defamatory material, and (b) A link to OpenPolitics can easily be interpreted by readers as support of the material it publishes. D. Personal attacks (such as the one quoted above) are both unnecessary for the free exchange of ideas, and contrary to the Green value of non-violence. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Green Party of Canada (and each of its members) has a duty to encourage free discussion of ideas and to consider seriously the value of dissenting views. 2. Opinions, whether dissenting or not, MUST NOT be directed at persons (or groups of persons), but at issues, ideas, concepts, policies, or decisions. Disagreeing with a person's opinions or decisions does not justify attacks on the person's ethics, ideals, motivations, intelligence, competence, or any other aspect of the individual; disagreement must be reasoned and clearly based on issues, and must not be used to justify personal attacks. 3. Green Party members should be scrupulously careful to refrain from publishing, repeating, or supporting any material that may be reasonably considered defamatory. 4. Anyone whose opinions are opposed by others may suffer hurt feelings, indignation, outrage, or other unpleasant emotions. Those feelings do not justify attacking those whose opposing views provoked them. 5. It is never necessary to publish material that constitutes an “ad hominem” attack, or is arguably defamatory, in order to discuss ideas, issues, or decisions. Those who enjoy engaging in "flame wars" should find some vehicle other than the Green Party for indulging that particular taste, as it is counter to the Green value of non-violence. We encourage non-violent, respectful communication. THE OMBUDS COMMITTEE ADDENDUM: We also ask that readers contemplate this passage from “The Dalai Lama’s Little Book of Inner Peace”, pp. 91 – 92, and particularly the last sentence: “If I were to develop feelings of vindictiveness, anger, or hatred toward the Chinese, who would be the loser? I would, because I would thereby lose my own peace of mind, my sleep, and my appetite. At the same time, my bitterness would not affect the Chinese in the least. If I became sufficiently upset, that would also prevent me from making those around me happy. “Anyone is free to differ with me on this, but I try to stay joyful. If we want to work effectively for freedom and justice, it is better to do so without anger or deviousness.” END |
|
... \\\"Opinions, whether dissenting or not, MUST NOT be directed at persons (or groups of persons), but at issues, ideas, concepts, policies, or decisions. Disagreeing with a person\\\\\\\'s opinions or decisions does not justify attacks on the person\\\\\\\'s ethics, ideals, motivations, intelligence, competence, or any other aspect of the individual; disagreement must be reasoned and clearly based on issues, and must not be used to justify personal attacks. \\\\\\\" This bears exactly zero resemblance to real politics. It\\\\\\\'s just wrong. There\\\\\\\'s no way to object to a particular ruler of clique without questioning their integrity - if you can\\\\\\\'t, you\\\\\\\'re just begging to them to change, and giving up your argument to change THEM. There is no country in the English speaking world, other than Canada, that would try to regulate or impose niceness on politics, which certainly does require quite a bit of \\\\\\\"personal attack\\\\\\\" especially at election time. The wages of trying to control it with lawsuits is that the powerful will always intimidate the minority viewpoint, or the viewpoint of the poor, or whatever annoys them. This phenomena is playing out now. There were more insightful comments added to this thread that have been deleted, very obviously because of political pressures on Mr. Geist. Notably, the specific information required for anyone interested to determine that the allegations that the GPC Ombuds committee refused to look at, were true. All anyone has to do is look at GPC member archives on mailing lists anyone can join, and see the original correspondence and evidence that all the incidents of concern really took place. However, in Canada, you can actually be sued for telling the truth, which is very amazing to people living in free countries. Basing an offensive opinion on provable facts is in itself a grounds for harassment and abuses. Had this standard been in place in the US in 1973, Watergate could not have been exposed. So you can see the censorship operating right here right now. Never mind Paul Martin trying to sue Stephen Harper, the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress trying to sue the head of the Canadian Muslim Congress, Garth Drabinsky and Conrad Black suing journalists, and this other fellow up here suing them too. |
|
journalist, a Nation Builder At the best of my mind i must want WORLD know that a journalist is allways committed to serve the Nation, who puts his/her lives in danger but always serving the Nation, ,,,,,,, MR SAJID HUSSAIN , A FREELANCE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, FROM PAKISTAN,0092345925742, journalist4peace@gmail.com |
|
Journalists can creat Mirecle,so Lets jornalists can creat Mirecle,so lets together we creat an ORCHARD for deserving Peoples of entire Humanity, go through the streets of Villages,Towns,Cities,Provinces,States,Countries,Inter countries even round the globe and come to know the difficulties and problums of the peples,and put ourselves in as a Pain killer and do solve these by our each ounce, so that our Honorable Profession ''JOURNALISM'' always be SKY HIGH, Why i have to write my words because in this Cosmic world everyone is going to accomulate Joys just for his.herself,but the Needy,Poor,Neglected, Disables and deserving and respected CITIZEN are living hand to mouth,no one is therefor remedy ,, am i right...? and can you accompany me for this Noble Cause....? By freelance investigative journalist, Mr Sajid Hussain of 31, from Karachi Pakistan |
|
... Apology to Wayne Crookes In August 2006, a message was posted on this blog by a third party that wrongly defamed Wayne Crookes. When I learnt of this I removed it, however, it was later reposted and regrettably, I neglected to remove it promptly after I was advised of the reposting. I apologize completely for any embarrassment or distress that I may have caused Mr. Crookes. Mr. Crookes is a distinguished businessman in the province of British Columbia. He is the founder of West Coast Title Search Ltd, a pre-eminent legal services firm in B.C., and his company has provided trustworthy services to innumerable companies and individuals since 1969. Michael Geist |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
