March 15, 2012
During the course of my practice I’m often asked to provide social media law advice, typically to organizations or individuals who want defamatory, proprietary or privacy invasive content removed from the Internet. Once content has been successfully removed from a website I often discuss with clients issues related to Internet cached webpages. So I thought it would be helpful to provide some general information on what Internet cached webpages are and how you can deal with them in situations where you don’t want to have certain content available online.
What are Internet cached webpages?
When search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing crawl a website, they take a snapshot of what the site looks like at that time. This “snapshot” is known as a cached webpage and it’s stored by the search engine. The cached webpage is what the search engine then uses to determine whether the site matches a user’s specific query.
When a user clicks on the cached webpage, they will be taken to the version of the webpage that was online when the site was last crawled and not the current version. The cached webpage can be accessed when the current version of the site is unavailable due to Internet congestion, a slow website, or the webpage has recently been removed.
How can you deal with Internet cached webpages?
It is very difficult to remove a cached webpage from a search engine if you’re not the webmaster of the website. If you’re not the webmaster and you’d like a cached page removed from Google, Yahoo or Bing, you have three options:
- You can contact the site administrator and ask them to take the steps necessary to have the cached webpage removed from the search engine in question. Google typically responds to such requests from webmasters within 2-3 hours and Yahoo typically responds in 5 hours;
- You can seek a court order or other legal document to have certain content removed from the website/cached webpage; or
- You can just wait until the search engine crawls the site again and updates its cached webpages. This option can take the longest amount of time to see results since it might be 1-2 months before the site is crawled again.
Google offers an additional tool to have a cached webpage removed by a party who does not own the webpage in question. My understanding is that this process will only work for HTML pages and will not work for PDFs or .doc files):
- The webpage must be have been updated since the cached version;
- Go to (http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1663691) and click on Google Public URL Removal Tool;
- Sign in to Google;
- Then it will prompt you for the URL you’d like removed;
- Click Continue;
- Type a word that appears on the out-of-date cached version of the page but not anywhere on the live version. Its better to use single words and not phrases; and
- Click Remove cache.
Given the technical nature of this topic, and fact that I’m not a techie, I’d recommend that you work with a technology professional and not rely on this post. That being said I hope this helps and at least provides you with some general information to get you started.
Leave a Comment » | 
Defamation, Intellectual Property, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Social Networking Websites | Tagged: Corporate Information, Google, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Social Networking | 
Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
November 15, 2010
CTV News has an excellent article that discusses important issue of how to monitor your reputation on social networks. While including some practical tips, the article discusses the importance of being proactive with your online reputation and privacy in what is described as “this Wild West world”.
Leave a Comment » | Defamation, Due Diligence, Facebook, Internet, Monitoring, Social Networking Websites | Tagged: Due Diligence, Facebook, Google, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Social Networking | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
October 15, 2010
An Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has issued a precedent setting ruling that relates to Facebook comments and, specifically, whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can apply to universities. In the case of Pridgen v. University of Calgary, the court ruled that the post-secondary institution violated two students’ Charter rights when it sanctioned them for posting critical comments about a professor on Facebook. The students were found by the University to have committed non-academic misconduct and were placed on probation as a result of their Facebook comments. They applied for judicial review to set aside that decision on various grounds, including that their right to free expression under the Charter. The University argued before the court that the students had committed acts of defamation on Facebook.
One of the big issues in the case related to whether or not the Charter applies to universities. The University argued that the Charter only applies to government institutions and did not apply in this particular case because the University is not part of the government and was engaged in regulating its own internal affairs when disciplining the students. Earlier court decisions have left open the possibility that the Charter might apply to subordinate bodies created and supported by the government, including “many forms of delegated legislation, regulations, orders in council, possibly municipal by-laws, and by-laws and regulations of other creatures of Parliament and the legislatures”. In this particular case, the court declared that “the University is not a Charter free zone”. As a result, and considering the particular facts of this case, the court ruled that the students’ Charter rights were infringed by the manner in which they were sanctioned for their online behavior. A University spokesman has indicated that its legal staff will review the decision to determine whether there will be an appeal.
Leave a Comment » | Defamation, Facebook, Online Reputation Management, Social Networking Websites, Website Discussion Boards | Tagged: Defamation, Facebook, Online Reputation Management, Social Networking | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
September 27, 2010
CJOB|680′s Geoff Currier recently asked me to participate in his live radio program called “The Nighthawk”. Geoff and callers raised a number of issues related to privacy and access to information law including the following question that Geoff asked… “Once I go on Twitter/Facebook, do I automatically surrender my privacy rights? In Vancouver wherein an alleged gang rape and some photos of the victim were posted online and distributed out there…what does our law say about that? You are standing on Portage & Main and you kiss your wife and I happen to take a photograph of that… is that an invasion of your privacy?” To hear the answer to this and other questions please listen to the live broadcast recording here>>.
Thanks to Geoff Currier and CJOB|680 for the invitation to participate in the program.
Leave a Comment » | Access to Information, Defamation, Facebook, Online Reputation Management, Privacy | Tagged: Access to Information, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Karen
April 5, 2010
Are website operators presumed to have “published” defamatory materials that they deliberately link to from their websites? If not, what are the circumstances where it can be inferred that a website operator has “published” hyperlinked defamatory materials? We may be about to find out. The Supreme Court of Canada has just granted leave to appeal of Crookes v. Newton, the B.C. decision that I summarized in a previous post last October.
There’s still plenty of “grey areas” in Internet law. Hopefully, the Supreme Court of Canada will provide more definitive guidance for legal practitioners and website operators in the growing area of online reputation management. In the meantime, website operators should seek legal advice prior to hyperlinking to any potentially defamatory materials on the Internet.
Leave a Comment » | Blogs, Defamation, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Technology | Tagged: Blogs, Defamation, Internet, Online Reputation Management | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
November 9, 2009
A great feature of website discussion boards is that they allow people to instantly share thoughts on a given topic with others from their community or around the world. However, they are fraught with complicated legal issues for the businesses, or website operators, who make them available on the Internet.
To prove defamation, a claimant must demonstrate that a defendant “published” defamatory words. Currently in Canada it’s clear that a person who posts defamatory comments about another person or business on a discussion board can be liable for defamation. It’s also clear, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, that a person or business may be liable in certain circumstances if they hyperlink to defamatory content on another website. But what about defamatory comments made by others on your website? The answer is less than clear, primarily because of two generally competing public policy views. One view is that website operators should not be liable for defamatory content posted on their discussion boards because the task of monitoring is too onerous for most businesses; and that website operators aren’t “publishing” the defamatory content but are merely “distributing” (which generally doesn’t attract liability for defamation). The other view is that website operators should be liable because the potential for instantaneous and severe damage to claimant’s reputations caused by online defamation should compel website operators to monitor, and be responsible for, their discussion boards.
After American courts struggled with these competing public policy views, the U.S. Congress passed legislation granting immunity to businesses that operate website discussion boards, regardless of the level of control that website operators may have regarding posted comments. The case of Finkel v. Facebook is a recent example of the immunity that can be provided to U.S. based companies. There is no similar “immunity” legislation in Canada, and the specific issue has not yet come before a Canadian court. Of course, each case is decided on its own facts, and one would anticipate that key factors a Canadian court would consider would be a website’s Terms of Use, the degree of control and content monitoring by a website operator, and any actions a website operator took (or didn’t take) in response to a notice from a third party regarding defamatory comments.
This is a rapidly emerging area of law, and businesses should consult a lawyer with relevant expertise to assist in drafting adequate Terms of Use and to discuss potential risks prior to launching, or continuing to host, a website discussion board.
Leave a Comment » | Defamation, Facebook, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Social Networking Websites, Website Discussion Boards | Tagged: Defamation, Online Reputation Management, Website Discussion Boards | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
October 21, 2009
The number of cases involving Internet defamation seem to be growing every day. So too, are the number of related issues that businesses need to consider in relation to online activities. Case in point is the recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision of Crookes v. Newton, where the court was asked if providing a hyperlink to another website containing defamatory comments constituted Internet defamation.
A key hurdle that claimants must prove in defamation lawsuits is that defendants “published” defamatory words. Internet defamation is no different, and in the Crookes case, the court concluded that providing a hyperlink does not necessarily equal the “publishing” of defamatory content. If a website simply provides a hyperlink, or describes a hyperlink’s content in a neutral manner, then according to the court in Crookes, the hyperlink is not adopting the offending words as its own and is not indirectly “publishing” them. However, if the linking website endorses the content of the hyperlink material or encourages the reader to click the hyperlink to the website that contains defamatory material, the defendant may be just as liable for defamation as the original author of the offending material.
The Crookes case provides useful guidance, but businesses should be reminded that each Internet defamation case will turn on its own specific facts, and factors that will be considered include the wording, tone and placement of hyperlinks. To help minimize the risk of being sued for the publication of defamatory comments, business owners should seek legal advice prior to hyperlinking to any potentially defamatory materials on the Internet.
2 Comments | Blogs, Defamation, Internet, Online Reputation Management | Tagged: Blogs, Defamation, Internet, Online Reputation Management | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
October 14, 2009
A widely reported and controversial issue these days relates the identification of anonymous bloggers (I’ve commented on this issue in previous posts). On point, Cook County (Illinois) Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Lawrence has ordered the identification of an anonymous commenter. According to the Daily Herald, Judge Lawrence has ruled that the Daily Herald and Comcast must reveal the identity of a person who posted a comment on dailyherald.com.
It seems that website operators are being increasingly asked, or ordered, to reveal the identity of anonymous commentators or bloggers, many of whom have likely presumed that their identity would never be disclosed. However, Northwestern University law professor and First Amendment scholar Martin Redish tells the Daily Herald, “[a]ssume a worst-case scenario”. “Proceed on the assumption that your identity can be revealed.”
Americans are very fond of their First Amendment right to free speech (in Canada we call it Freedom of Expression). However, this right does not protect writers whose comments are defamatory. As I’ve said before, this is a rapidly emerging area of law and it’s becoming increasingly important to stay on top of developments.
Leave a Comment » | Blogs, Defamation, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Privacy | Tagged: Blogs, Defamation, Identity, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
September 29, 2009
The Lawyers Weekly is running a story that focuses on one of the most cutting edge and rapidly emerging areas of law – online reputation management. Here are some excerpts from the story, which profiles an ongoing client matter:
“On the heels of a recent New York state court decision that ordered Google Inc. to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger in a defamation suit, a Winnipeg business lawyer has asked the California-based online search engine giant to do the same and out a blogger on behalf of an Ottawa-area resident. Brian Bowman, a partner with Pitblado LLP in Winnipeg who specializes in privacy, access to information, online reputation management, intellectual property and technology matters, says that his client was defamed on a site appearing on Google-operated blogspot.com (also known as Blogger.com).”
“The New York court decision and the Canadian case raise “one of the fundamental legal questions of our time over the appropriate balance between legitimate, anonymous Internet speech versus the right for people to protect their reputations,” says Bowman, who expects more of these situations will emerge in the near future.”
Read the full story here.
2 Comments | Access to Information, Blogs, Defamation, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Social Networking Websites | Tagged: Access to Information, Blogs, Defamation, Google, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Social Networking | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
August 31, 2009
For over a year, there has been widespread speculation in Ottawa over who is behind a particular blog. In this respect, I’ve been retained by a prominent individual residing in the Ottawa area to deal with defamatory content on the blog and to discover the identity of the anonymous blogger (or bloggers) for court action and, ultimately, damages and costs. Click here to listen to my recent interview on point with Ottawa’s CFRA radio station. The matters discussed in the interview have received considerable national media attention including from the National Post, Maclean’s magazine, the Ottawa Citizen, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Ottawa Sun.
1 Comment | Blogs, Defamation, Internet, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Social Networking Websites | Tagged: Google, Online Reputation Management, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
During the course of my practice I’m often asked to provide social media law advice, typically to organizations or individuals who want defamatory, proprietary or privacy invasive content removed from the Internet. Once content has been successfully removed from a website I often discuss with clients issues related to Internet cached webpages. So I thought it would be helpful to provide some general information on what Internet cached webpages are and how you can deal with them in situations where you don’t want to have certain content available online.
