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
February 3, 2010
I’d like to welcome my firm, and colleagues at Pitblado LLP, to the blogosphere!
We’ve just launched a new firm blog, called PitbLAWg, that’s intended to provide readers with practical commentary regarding timely and relevant legal issues affecting you and your business.
I hope you visit PitbLAWg by clicking here.
Leave a Comment » | Blogs | Tagged: Blogs, Businesses, Social Networking | 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.
1 Comment | 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
February 20, 2009
Are you new to social media? If so, you probably feel like people are talking in a whole different language. Blogs, wikis, RSS, Twitter – this is English? Or is it Venusian?
After mentioning to a few colleagues that I’d like them to subscribe to this blog using RSS, I realized that I was probably talking to them in “Venusian”. So for all the newbies, here’s a brief explanation of RSS.
RSS stands for “really simple syndication” (or “rich site summary”, depending on which explanation you read). It’s a method of alerting the subscriber to new content. Instead of receiving an email when there’s a new post on a blog, you check your feed reader.
Now, I can hear some people thinking, why would I want to check another site when I’m checking my email a couple of times a day? To that, I say, how much email do you receive? How many newsletters that you get by email do you actually read? The beauty of RSS technology is it lets you do your reading when you’re ready to do it.
As I mentioned, there is one more step you have to take, and that is to set up a feed reader. Fortunately, at least two browsers (IE7 and Firefox) offer built-in readers. Select the “Subscribe via RSS” button
and follow the directions.
If that still doesn’t make sense, here’s what Wikipedia says. For those of you who like a visual explanation, check out RSS in Plain English from the folks at the Common Craft store. I’m now subscribing to other blogs using RSS. If RSS isn’t your thing, you can always subscribe to this blog by e-mail. RSS or e-mail subscription options are provided on the right hand side of the page – I hope you subscribe!
Leave a Comment » | Blogs, Internet, Social Networking Websites, Technology | Tagged: Blogs, Information Technology, Internet, Social Networking, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
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.
