Dr. Dawg defamation decision - Baglow v Fourniers

[Faramir]

Congrats! Awesome! Finally a ruling to challenge the basically indulgent system (As Steyn points out) we have towards well moneyed well connected serial litigants. (A weakness it seems in Commonwealth based justice systems). It was not an easy task I can guess...seems to me US Justices err on the side of throwing out nuisance suits while defendants here have to work tooth and nail to keep them from pounding them down.

[Peter O'Donnell]

It may all be a matter of heat prostration. The hearing was on July 21st, the hottest day of the year, when it was about 37 outside and inside the courtroom too. There was a general legal debriefing underway after lunch. Being a sensitive young thing from the rain forest, I was unconscious throughout and had to be revived by strong drink at an undisclosed location. Thank goodness that crash law degree I got from East South Dakota State College helped me function, without that, I would have been like a trophy law clerk that you see in great numbers around the lunchroom.

[Red Green]

It may all be a matter of heat prostration. The hearing was on July 21st, the hottest day of the year, when it was about 37 outside and inside the courtroom too. There was a general legal debriefing underway after lunch. Being a sensitive young thing from the rain forest, I was unconscious throughout and had to be revived by strong drink at an undisclosed location. Thank goodness that crash law degree I got from East South Dakota State College helped me function, without that, I would have been like a trophy law clerk that you see in great numbers around the lunchroom.

I'm sure the thought of having your sweaty mass grace the courtroom at future hearings weighed heavily in the judge's determination of a summary judgement. Way to play there POD!

[Darren]

Wow, a judge who gets it. Who realized the case was essentially providing over a drunken political argument, and realized it was a waste of the court's time.
Congrats all around.

[Narrow Back]

The judge's name is Mr. Justice Peter Annis. I am so very impressed by how he thinks.

[Darren]

The judge's name is Mr. Justice Peter Annis. I am so very impressed by how he thinks.

Roger that. My only worry is that it gets overturned by a higher court.

[Narrow Back]

The judge's name is Mr. Justice Peter Annis. I am so very impressed by how he thinks.

Roger that. My only worry is that it gets overturned by a higher court.

Interesting. I would like to hear Blaw Blaw's opinion. I thought this was a superb document that defies meaningful criticism. Let me be clear, I am not talking about minutiae.

[Red Green]

The judge's name is Mr. Justice Peter Annis. I am so very impressed by how he thinks.

Roger that. My only worry is that it gets overturned by a higher court.

Interesting. I would like to hear Blaw Blaw's opinion. I thought this was a superb document that defies meaningful criticism. Let me be clear, I am not talking about minutiae.

This was a summary judgement, which is the equivalent of calling the game at the coin-toss. Trying to appeal this would mean doubling-down on a very bad bet.

[ChangingColours]

Take a bow, congratulations!

[Mark Fournier]

As delighted as we are that we have been absolved of any wrongdoing, what's important is the path Justice Annis took to get there.

I'm impressed with the detail, thought and research that went into the judgment. I imagine this case will be referred to in future such incidents.

I am equally impressed, LAR, but not really surprised.

So there is a judge somewhere who possesses common sense and honesty. That is a very pleasant surprise. This is excellent news, especially coming after the bad news of last weekend.

Between Richard Warman and John Baglow we have had ample opportunity to try to argue issues about the internet to judges who didn't have the slightest clue about, or interest in, what we were talking about. Their eyes glazed over at the first utterance of "IP". Some had no knowledge of blogging and no acquaintance with political debate on the internet. We didn't need to dumb down our arguments to Justice Annis, he understands the internet environment and he used well this opportunity to add some clarity and strength to the law.

[Ogopogo]

The latest from Dawg. I'm not sure if this is his reaction to the decision against him. It almost seems like he's flailing:

Defamation and worse: the case for busting Internet anonymity
By Dr.Dawg on August 30, 2011 12:05 PM | 16 Comments and 2 Reactions


Stalker1.jpg

Is there a right to Internet anonymity?

Once I was almost persuaded. Now I believe there is not, and should not, be any such “right.”

I would certainly argue for the right to a private life, including anonymity in that sphere if desired and practicable. But once a person participates in the public arena, he or she has forfeited any such claims.

Worried about retaliation? Problems with an employer? Change the law, offer protections as need be.

What about whistleblowing? The laws as they stand do not offer nearly enough of a shield against retaliation, nor have they been useful or effective in any case. The current legislation that covers the federal public service, for example, has proven to be a sick joke.

So fix the legislation. We’ll all be better off for it.

But in any case, the problem is that, for every honest whistleblower in need of protection, or playful commenter, there are hordes of defamers, liars and stalkers. Some examples:

*

A successful businesswoman is the target of repeated, organized death threats.
*

Parents grieving the loss of their child are subjected to an organized series of taunts, “for the lulz.”
*

A Canadian anti-Nazi fighter, Richard Warman, is repeatedly defamed by commenters hiding behind masks of anonymity.

The cowards participating in this sort of thing have, until very recently, been permitted to remain unaccountable. But legislation is evolving.

Recently, the owners of the far-right website Free Dominion lost their final battle to maintain the confidentiality of two individuals who defamed Warman, and will have to pony up some hefty legal bills as well.

In Los Angeles Ontario, a judge recently ordered the “outing” of an anonymous defamatory blogger.

The laws, they are a-changing’.

Now, to declare interest, I’ve been the occasional target of these work-in-the-dark types myself. When my late partner was dying in 2006, amongst the many messages of goodwill I received from bloggers and commenters right across the political spectrum, one individual took it upon himself to wish her “a slow and painful death,” and I guess he got his wish. More recently, two or three of the blogosphere’s bottom-feeders have made me a kind of project, issuing regular defamatory accusations at their sites.

I know that feelings run high in the blogosphere on the question of anonymity. It can be fun, and liberating, and the motives for it can be entirely innocent. But for too long, irresponsibility and lack of accountability have come, in some people’s minds, to be equated with “freedom of speech.”

Nuh-uh. Not buying it. Anything does not go.

Op-eds and letters to the editors of newspapers must be signed. Why not blogposts and comments? What’s the moral difference?

There is none. Play in private, stay private. Play in public, be prepared to identify yourselves—or get identified, and don’t whinge about it. Right, J. Meir? Remember where repeated defamation got you, Mark G.?

Let me be clear: the anonymity of commenters and co-bloggers here at Dawg’s will continue to be protected. But this is a courtesy, as they well know. For the most part, the folks who post and leave messages here are a civilized lot who are genuinely interested in debate. Whatever their reasons for adopting “handles,” they generally govern themselves like responsible citizens.

If something unconscionable were to slip past me, however, I would have no difficulty cooperating with a legal requirement to identify the culprit, and such requirements really need to be much more clearly in place.

Internet anonymity can be, and too often is, the enemy of civil discourse. It is a privilege, not a right. And those who abuse the privilege should forfeit it.

[H/ts Damian Penny and Hollaback Ottawa]

[free_life2]

Well ok then, the Dog will decide who gets anonymity or not on the internet......we can all go home now ...that's just swell because we all know how fair he is.........

[WestViking]

Well ok then, the Dog will decide who gets anonymity or not on the internet......we can all go home now ...that's just swell because we all know how fair he is.........

Equating Internet forums to newspaper letters to the editor is an inane argument. If newspapers are so good, why does the Dawg bother with a personal blog - and a pseudonym?

[Jay Currie]

This is both a pleasing and an important decision.

The Judge understood the essence of the conversation we have on the internet.

I can't tell you all the pleasure I took in posting the decision link to his blog. http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/08/defamation-and-worse-the-case-for-busting-internet-anonymity.shtml#disqus_thread

Because, as I pointed out to Dawg at the time, his outrage was feigned and should never have lead to a Courtroom.

Unlike many of my friends on the right I have a certain amount of time for the Dawg: I disagree with him but I don't think he is a scumsucker like Lucy or the Lying Jackal. He was wrong here. Wrong in that he was willing to dish it out but not take it. Which the Judge recognized in a very learned and almost certainly unappealable decision.

The judge understood the facts and the facts of the internet. Dawg and his ilk do not much like those facts because they undermine the Establishment's control of political discourse in Canada and the world.

We are all a long way from the final victory of free speech in Canada; but you can see it from here.

Well done Mark and Connie and Peter!

[Peter O'Donnell]

(edit -- Hi there Jay, nice to hear from you. I wrote this while you were posting, it refers to the previous comments)

I believe he wrote that with the Warman case in mind, but there is one thing that needs to be said very clearly here.

Whatever happened five years ago when Dawg's antagonists (at that time) sent him nasty personal messages about a dying friend or partner -- that's just not on. It doesn't justify some of the things that have been said about various conservatives since then, but as freelife comments above, there's a sense of flailing about, and I know the feeling -- you know somebody out there has said something awful (in my case, somebody ruined my career at the age of thirty by spreading a totally untrue rumour about me) and you might have some clue who it is, but you have no proof. So you tend to think any relatively nearby target (nearby to the suspected culprit) might do instead.

Having read over Jay's comment that follows, I have taken advantage of the edit function and withdrawn the rest of this post. Dawg has lost his way and I've got better things to do than argue whether or not I'm a Nazi. If I were interested in becoming a Nazi, I would have plenty of folks in our progressive movement to teach me the ropes of anti-Semitism, but so far, the only place where I have made much progress is Mozart and Beethoven. Does that count?