Skip to main content

courting disaster

canada's supreme court, less cute than shown
it may have flown below most people's radar that the canadian supreme court is to render a decision today that could cast a huge legal pall over the internet in canada, effectively shackling professional journalists, amateur bloggers... pretty much anyone who knows how to post a link. because the decision they're making is on whether or not hyperlinking to a site critical of a person, business or organisation can constitute libel.

note, this doesn't mean that the person responsible actually had any hand in creating the critical content [which would clearly fall under libel laws]- the case hinges on whether or not simply directing someone's attention to it constitutes an illegal act. viewed in terms of print journalism, that would be like requiring that a reporter who seeks to mention the name of book on their subject be responsible for verifying all the research included in that book. of course, that would also mean that the reporter would be responsible for verifying all of the information included in works cited by that book. you can see where this is leading.

the fact is, however, that we wouldn't place those demands on even professional journalists, let alone amateurs writing for a local newsletter [which is, essentially what most bloggers are] in any forum other than the internet.

a while back, i posted a link to a story on republican presidential candidate rick santorum [there is no way in hell i'm posting a link to a google search for that guy's name until i know which way today's decision goes] to my facebook account. i had a few responses to the effect that the author's flippant and exaggerated commentary made it clear that he was prejudiced against mr. santorum [no argument there] and that therefore the whole article should be dismissed as fiction. i responded by posting links to "serious" publications verifying the story to make it clear that, while the presentation might not have been particularly professional, it was dealing with true events. here's the thing: i just copied the links from the bottom of the story i'd originally posted. they were always right there, should anyone have chosen to click on them.

if this debate had occurred thirty years ago, anyone seeking to verify a story would have had to go to their local library and hope that they could access the sources cited. but very few people would have done so and chances are that the article would have simply been accepted or dismissed, probably based on the pre-existing opinions of the person reading it. although it is many times easier to fact-check articles on the internet, there seems to be the expectation that anyone who posts information has a responsibility greater than any other type of journalist to provide and vet their sources. if this case were about a newspaper, or radio station or television station, it would never have seen the inside of a small claims court, much less the supreme court of canada.

this would be sort of ludicrously funny if it weren't for the fact that public money, our money, collected in the form of taxes and service fees, given in trust to our representatives in government, is being used to fund it. i expect the supreme court, much like the lower court whose decision is being appealed, will rule against the plaintiff. but that doesn't make it any less insulting that the case has made it this far, or that those of us who enjoy having a forum to air opinions are stuck holding our breath, waiting to find out just how stupid the legal system can get.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …