Freedom of web speech at risk
2005-03-09 08:04
Toronto - The Washington Post, backed by 50 global media giants, on Tuesday challenged a landmark internet libel claim lodged in Canadian courts, which critics fear could squelch freedom of expression in cyberspace.
The appeal seeks to overturn a previous ruling that Canada has jurisdiction to hear a $6.5m damages claim lodged against the United States-based paper by a former United Nations official now living in Ontario.
Media firms, including Cable News Network, The New York Times, the London Times newspaper and Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun, argue that if the case proceeds, it could force them to block access to their websites in some nations.
Such a move would undermine the very rationale of the World Wide Web, and be a detriment to global freedom of expression, the firms said.
Numerous implications
It also raises the spectre of limitless liability for newspapers with websites, read by millions of readers around the world.
Ghanian-born former United Nations official Cheickh Bangoura is suing the Post over articles in 1997 mentioning allegations of sexual and financial wrongdoing against him while he was working in Africa.
His case largely rides on the fact that the articles can still be read online in Canada, and suggests a precedent that material posted on a website should be considered as published in the nation where it is read.
Tuesday's case in the Ontario Court of Appeals challenges a previous ruling by a lower court that the paper should have considered the allegations would impact the official's life, wherever he subsequently chose to live.
The Post argues the case has no connection with Ontario, despite the fact that the official now lives in the province. Bangoura was living in Kenya when the alleged libels occurred.
"The extraordinary nature of the ruling presents real dangers to the continued development of the internet and global communications," the coalition of media firms argued in a submission to the court in support of the Post.
Lawyers for the Post argue that Canadian courts did not have jurisdiction as Bangoura did not even move to Canada until after the stories were published, and did not take up residence in Ontario until 2000.
They proposed Washington as the proper venue for such a claim. Incidentally US libel laws are more favourable to media organisations owing to freedom of speech provisions enshrined in the US Constitution.
But Bangoura's lawyers responded that since the damage to his reputation was most pronounced, and ongoing, in Ontario, where he now lives, he should be entitled to redress in the province's courts.
In a point of key interest to the world's top media firms, they warned that newspapers should be aware of potential legal ramifications in foreign countries from posting material on the Internet.