World wide web of litigation?
2005-03-14 08:43
Toronto - A historic legal battle being waged in Canada pits the Washington Post and 50 media giants against an aggrieved former United Nations official.
The case hinges on whether a person who believes they have been wronged on a website can challenge a foreign publication in court where they live - or in a place where they may choose to reside in future.
Both sides are testing the limits of libel and defamation laws designed years ago for print publications, which are threatened with obsolescence by the power of the web.
The Post is challenging an earlier court ruling that a former UN official, Cheickh Bangoura, can sue the Post in Ontario over two articles that accused him of sexual and financial transgressions.
The paper and its backers, including CNN, the London Times and the Yomiuri Shimbun, argue that if the case goes ahead, any media organisation could be sued anywhere, over stories posted on its website.
Press freedom
"We are concerned that this case will have important consequences for press freedom and online freedom of expression that will extend far beyond Canada's borders," said Reporters Without Borders on Friday.
Brian Rogers, a lawyer for the media groups, told the Ontario Court of Appeal last week that Internet archives were a modern day version of the "great libraries of Babylon" but could be restricted if Bangoura's case is allowed to go ahead.
But Judge Robert Armstrong, one of three judges hearing the case, noted: "I suppose, on the balancing side, (the Internet) can be a tremendous force for destroying a person's reputation."
According to Judge Romain Pitts, in his original judgement which allowed Bangoura to sue the Post in Ontario, media organisations should consider the impact of their work.
"The Washington Post is a major newspaper in the capital of the most powerful country in a world now made figuratively smaller by ... the Internet.
"Frankly the defendants should have reasonably foreseen that the story would follow the plantiff wherever he resided."
Critics warned the ruling would force media firms to employ lawyers in virtually every country in the world with an online connection.
Web surfers living in jurisdictions where libel laws are stricter than in the United States, for instance Canada or Britain, may find themselves blocked from some content on newspaper websites, they warn.
The Post case is complicated by the fact that the alleged libels, in articles in 1997, did not even take place while Bangoura was living in Canada, and he did not take up residence in Ontario until 2000.
If they rule in favour of Bangoura, he will press ahead with a C$9m lawsuit (about R40m) damages claim against the Post, arguing it damaged his reputation as he tries to build a life in Canada.
In another recent case in Australia, known as the Gutnick case, a man was given permission to sue US-based Dow Jones for a story published in Barron's magazine which it owns, accessed via the Internet.