p2pnet - rss feed: Wayne Crookes on slashdot
p2pnet.net news view:- Can we soon expect to see Wayne Crookes adding slashdot to his list of web sites he’s says are defaming him by linking to articles he doesn’t like?
“An anonymous reader clues us that the wildly litigious Canadian Wayne Crookes, who has been suing the Internet for defamation, has added Michael Geist to his hit list. Geist is a well-known Canadian law professor and blogger,” posts kdawson, going on.
“His offense: linking on his blog to site that links to another site that contains material allegedly of a defamatory nature. (Others would characterize that material as historical facts about Crooks’s tenure at the helm of the Canadian Green Party.)”
The first link points to an earlier slashdot post on the same subject.
The second points to Geist’s blog in which he says, among other things, “I have not been served with the suit, but the reports indicate that I am being sued for an allegedly defamatory third party comment on my site that I took down and for writing about, and linking to, P2PNet.net, which in turn linked to another site that allegedly contained a defamatory posting.”
Of course, ultimately, both slashdot pieces directly or indirectly link to links linking to other links which link to articles or links linking to the links Crookes objects to.
Yes. Well.
It’s as ridiculous as it seems to be but believe it or not, the campaign is having an effect. All too many sites are carefully steering away from any mention of Crookes and his claims for fear of finding themselves on his list of alleged defamers.
The law is an ass
Among those on the list are Wikimedia, Yahoo and Google, all of whom have more than enough financial and legal resources to deal with Crookes and others of his ilk.
However, most of the people on the list are small sites completely lacking in similar resources and unless they can find lawyers willing to take them on pro bono, their chances of mounting a reasonable defence against Crookes and his claims aren’t exactly high.
Suing people who don’t have any way of defending themselves is a ploy popular with the corporate entertainment and software cartels as they try to ‘persuade’ their customers that buying industry product, and only industry product, is the sensible thing to do.
It’s a given that the law is an ass and that it’s heavily weighted in favour of people wielding big sticks because they’ve got a lot of cash.
But there’s an excellent chance Crookes will come unstuck because as phorm observes in a slashdot response, “One of the differences up here (Canada) from the American system is that if (and I hope, when) Mr Crookes loses this case, then he can look forward to paying the costs of the defendant. Usually that acts as a strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits. I guess it doesn’t always work, but it’ll be nice to see the big fat bill forthcoming.”
Says yet another, “Mr Crookes [removed to avoid potential liability], however [removed to avoid potential liability] and [removed to avoid potential liability]. So, in fact [removed to avoid potential liability] and to be honest [removed just in case].
Meanwhile, last year Chris Tindal, whom Crookes names with Geist, wrote an excellent breakdown of Canada’s ludicrous liable legislation.
And well-known Canadian media lawyer Dan Burnett who is, not at all coincidentally, representing me and and Wikimedia in this case, and me in another defamation suit launched against me by Nikki Hemming who’s in charge of Sharman Networks’ p2p file sharing application, Kazaa, recently said:
“For all the lofty quotes about free speech in Canadian jurisprudence, the reality is that our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English speaking world.”
He adds:
As John Milton put it, ‘there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.’ Areopagitica (1644).
But at the end of the day, “you cannot assume that losing cases and paying costs will deter litigious people,” says Flying pig in another slashdot comment post, and unless and until Canada’s defamation and libel laws are brought from the Dark Ages into the 21st century, that’s the way it’ll be and unfair and unbalanced lawsuits of the kind levelled by Crookes will continue.
Jon newton - p2pnet.net
Also See:
posts kdawson - Can a Blogroll Be Defamatory?, May 30, 2007
excellent breakdown - The Silliness of Suing A Wiki, August 7, 2006
Canadian media lawyer - Canada, a haven for libel lawsuits, October 27, 2006
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
May 31st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
There’s some intriqueing reading here:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_en___US205&q=Wayne+Crookes
yeh, u’ll have to copy-n-paste the link. u know the gig.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:45 am
Why Does Google Publish Libel?
“At a time when Google proposes to amass ever more sensitive and personal information on Internet users worldwide, Google’s lack of responsibility in actively distributing unsupported libel has given many, real cause for concern. It is the unique status of libel law in America that allows Google immunity from prosecution from anything they publish on www.google.com. And yes, that includes anything they’d like to publish about you” claims Brian Retkin Director dotWORLDS.
London, England 5/31/2007 6:24 AM GMT (TransWorldNews)
By allowing defamation, libel and character assassination to be posted on their Search Engine by the unverified, the alias and the anonymous, Google undermines and threatens individuals and corporations alike†says Retkin “Alarmingly, Google operates such a policy without fear of accountability, responsibility or compensation for any unjustified degradation suffered by individuals or for the potentially huge costs incurred by businesses supplying bona fida goods and services to the economyâ€.
“Google’s complete lack of care in this field is certainly not reflected in their own ambition as they adapt their Search Engine results to accommodate their own sensitivities†says Retkin “In facilitating their growth globally, Google often filters offensive material when catering to new markets with tighter controls. Unfortunately for almost everyone else, or at least those without a few million dollars in the bank to fight back, should Google distribute unsubstantiated and damaging libel about you, there’s little that you can do about it – at least not for a few years as that’s how long they keep their information currentâ€.
Is this the same Google that’s now begging for even more personal information about you, your family, your lifestyle and any other sensitive data you might care provide? “Well, yes it is†says Retkin “Today, Google needs you. Google needs you for their databases, for their marketing projects and for umpteen other schemes under development. On this subject at least, Google can’t wait to help you out. The questions that arise are whether or not Google can be trusted to use the information responsibly and whether, on past performance, their proposals should even be considered?â€
Why has this been such a worry to so many? “In our case and for some time†say Retkin, our company dotWORLDS has been trying to persuade Google to remove numerous grossly libellous articles published on their Search Engine. Google’s initial response was that they had no responsibility for any content displayed on their websites and that complaints should be directed to the author. However, as these articles were written and posted anonymously (an option available to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the Internet) there was no way of tracing the culprit(s) even though we were fairly certain it came from one or more of our competitors.â€
dotWORLDS feel that these libellous postings would probably never have been seen but for the Search Engine, as they believe that the attacks on them are all but indistinguishable from so many other unsubstantiated and obscure grudge web pages on the net. “Rather†say dotWORLDS “it is Google’s web-crawl system that allows for just about anything, no matter how inaccurate, spurious, nonsensical or even illegal to be gathered unscreened, recorded, indexed and ranked, later to be disseminated at Google’s inclination to millions Internet users across the worldâ€
There are rulings that Google can rely on in cases such as dotWORLDS and they are the same rulings that would probably govern the use of your private information should Google get hold of it. For example:
1) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (USA), 1996….…This Act specifically states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.” That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.
2) Excerpt from BBC report from November 2006 entitled “Bloggers and US internet providers cannot be liable for posting defamatory comments written by third parties, the California Supreme Court has ruled” …….Overturning a decision by the San Francisco appeal court, the court ruled that people claiming they were defamed online could now only seek damages from the original author of the comments - and not the website which re-posted it. The court ruled that that Internet Service Providers were protected by US Federal law that said providers of chat rooms or news groups are not considered the publishers of information furnished by others. “The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications,” said Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.
Still, it’s not all bad news. Using legal argument, dotWORLDS estimate that they have forced Google to remove over 1500 libellous links from Google’s websites worldwide (eg: google.co.uk, google.fr etc) – with the notable exception of Google’s American website www.google.com. Even so, dotWORLDS are convinced that despite the differing libel laws, they’re moving closer to fulfilling even that challenge. More recently dotWORLDS claim they discovered that Google had begun re-publishing libel in the UK, that under threat of court action from dotWORLDS, Google had agreed to withdraw. “We believe that Google have now committed a serious offence under English law†say dotWORLDS
Search for dotWORLDS on Google’s UK website (www.google.co.uk) and dotWORLDS claim you won’t find much of the libel remaining. DotWORLDS say it was a very different story not so long ago although much has been achieved since then. What you will find instead are a number of legal notices at the bottom of the search pages to the effect “In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org”.
Whilst this is a victory for dotWORLDS, it is by no means a total victory. Make exactly the same dotWORLDS search on Google’s USA website (www.google.com) and included on the information displayed you will see the libel that Google has deleted on its other websites. Even more disappointing for dotWORLDS is that there is little or no mention of the Google/dotWORLDS dispute “Where is the balance?†says Retkin “We haven’t seen dotWORLDS legal requests to Google, nor any of Google’s deletions notices that have been posted on Google’s other websites. We haven’t even see the hyperlinks to information on the deletions dotWORLDS forced Google to make. This alone should be of great concern to anyone relying on Google’s information as truth (although why shouldn’t they). In the case of dotWORLDS, not only is Google potentially misinforming their American users but they are also putting them at risk of immediate legal action should they repeat the libel publicly. In a lengthy and expensive hearing, the plea ‘I saw it on Google’ is not a defense. It is only Google that has protectionâ€.
Whether or not Google wish to remove libellous content on their USA website, having already made a judgement call to delete it in the UK, should the same information on the Google/dotWORLDS dispute be displayed on Google USA. “Yes†say dotWORLDS “by refusing to publish crucial information on their own home ground in the same way, Google’s claim that they are not the arbiter of the Internet becomes spurious. Have Google intentionally censured their own content and if so, what is the reason? Coming directly from Google office, this information on the dispute should be the first thing displayed. However, on Google’s USA, website the information it doesn’t even seem to exist - at least not where it’s supposed to“.
Google for us was about relevancy, accuracy and quality, say dotWORLDS “but out of approximately 8 billion results currently available, suddenly somehow more than 1 billion are related to Google. Can there really be 1 billion interesting, relevant and/or different things to say about them? Perhaps the quest is now for quantity whatever the cost? Perhaps Google believe that the Search Engine with the most web pages can triumph over all others. Perhaps this has become a race to an indeterminate finish line. If this is so, perhaps this is the answer to the question: Why does Google publish libel? Perhaps it’s just because Google can“.
support@dotworlds.net
www.dotworlds.net
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:57 am
Slashdot is run in the United States. So most likely they won’t fact the same type of tyranny that Canadians do. You should move out of that crappy country anyway Jon and save youself some trouble.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
[…] already on the wrong end of a lawsuit launched by Canadian businessman Wayne Crookes (right), together with Wikimedia, Pbwiki, Yahoo, MySpace, Openpolitics.ca, Domains by Proxy, […]