[Forwarder's Note: This message had the following files attached
Attachment : U.S. and Internation#4E4BD6.pdf (PDF)
Attachment :Bangoura Intervenors#4E4BD8.pdf (PDF)
Attachment :Canadian Affidavit.pdf (PDF)
If you want copies of them... let me know and I will send them to you.
George]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:00:14 -0600
From: Paul Nielson
List-Help:
List-Subscribe:
List-Owner:
List-Archive:
Subject: [CPI-UA] Global media coalition claims Canada wants to rule
the web : Internet
libel case threatens free speech, coalition says as Ontario appeal hearing
opens
Bangoura v. Washington Post, 2004 CanLII 26633 (ON S.C.)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2004/2004onsc10181.html
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 7:56 AM
Subject: RE: Media campaign statement to the Ontario Court of Appeal
Paul -- here are our intervention papers and our factum
(attachments); the latter contains our legal arguments. A press
release actually would have been a great idea -- one would think we
would have thought of that, given that we’re representing 50 media
companies! But we didn’t think of it, and thus don’t have one. Good
idea for next time round, though. Thanks.
Kurt
Media giants join forces to fight Ontario ruling : Internet libel case
threatens free speech, coalition says as appeal hearing opens By PAUL WALDIE
Globe & Mail March 9, 2005 - Page A7
[Arrived with no URL]
TORONTO -- More than 50 of the world's largest media organizations have
banded together to overturn an Ontario court ruling that they say threatens
free speech and development of the Internet.
"This is a case of free expression," Brian McLeod Rogers, a Toronto lawyer
representing the media coalition, told the Ontario Court of Appeal
yesterday.
The 52-member coalition includes CNN, The New York Times, Time magazine, The
Times of London, Google and Yahoo, as well as Canadian media such as The
Globe and Mail, CanWest Publications Inc., CTV and CBC.
The case involves Cheickh Bangoura, a former senior official with the United
Nations in Africa who now lives in Oakville, Ont.
The UN fired Mr. Bangoura in 1997 after two articles in The Washington Post
accused him of sexual harassment and financial improprieties. A UN tribunal
later found the allegations baseless and said he should be compensated and
reinstated.
Mr. Bangoura, a Canadian citizen, sued the Post for libel and argued that
because the newspaper posted the story on its website, his reputation had
been damaged in Ontario.
The newspaper moved to have the case dismissed and argued that if it were
allowed to proceed in Ontario, any news organization could be sued anywhere
over material posted on its website.
In a decision issued last year, Mr. Justice Romain Pitt of the Ontario
Superior Court said the case could go ahead in Ontario. "Those who publish
via the Internet are aware of the global reach of their publications, and
must consider the legal consequences in the jurisdiction of the subjects of
their articles," he wrote.
The Post appealed the decision, and in a hearing before the Court of Appeal
yesterday, it was joined by the media coalition in arguing that Judge Pitt's
ruling went too far. The ruling "will discourage and inhibit a free flow of
information," Paul Schabas, a Toronto lawyer representing the Post, told the
court. "It will have a chilling effect on speech."
He added that the Post had seven subscribers in Ontario when the article
appeared and only one person paid to access the story through the
newspaper's on-line archive service. He also said Mr. Bangoura didn't move
to Ontario until 2000, long after the story appeared.
In a filing to the court, the media coalition said its intervention in the
case "speaks of the deep concern with the judgment under appeal and its
implications for all those who value freedom of expression. The
extraordinary nature of the ruling presents real dangers to the continued
development of the Internet and global communications."
Kikélola Roach, a Toronto lawyer representing Mr. Bangoura, said the ruling
should stand because the case presents some unique circumstances. Ms. Roach
said the Post continues to offer a short summary of the stories on its
website that contain defamatory information about Mr. Bangoura. "The damage
is ongoing," she told the court.
She added that Mr. Bangoura sued in Ontario because he is trying to
re-establish a career here and the availability of the article on-line hurts
those efforts. "The place where he is trying to vindicate his reputation is
important," she told the court.
In an interview outside the court, Mr. Bangoura said he is confident the
ruling will be upheld. "I have total confidence in our system of justice,"
he said, surrounded by a small group of friends and family.
Mr. Bangoura, 46, grew up in Guinea and studied in Germany, where he earned
a law degree and a PhD in international law. He spent a decade working at
the UN, first in Austria and later in West Africa where he directed a
regional drug-control program.
Yesterday, he said he is not intimidated by the collection of giant media
organizations lined up against him. "Those articles affect my future," he
said sternly, adding that he has had trouble finding work in his field since
being dismissed by the UN.
He said he is frustrated at suggestions he should not be allowed to sue the
Post in Ontario. "I live here. I am working here. My family is here, I have
two children born here. This is my home."
*******************
Global media giants fear chill from Toronto web libel suit
Last Updated Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:37:00 EST
CBC News
[Arrived with no URL]
TORONTO - A libel lawsuit unfolding in Toronto could restrict how news
stories are published around the world, 52 large media companies argued this
week.
The lawsuit involves the Washington Post's 1997 coverage of a former United
Nations official who was accused of financial and sexual improprieties on
the job in West Africa.
Cheickh Bangoura, a native of Ghana who later moved from Kenya to Ontario,
filed legal action against the Post in 2000 seeking $9 million Cdn. in
damages.
The 46-year-old man's suit said the newspaper was hurting his reputation in
his new home because Ontario residents could read the stories in the Post's
web-based archives.
The Post has seven paid online subscribers in the province and only one
person has ever paid to see the story on the archives, the newspaper says.
Despite that, Bangoura's suit argues that material posted on a website that
is viewable in Canada should be seen as having been published in Canada.
Judge rules Ontario can hear case
An Ontario judge ruled last year that the province's court system had
jurisdiction to hear the case, sending shock waves through media companies
around the world.
CNN, the New York Times, Google, Yahoo, the London Times, the CBC and dozens
of other publishers and broadcasters are challenging the judge's decision.
They warn that freedom of expression and the public interest might suffer if
people could shop for a country with favourable libel laws anywhere in the
world and file suit there to avenge themselves over stories they don't like.
It is harder to win a libel case in the United States, where the Washington
Post is published, because it has stronger freedom of expression protections
for media companies.
If Bangoura's lawsuit is allowed to proceed, websites would be reluctant to
post any controversial story for fear of being forced out of business by a
large libel settlement, media lawyers said.
Arguments in the case were heard in the Ontario Court of Appeal Tuesday.
Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and two other judges hearing the challenge have
reserved judgment.
**********************
Global media giants claim Canada wants to rule the web
Wed Mar 9, 3:08 AM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1212&e=10&u=/afp/20050309/tc_afp/canadausmediainternet&sid=96001018
TORONTO (AFP) - The Washington Post, backed by 50 global media giants,
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 nine million-dollar (6.5 million US dollar) damages claim lodged
against the US-based paper by a former United Nations (news - web sites)
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.
It also raises the spectre of limitless liability for newspapers with
websites, read by millions of readers around the world.
Ghanian-born former UN 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.
[SNIPPED]
*******************
New York Times March 14, 2005
[Arrived with no URL]
A Libel Case Raises a Tricky Question of Jurisdiction
IAN AUSTEN
Along with global audiences, online publication has brought some newspapers
libel lawsuits in countries far from their place of publication. A current
complaint against The Washington Post raises some particularly tricky
questions about jurisdiction.
Early in January 1997, The Post printed two articles indicating that Cheickh
Bangoura, a native of Guinea who is now a Canadian citizen, engaged in
sexual harassment, financial improprieties and nepotism while working as a
senior official of the United Nations' International Drug Control Program in
Austria and Africa. By the end of the month, Mr. Bangoura lost his job with
the United Nations and left Kenya to join family members who had gone to
Montreal late in 1996.
Kikélola Roach, Mr. Bangoura's lawyer in Toronto, said that, despite
repeated requests, the newspaper never reported that an investigation by the
United Nations cleared Mr. Bangoura of the accusations. She also wants The
Post to remove the two original stories and summaries of them from its
electronic archive and Web site. A spokesman for The Post declined to
comment about the newspaper's editorial decisions.
Ms. Roach argued that Mr. Bangoura's case is most appropriately heard in
Canada, where libel laws and courts are more generally more favorable to
plaintiffs.
"Your reputation, and any damage to your reputation, is most closely felt
where you reside," she said.
Paul Schabas, who is representing The Post, said that the case should be
heard either in Washington or in New York, the home of the United Nations.
Last year, however, a judge in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto sided with
Mr. Bangoura. Last week, both sides were in appeals court arguing about that
decision.
Joining The Post is an informal consortium of 51 news organizations,
including The New York Times Company, Google, CNN, Canada's leading
newspaper publishers and the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. Kurt Wimmer, a Washington lawyer representing the coalition,
said that allowing libel actions outside of a publication's home country
could lead to an impossible situation.
"There is such a disparity among countries in how libel is regulated that it
becomes impossible to determine in prepublication review what law applies,"
he said. Mr. Wimmer also noted that some United States courts recently
failed to enforce libel judgments by foreign countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment