Global media giants claim Canada wants to rule the web

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 [snipped] 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.

[snipped]

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 ocurred.

[snipped]

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.

[snipped]

The Canadian case is one of a sheaf of new questions surrounding
libel issues on the Internet.

[snipped]

Critics of such rulings argue that they could lead to people who
believe they have been libeled by an Internet publication shopping
around the world for a country where they may receive a sympathetic
hearing.