Not motorcycle, but forum related

[Rob MacLennan]

I have frequently said that even on the internet, libel is still libel. A decision today, from the BC Supreme Court, solidifies that. You can be served under a forum pseudonym and it is applicable to you IRL. As this is a Provincial Supreme Court decision it will carry weight elsewhere, unless overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hocke...ourt_grants_him_permission_to_sue_online.html

I would have provided citation via the BC Supreme Court, itself, but the judgment hasn't been posted for review as of yet.

 

[karentsang]

I have frequently said that even on the internet, libel is still libel. A decision today, from the BC Supreme Court, solidifies that. You can be served under a forum pseudonym and it is applicable to you IRL. As this is a Provincial Supreme Court decision it will carry weight elsewhere, unless overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hocke...ourt_grants_him_permission_to_sue_online.html

I would have provided citation via the BC Supreme Court, itself, but the judgment hasn't been posted for review as of yet.

A long over-due precedent.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

A long over-due precedent.

As the article says it's not necessarily a new thing, but the judgment sets out the standard by which future such requests will be measured. If you have exhausted all reasonable avenues to determine who the person behind the pseudonym is, then you can serve notice to the pseudonym. If that person can later be identified, then any judgment can be assessed. If the person behind the screen name chooses not to identify then he's rolling the dice, because he won't have the opportunity to fight back.

 

[GreyGhost]

Thanks for posting rob, hopefully people consider this before some of their rants.

 

[karentsang]

As the article says it's not necessarily a new thing, but the judgment sets out the standard by which future such requests will be measured. If you have exhausted all reasonable avenues to determine who the person behind the pseudonym is, then you can serve notice to the pseudonym. If that person can later be identified, then any judgment can be assessed. If the person behind the screen name chooses not to identify then he's rolling the dice, because he won't have the opportunity to fight back.

Sorry - long over due standard? lol.

 

[Roomie]

This is what the world has come to? Can it get any worse?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

This is what the world has come to? Can it get any worse?

What is so bad about having to stand behind your words? You are responsible for what you say and should not be able to hide behind anonymity, while destroying someone's reputation. It's really that simple.

Don't say it, if it isn't true.

 

[Roomie]

What is so bad about having to stand behind your words? You are responsible for what you say and should not be able to hide behind anonymity, while destroying someone's reputation. It's really that simple.

Don't say it, if it isn't true.

In a major case like that I'll agree with you. However this just opened the door for a variety of circus style events that are going to become the new thing to do.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

In a major case like that I'll agree with you. However this just opened the door for a variety of circus style events that are going to become the new thing to do.

Frivolous suits will get tossed at the first hearing and wouldn't get that far. People who want to start a 'circus event' will only end up losing the cost of their lawyer.

 

[bluerider]

What is so bad about having to stand behind your words? You are responsible for what you say and should not be able to hide behind anonymity, while destroying someone's reputation. It's really that simple.

Don't say it, if it isn't true.

Agreed.