RSS FeedWikileaks considered a “threat” by US Army
WikiLeaks logo (via Wikipedia)
WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowing website that provides confidential and sensitive documents for free to the media, human rights groups and the public, has been deemed a threat by the US Army.
WikiLeaks has been responsible in the past for providing a copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta, the contents of Sarah Palin’s Yahoo account, and a membership list of the far-right British National Party which got at least one police officer dismissed, among many other significant stories.
A 2008 document recently posted there, entitled U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, states,
The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing
sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out.
Plans included trying to shut down the website using a variety of techniques, including exposing their sources to embarrass and intimidate them, and even litigation.
Considering that this document was considered “secret,” and presumably came from someone who had access to confidential files, the concerns may be valid. But the appropriateness of the response by the military towards a media channel providing a significant and overwhelmingly positive contribution to issues of public interest is also suspect.
The editors of WikiLeaks note that 2 years have passed without any exposure of their sources, indicating that this response may also be particularly ineffectual. They also point to inaccuracies regarding the editorial control of the site.
Even if the Army was able to shut down WikiLeaks, they concede that the problem is not limited to a single site,
Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future.
Although security interests are pressing and substantial, when a democratic government administration is known to participate in systematic abuses of human rights and widespread violations of international norms, the balance of favour should continue to support sites like WikiLeaks.
How Bigotry Became Respectful
Grant v. Torstar and the defence of responsible communication: implications for bloggers and users of other online media
In the recent decision of Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 (“Grant”) and its companion case, Quan v. Cusson, 2009 SCC 62 (“Quan”), the Supreme Court of Canada sought to strike a more appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation by creating the new defence of “responsible communication on matters of public interest” (the “Defence”). The Defence allows defendants in libel cases where statements of fact are at issue to evade liability if they can show that they acted responsibly in reporting on a matter of public interest, even if the statements of fact are untrue. Prior to the decision, defendants could not avoid liability in these cases unless they showed that the statement was substantially true (the defence of justification), or that the statement was made in a protected context (the defence of privilege).
Importantly, the Defence applies not only to journalists and print-based publishers – the types of defendants in Grant and Quan – but also to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media:
[T]he traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets. I agree … that the new defence is “available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium”. [Grant, at para. 96]
[Emphasis added]
Although the extension of the Defence to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media is an important recognition of the growing relevance and legitimacy of these groups, the Defence is – at least currently – unlikely to protect most members of these groups. To gain the protection of the Defence, the defendant must establish two elements: (1) that the publication is on a matter of public interest; and (2) that the publication was responsible, in that the defendant was diligent in trying to verify the allegation. The trial judge will determine the first element. If the judge concludes that the first element is met, the jury will determine the second element, having regard to several factors:
- the seriousness of the allegation;
- the public importance of the matter;
- the urgency of the matter;
- the status and reliability of the source;
- whether the plaintiff’s side of the story was sought and accurately reported;
- whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
- whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth; and
- any other relevant circumstances
In assessing whether the defendant was diligent, the jury will be guided by “established journalistic standards”:
[M]any actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media. While established journalistic standards provide a useful guide by which to evaluate the conduct of journalists and non-journalists alike, the applicable standards will necessarily evolve to keep pace with the norms of new communications media. [Grant, at para. 97]
[Emphasis added]
This indicates that the same journalistic standard must be applied to every defendant irrespective of whether or not they are journalists. As a result, the Defence will likely not apply to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media unless they perform the due diligence expected of a journalist in the circumstances.
The problem for many members of these groups is that they are generally not guided by established journalistic norms. Although they may approach online publishing in good faith and with a level of diligence reasonably expected of non-journalists, this level of diligence is unlikely to meet the required journalistic standard. For example, although journalists will generally make a point of seeking the plaintiff’s side of the story and speaking directly to witnesses and experts, non-journalist bloggers – who are generally unpaid for their efforts – will rarely have the time, resources, training, or willingness to do so. As one American commentator argues,
blogging and journalism clearly differ. The former ‘implies that a disinterested third party is reporting facts fairly’ (Andrews, 2003: 64). Blogs are ‘unedited, unabashedly opinionated, sporadic and personal’ (Palser, 2002) – in many ways, the antithesis of traditional US journalism. Some say that is the best thing about them. ‘Journalism is done a certain way, by a certain kind of people,’ but bloggers “are oblivious to such traditions” (Welsh, 2003). [Jane B. Singer, “The political j-blogger: ‘normalizing’ a new media form to fit old norms” (2005) 6(2) Journalism 173 at 176]
[Emphasis added]
Even if a non-journalist blogger or user of other online media does engage in the level of diligence required to meet the journalistic standard, they may unknowingly fail to do so in a way that produces a strong record of evidence from which a court can conclude that they did act diligently. As a result, many of these defendants may simply not have access to the protection of the Defence.
Nonetheless, Grant does not foreclose the possibility that courts will apply a different diligence standard to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media as the “norms of new communications media” evolve. Although the court isn’t clear on this point, these groups might be able to gain the protection of the Defence in future cases even if they haven’t performed their diligence in the same way that a traditional journalist would have:
While established journalistic standards provide a useful guide by which to evaluate the conduct of journalists and non-journalists alike, the applicable standards will necessarily evolve to keep pace with the norms of new communications media. [Grant, at para. 97]
[Emphasis added]
Even if the standard applicable to these groups does not shift to allow them to gain the protection of the Defence, juries – who have been tasked with the responsibility for assessing whether the defendant was diligent – may be sympathetic to these groups and apply the journalistic standard less rigidly.
In summary, although the Defence extends to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media, many members of these groups are unlikely to be protected by the Defence because it requires that they performed the due diligence expected of a journalist. Nonetheless, the law does not necessarily foreclose the possibility that courts will apply a different diligence standard to these groups in future cases, or that juries will less rigidly apply the existing journalistic standard.
Originally posted on Defamation Law Blog
Not All Muslims are Terrorists, But All Terrorists are Not Muslim Either
It’s a common refrain in the media, that the threat of terrorism comes from Islamic extremism.
Not true, according to a new study revealed by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which suggests that only 6% of terrorist attacks on the U.S. are from Muslims.
CNN describes the inclusion criteria used for the study:
To be included on the list, an offender had to have been wanted, arrested, convicted or killed in connection with terrorism-related activities since 9/11 — and have lived in the United States, regardless of immigration status, for more than a year prior to arrest.
The study also notes that strong partnerships and support of Muslim institutions are necessary to prevent the radicalization of Muslims. To date, we’ve often have initiatives that accomplish the opposite. Muslim terrorists also had very little to do with Islam,
This research confirmed what has been observed in other studies of Muslim terrorists: most of those who engage in religiously inspired terrorism have little formal training in Islam and, in fact, are poorly educated about Islam. Muslim- Americans with a strong, traditional religious training are far less likely to radicalize than those whose knowledge of Islam is incomplete.
The implications of the findings also suggest there is disproportionate attention by the media and security officials on threats that are comparatively negligible, which may actually accentuate this specific risk over time.
Placed in context with data over the past 30 years, we get a very different picture (graph sent to us by a reader):
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database
Ron Livingston Sues Wikipedia over Orientation
The most recent controversy around Wikipedia, and there are plenty to come I’m sure, surrounds Ron Livingston, an actor in Office Space who starred briefly in Sex in the City. Well it’s Livingston’s sex, or rather his sexual orientation, that is at the center of a current dispute with Wikipedia.
Livingston married Rosmarie DeWitt last month, and yet his Wikipedia entry has been repeatedly vandalized to say that he is gay and living with a Lee Dennison. He also claims that the same individual made Facebook pages for himself and Dennison and showed the the two in a relationship together.
TMZ states,
Livingston is suing for libel, invasion of privacy and for using his name and likeness without his permission.
Unlike blogs, which go through minimal editing and scrutiny, Wikipedia has a vigorous review process which includes questioning sources and the neutrality of a point of view. The system seems to have worked, as the references to Livingston’s sexuality were repeatedly omitted. The problem is that the reference was repeatedly re-entered.
Wikipedia does have controls for this as well, including how to deal with vandals and locking pages that have repeat problems. We don’t know if this occurred yet, but Livingston could have contacted a Wikipedia editor to invoke these stronger protection mechanisms. Any court reviewing the case should closely scrutinize the options that were available.
Blogs face a more difficult challenge. We often try to ensure our accuracy by linking to our sources, and searching as best we can for conflicting opinions. But especially in the field of law, information does change with new legal development and judicial decisions. Posts are really only valid for the time-stamp when they are published.We do not benefit from the continuous and ongoing scrutiny of editors the way Wikipedia does.
For this reason, I rely on my readership to inform me when information needs to be updated. In fact bloggers often depend on that, and most of us are usually willing to make necessary changes. In case of litigation, we might find sanctuary under the evolving ‘public interest responsible journalism defence‘ described in the 2007 Ontario case of Cusson v. Ottawa Citizen and the 2006 House of Lord’s decision, Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe.
The wonderful thing about Wikipedia for the purposes of litigation is that everything is meticulously documented on the revision history and the talk page, including when and what changes were made, by whom, and the corresponding IP addresses. Issues surrounding the pending litigation are even raised on the talk page among the editors, including the location of the IP addresses making the changes, and news stories about the issue.
One of the IP addresses involved in the Livingston changes also made similar revisions on December 2, 2009 to the page of Sheikh Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum of the royal family of Dubai, adding,
…as well as president for UAE LGBT conference as he is a known homosexual!.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. But there’s no need to add personal information to Wiki entries, especially if they cannot be substantiated with an independent source, and may cause the person involves some personal harm.
In cases where the control features described above do not work, it may be appropriate to pursue litigation, possibly including the site in order to compel them to provide further information.
But the best strategy for celebrities, corporations, politicians and professionals, as I told a group of marketing professionals at a seminar earlier this week, is to mitigate any adverse impact by establishing a social media strategy yourself.
Media, free speech, and human rights
Media aren’t the best friends of human rights
Max Yalden was an Official Languages Commissioner in 1977-84 and the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 1987-96. Recalling the Maclean’s case and other contentious issues of free speech versus human rights, Haroon Siddiqui reviews Yalden’s just-published memoir:
Yalden’s central message is that Canada’s human rights regime works reasonably well, notwithstanding the media’s hissy fit.
Swartz v. Does: American and Canadian approaches to anonymity in internet defamation cases
A recent case illustrates that American jurisprudence is increasingly coalescing around a uniform approach to determine whether a plaintiff may compel the disclosure of an anonymous defendant’s identity in internet defamation cases. As discussed below, the Canadian experience has been different.
In Swartz v. Does (“Swartz”) (see: judgment) a Tennessee state court held that plaintiffs were entitled to discover the identity of an anonymous blogger that published allegedly defamatory statements about them. The case arose when the plaintiffs subpoenaed Google, the parent company of the blogging service used by the anonymous defendants (see: news article).
The decision is notable for Justice Brothers’ survey of the various standards previously applied by American courts and his ultimate application of the standard most protective of internet anonymity. This standard, established in Dendrite International, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) (the “Dendrite Standard”) and commonly but perhaps misleadingly known as the “prima facie” standard, requires a plaintiff to meet several requirements. One of these requires the plaintiff to make a “substantial legal and factual showing” that the defamation claim has merit before a court will compel the disclosure of an anonymous defendant’s identity.
Justice Brothers considered this requirement of the Dendrite Standard and concluded that the plaintiffs had made a substantial legal and factual showing on each of the three elements of a defamation claim under Tennessee law. Interestingly, Justice Brothers proceeded to offer guidance for future litigants by providing a detailed description of how the plaintiffs met the requirement, which does not appear to be onerous:
Plaintiffs submitted and displayed several copies of the blog posts in question, and testified that the statements were publicly available for several months. Plaintiffs testified that the [allegedly defamatory allegations] are all false. Plaintiffs also testified that they experienced actual damages from the allegedly defamatory statements, including loss of business, harm to their reputations, emotional distress, and the costs of having to hire a security expert inspect their home [sic].
Swartz is yet another American case that has followed the increasingly prevalent Dendrite standard. Unfortunately, Canadian jurisprudence has yet to begin coalescing to the same extent. The scarce Canadian law on this issue, most of which comes from Ontario, indicates that plaintiffs have two ways to compel online service providers to reveal the identities of anonymous defendants:
- by seeking pre-action discovery by way of an equitable bill of discovery known as a Norwich Order; or
- by seeking pre-action discovery or production from the online service provider by bringing a motion under the applicable rules of civil procedure.
The requirements of each approach vary substantially. While the Norwich Order approach requires plaintiffs to establish only a bona fide case of defamation (see York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises, [2009] O.J. No. 3689 (S.C.J.) (see: previous post) and BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, [2004] 3 F.C.R. 241 (C.A.)), the alternate approach has generated different requirements depending on the rules of civil procedure under which the plaintiff brought their motion. In an early case, the court required the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of defamation similar to that required under the Dendrite standard (Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Joe Doe, 2000] O.J. No. 3318 (S.C.J.)). Yet, in a more recent and controversial case, the court held that the plaintiff had no obligation to establish a prima facie or even bona fide case because the rules of civil procedure required disclosure to be automatic upon the issuance of a statement of claim (Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier, [2009] O.J. No. 1305 (S.C.J.)). Although these cases are distinguishable on the basis of differences in the applicable rules of civil procedure, more uniformity is needed to ensure that courts consistently strike an appropriate balance between privacy and reputational interests.
Also posted on Defamation Law Blog
Journalistic privilege
Paper fights to shield its source
Tonda MacCharles writes for the Toronto Star:
The constitutional guarantee of a free press is “meaningless” if it does not protect journalists from being forced to reveal the identity of confidential sources, media lawyers argued Wednesday before the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the second case this year revolving around the role confidential sources play in freedom of the press, lawyers for The Globe and Mail, a group of Quebec newspapers, the Fédération des journalistes professionelles du Québec, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association urged judges to shield the identity of a source key to the reporting of the sponsorship scandal in Quebec.
If the client-lawyer relationship is privileged, why shouldn’t the journalist-source relationship be privileged too?
Mandatory Disclosure of Product Placements?
Today, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued new guidelines for bloggers who accept payment or free merchandise in exchange for product reviews. The new guidelines will require bloggers to disclose any material connections with advertisers.
In general, I think that this is a good policy choice: it allows companies to advertise through bloggers’ reviews, but creates a layer of transparency for the reader. This allows the reader to take the material connection into account when assessing the credibility of the article. However, I find it curious that there is now differential treatment between blogs and other media.
For example, there is no requirement for motion pictures to disclose that they have been paid to place a company’s products in the film. Product placementhas become extremely pervasive in movies, television shows, and even news broadcasts. In a 2006 survey by the Association of National Advertisers, it was found that two-thirds of advertisers surveyed had employed product placement as part of their overall brand strategy. Respondents indicated that viewers had a “stronger emotional connection” to a brand when placed in the narrative of a television show, as compared to traditional television advertising. According to PQMedia, the total product placement market as of 2006 was estimated between $3.07-billion and $5.6-billion (United States dollars).
Given how much more pervasive this form of product placement is than paid product reviews on blogs, doesn’t it make sense to require disclosure of product placement as well?
Social Media Obscures Line Between “on the record” and “off the record”
| Guest Post By Huma Rashid | Originally posted at Social Media Law Student
Only this time, it’s a clash between the political and the cultural. Pop-cultural, to be exact.
Twitter, as everyone who reads this law-and-social-media blog already knows, is a micro-blogging service which allows users to submit ‘tweets,’ or messages no longer than 140 characters in length. Everyone’s on Twitter these days – Shaquille O’Neal, President Barack Obama, my beloved Stephen Fry, and probably even your father.
And, because everyone can use it and it takes ten seconds to write something and post it, Twitter has been causing many, many problems over the years and especially during its recent boom in popularity.
Recent Events
The fact that this discussion adds coverage to this already over-hyped incident is unfortunate, but it seems unavoidable. On Sunday, September 13, 2009, Taylor Swift won an award at the MTV Video Music Awards for Best Video (”You Belong With Me”). Before she could fully launch into her acceptance speech, singer Kanye West hopped up on stage, took her microphone, and declared that Beyonce should have won for her video (”Single Ladies”), which he stated was the best video of the decade. The technicians cut to tape and Ms. Swift was escorted off stage without finishing her speech. It was reported that Mr. West was drinking throughout the evening, and he was promptly asked to leave after the incident. Since then, he has posted two blog entries (one presumably written while he was still under the influence and one that is much shorter) and has appeared on Leno to express his contrition and his sincere apologies.
Countless celebrities have weighed in with several choice words for Mister West, most of them through Twitter. They’ve gone on their own personal record and brought West to task for his rude behavior. The most recent celebrity to go on the record via Twitter is President Barack Obama. The only problem is, he was pointedly off the record…or so he thought.
Barack Obama’s Off the Record (sort of) Remarks
The American public holds its president to a very high, some would argue unattainable, standard. He is at once the leader of the free world, the official face of our government, and our community leader, but it is his role as just another human being that is often eroded in this construction. Casual opinions, no matter on how banal a subject, often come under close scrutiny and is treated as though it were some sort of official edict.
This incident proves nothing else. Shortly before an interview with CNBC, President Obama was discussing the VMA incident off the record. During this off-record portion of the interview, he called Kanye West a “jackass.” It was a casual, off-color remark that was overheard by ABC News Reporter Terry Moran, who promptly tweeted the following: “Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a ‘jackass’ for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.”
The tweet was promptly deleted, and ABC has since issued an apology for Moran’s breach of journalistic integrity. TMZ obtained audio of the incident; the clip is below.
Blawg Review #228
If you’re just starting law school, law blawgs can be your best friend. In addition to this site, here are 99 other blog posts that you should read to help prepare for your adventure. It won’t help you though if you’re a judge about to be tested.
Most law students want to be in the top 10-15% of their class, and there are career opportunities that depend on that. Ken DeLeon of Top-law-schools.com provides some tips for success in law school, including a handy flowchart on how to prepare for your law school exams. But keep in mind that the end of the billable hour might result in some changes to your legal education, and law students have different learning styles than the rest of the population.
Still applying to law school? An undergraduate degree in physics or math might be your best option to get a solid LSAT score. Remember that these days a law career is considered a risky option, and there are lawyers in Jersey actually working for free. Where else is success defined by more work (even for less pay), and not more recreational or family time? Larry Ribstein still thinks law school is the cool choice. But is it really worth it?
On the other hand you could elect to skip your classes, get intoxicated regularly, sleep with all the members of the opposite sex, gain a reputation as being a total douche bag, and then score a book and movie deal.
Introducing Tucker Max – asshole extraordinaire – a graduate of Duke Law that claims assholes finish first.
An inspiring personality, certainly, and an approach that John Infante of Fearfully Optimistic would definitely disagree with. It does make you wonder how many Dukes are faking the Daisy to hazard “celebrity bias.” The Bitter Lawyer has an exclusive interview with Tucker that is, at the very least, amusing.
Then again, “skipping classes, playing basketball, doing cocaine and getting drunk” might help you become President of the United States – but eventually someone might start asking for your law school transcripts. None of this is likely to come up during the President’s special advice to students tomorrow (Sept. 8). An open and transparent government, perhaps, but not that open. Reality check: the last refuge of the persecuted crack smoker may not be in law school.
Hey, “Some people snort cocaine, others snort religion,” and the latter is not necessarily better. The Exit at My Legal Fiction suggests wearing lipstick as a law school study aid, for some very compelling reasons. If you’re a missionary in Kenya, please don’t vow to go to law school out of religious convictions, unless you’re going to a low-ranking religious-affiliated law school. Happy Belated Todd, but I won’t be paying $25,000 for dinner any time soon.
Still, your biggest youthful indiscretion might be going to law school itself (and graduating at the bottom of your class hardly precludes success). If your indiscretions precede law school and include a criminal record, there are some disclosure issues you should consider. Using stolen Social Security Numbers to steal student loans for partying, with Tucker, Todd, or otherwise, probably isn’t a great idea. Assistant Deans at law schools? Not a good idea either.
Robert J. Ambrogi also tells us about Branigan Robertson of Chapman University School of Law, who won $10,000 for this video in the My Inspiration video contest:
These law students are doing better than a lot of lawyers these days. When life gives you lemons (or a recession), you should just make lemonade. Dan Markel is asking, what kind of juice are you making?
On the other hand, if you’re looking to avoid personalities like Tucker Max at all costs, you might be interested in Above the Law’s Douchiest Law School Contest.
No surprise that Harvard and Duke are currently heading the pack as finalists. Also check out Paul Caron’s review of U.S. News Law School Rankings for Judicial Clerkships, which includes data from Brian Leiter’s rankings. If douchiness turns you off of Yale and clerkships are really important to you, the University of North Dakota might be a good alternative. However, great credentials don’t always make more satisfied lawyers, because these guys tend to be plagued by that green-eyed monster.
Charon QC’s musings might be useful in determining if a “douchy law school” is worse than a “McDonalds of law schools,” while Dan Slater of the NYTimes suggests just locking the doors to all law schools because there are too few hiring positions. Still having a hard time picking a law school? The iPhone app Law School 100 is free until midnight tonight (Sept. 7). Study aids are becoming more interactive, with West’s new Interactive Case Series now linking to directly to law review articles cited in the case series.
Keep in mind that law school is different than undergrad, and you should probably clean up those social networks you’re on. After all, you wouldn’t want your mom witnessing you pulling a Tucker Max, and some employers might require you to submit your social media for a background check. Social media is also being increasingly being used in the courtroom, and no, the judge doesn’t really want to be your “friend.” Don’t get rid of that social media entirely though, because “People don’t find lawyers in the phone book… They find them through TV ads or friends or by searching the Internet, including blogs and social networking tools.”
Apparently what clients really want from their lawyer is to “feel the love,” so if someone comes to your office complaining they hurt their “tushy bone,” try not to laugh too hard. Be forewarned though – that volenti non fit injuria doctrine you learn in Torts class also applies to contracting Herpes Simplex I from wrestling, also known as Herpes Gladiatorium.
That’s probably not what Lauren in Law School had in mind when she suggested gladiator games as an alternative to On Campus Interviews (OCIs). You can get a list of the guys in your university with herpes from the new Campus Gossip site just to be on the safe side.
Although the number of followers you have on Twitter is no sign of of expertise or influence, it might land you a job (or lose it) with a firm or get you published, even if Perz Hilton decides to sue you for defamation. No “love” (or wrestling) for him, sorry. Some people do take Twitter seriously, perhaps too seriously.
Eric Goldman’s interview with David Lat highlights the importance of students networking during a crisis. Dennis Jansen also thinks that networking with your peers might be useful, but consists of more than “beaming your peers with business cards or mass-adding people on Facebook and LinkedIn.” As popular as Wordpress may be for blogs, it just might not be for your law firm, and you even might be held liable for content on your site to a tune of $32.4 million.
The Law Society or State Bar is probably not going to like it if you steal other people’s Twitter content and pass it off as your own, like Melina Beninghoff did . Stealing content doesn’t take brilliance, and it barely takes effort. What is clever is coming up with this CraigsList listing from Los Angeles. But is stolen content any worse than fake content?
Today is also Labour (sic) Day in Canada and the U.S. That’s the Canadian spelling, because Labour Day did originate in Canada in 1872 with the Trade Unions Act, which legalized unions. The United States followed in 1882 with informal observance in New York City, and by 1894 it was observed by 23 states through legislation. Still, it was the American President Lincoln, not a Canadian, who said in December 1881,
It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor…
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not existed.
Although most Canadian law schools start the day after Labour Day, many Americans start a week or two earlier. According to Blawg Review 122 it seems that in Dublin they start as late as October, but it might just be that everyone (students and profs) are recovering from prolonged hang-overs.
Labour relations are highly relevant for this edition of Blawg Review, since law professors at the University of California are considering a walk-out despite having the “best public education in the world.” Perhaps they could use this list of 24 alternative mediation dispute resolution sites to read.
Maybe they should just settle this all over a beer. Then again, those Canadian brewers are at it again with their trade-mark litigation! Next time someone tells you “I Am Canadian,” you might want to do your due diligence.
The big thing up here in Canada right now is Copyright Consultation Reform. Although over-reaching legislation is great for the lawyers, it does little for end-users of copyright material. If you’re one of those folks with a keen attention for cyberspace cases, this new blog following the 10 most important U.S. cases will probably be of interest.
But the big thing about Canada in the U.S. right now seems to be our healthcare system, which we’re rather partial to, despite what they mights say (Ignore those pesky suits). Send us your gladiators with herpes, and your perdurable impetus. All that talk over at Volokh about a “lottery system” can only be described as nonsense.
(At 1:53 Glenn Beck repeats lottery libel, and at 3:21 yells at a caller to get off his phone, “you little pinhead,” for not listening to the “facts.” The remix is even funnier.)
Although she acknowledges that healthcare reform is needed, Althouse has 10 things she hates about it. Change is always hard due to “status quo bias.” Madeleine Begun Kane has a limerick she wrote just for the spats over healthcare in the U.S. (watch your pinkies!):
“Majority rule is just great,”
Said Gregg in the drilling debate.
“You’ve got 51 votes,
Then you win.” Check his quotes.
Yet 51 Dem votes don’t rate.
Seeking medical treatment is probably the first thing you should do after a car accident, irrespective of whether it occurs in Canada or the U.S. Passen Law provides 9 other things you should do, including, of course, getting an experienced personal injury lawyer.
Another thing we have in Canada absent in the U.S. is a prohibition against the death penalty. Perhaps the fact that 45% of wrongful convictions in capital cases are based on jailhouse snitches has something to do with it. Mark Bennett of Defending People points out the interesting observation that a Texan executioner appears to be committing murder by that state’s law,
…would you participate in a death penalty trial, knowing that, for the rest of your life, with the turn of a tide of public opinion you could be prosecuted for making what you believed to be the right decision? You may be betting your life.
Do you think that employment contract with the State would protect you? Don’t count on it, as Jeffery I. Gordon mentions that most contracts are too brittle to withstand scrutiny, even if those FirstDrafter clauses look like they can do the job.
On the other hand, if your employment contract follows an affirmative action plan that is not remedial and narrowly tailored for past discrimination, it may constitute unlawful discrimination. We’re still not sure if a stripper constitutes an employee or an independent contractor in Employment Law class.
More guys in that class would probably express their anticipation for seeing Jessica Alba as the stripper-law student Nancy Callahan in the upcoming Sin City 2 if they weren’t concerned about objectifying women.
Don’t lose any sleep over it, unless you’ve sexually assaulted employees and are settling for $1.72 million. Be careful though – the risk of contracting gladiator herpes (and sins) rises exponentially when wrestling with strippers. You could also get robbed or raped.
Personally, I would be okay with any affirmative action that sought to get everyone but Tucker Max and any potential douches into my law school. Nancy Callahan might get a pass, as long as she doesn’t hook up with Tucker while she’s there.
Special thanks to David Shulman for editing on this piece.
That’s it for this week’s edition! Remember: Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.
Athanasios Hadjis Rules in Lemire v. Warman
In the high profile case between Marc Lemire and Richard Warman, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has refused to apply s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which stated that hate messages also affected,
…a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet…
Tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis said,
Since a formal declaration of invalidity [of Section 13(1)] is not a remedy available to the Tribunal, I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him
The complete decision can be reviewed here (I’m reading it now):
| HTML |
Off the hook? Not necessarily – Mr. Warman will likely seek judicial review. And the civil actions still exist for defamation, as well as much more rigorous Criminal Code provisions, will still attempt to regulate Internet activity.
This paper by Alexander Thesis, commissioned by the Attorney General of Canada, comes to a different conclusion – the provision is rationally connected with minimal impairment.
Here’s a scorecard of the outcome of judicial reviews of CHRT decisions:
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | TOTAL | |
| Cases referred | 139 | 99 | 70 | 82 | 390 |
| Decisions rendered | 14 | 11 | 13 | 20 | 58 |
| Upheld | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Overturned | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Judicial review withdrawn or struck for delay | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Judicial review pending | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Total challenges | 7 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 20 |
Updates
Commentary by various personalities, both for and against, available here.
Terrence Watson points out that it’s only the penalty that was deemed unconstitutional, not the provision itself, and Big City Lib points out it will have limtied effect on future cases.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
