FFS: Near Defamation (Is That a Thing?)

This is the blogosphere. I geddit. I can dish it out and and I can take it.

But there are some things that cannot be allowed to stand. Two comments on the Focus on the Family Astroturf Blog (FFAB) fall into this category.

Background first.

Yesterday, I blogged about the Christian Medical and Dental (?) Society's quest to be exempted from new rules requiring physicians (eat your inferiority-complected hearts out, DDSs) to refer patients for treatments that CMDS members find objectionable.

I had what I thought was a simple solution, first voiced on Twitter…

@fernhilldammit I'm sorry but I'm not at liberty to divulge the names of our members.
— CMDS Canada (@CMDSCanada) March 26, 2015

… then again in the blogpost.

Tell us who you are so we can run a mile from you.

As reported yesterday, FFAB called me a hypocrite for asking for names and promising to publish them when I use a pseudonym.

The illogic of that didn't bother me. Neither did the snide remarks about my personality, writing skills, and psychology, both in the blogpost and gleefully added by commenters. (Comments haven't yet descended into speculations about my body hair and weight; they are admirably restraining themselves.)

One commenter though, John Baglow, wondered what the problem was when the intent is clearly to inform potential patients of probable mis-matches between their needs and the medicos' moral capacities.

Two commenters took it upon themselves to respond.

Here's what can't stand -- implications that I intended some kind of harm to come to anti-choice MDs.

Melissa said:

I don’t suppose that naming doctors would be such a bad thing if there weren’t a group of pro-choicers who were dead set on taking them down. But when you have a small group of people (ie the Radical Handmaids) who are committed to taking these doctors down, to bullying these doctors in a media that is quite receptive to the pro-choice cause and quite hostile to the pro-life one. Nobody wants to get caught in one of those smear campaigns, which understandably makes them reluctant to make their names known publicly.

Mary Deutscher said:

If only Fern Hill were naming physicians to help patients avoid them! The fear here is that physicians are being named to be targeted and reprimanded for refusing to harm their patients.

"Dead set on taking them down." "Bullying." "Hostile." "Smear campaigns [!!]". "Fear." "Targeted."

FFS.

I know, I know, I know. It's just typical fetus fetishist self-pity and martyr-card deployment.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure those comments wouldn't qualify as defamation either.

But they are on the path to defamation and I call on FFAB's Andrea Mrozek to disavow herself and her blog from them.

Deletion of them and an apology would be nice but I'm not holding my breath.

I intend to leave a link to this post in a comment at the blog.

UPDATE: As of noon, Saturday, March 28, Andrea Mrozek has not responded. My comment with a link to this post was published though.

UPPITY-DATIER: I woke on Sunday to the comment from Joel Kropf (below) urging me to meet Mrozek and this from her at the Astroturf blog:
"Fern, I’m happy to address anything with you, in person. Invitation for coffee still stands.
PS Since so much is misinterpreted over text/twitter/email, I’ll add this is not a sarcastic comment."

Is it just me or is this getting creepy?

No. I have no interest in meeting Mrozek in person. I want her to address the implication that I intended harm ONLINE. The implication was made ONLINE and needs to be addressed -- if at all -- ONLINE.

Mrozek, you created the opportunity for stupidity to occur. It is your obligation to fix it.

Or not.

My physical presence is not required.

Defamation in the Internet Age: The Trial

Were my ears burning yesterday?

Frankly, no.

But a comment by Marky Mark on an old blogpost alerted me.

First, the old blogpost, User Pay, from June 2012. The stage was being set for an examination of defamation in the Internet age.

My point then was that no matter who *won*, everyone who participates in discussion forums, blogs, comment threads, and now, I suppose, Twitter and Facebook too, had a stake in the matter.

And that its resolution was going to cost a bomb.

A lively discussion ensued and some strong positions were taken.

Now, finally, the issue is before a court and blogger Marc Lemire of Free Dominion is reporting. He's obviously not an experienced court reporter and his writing could be clearer.

Here's where I come in (his formatting):

There was some back and forth about a blogger named “Fernhill”. Apparently she was a “leftist progressive” blogger who mentioned this case and proposed to her readers to support both “Dr Dawg” and Freedominion.  This apparently made “Dr Dawg” “very upset” and left him feeling “betrayed” by her.  Fernhill was a progressive blogger and he wanted her to “pick a side” and that “it was wrong to raise money for the other side”.

Note that I did *not* raise money for any side; I merely raised the issue of how this slugfest was to be financed.

Lemire is reporting daily (links to other sessions at his blog) and will presumably continue.

I confess I won't be following with bated breath, but the outcome might be interesting. Also of interest is the fact that the judge is a complete newbie to the Innertoobz. She says she's "never been on a blog." Woo.

I'll report if and when there's anything of note.

Added by deBeauxOs: If any new or old readers might be fascinated by the trivia and arcana of this case, the blogger MarkyMark posted this, with a very lively and informative open comment thread, in June 2012.

The First Law of Holes. . .

Fetus fetishists can't stop picking at the wound they were dealt in their MASSIVE failure when they tried to sue Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada for defaming two fake clinics in a report from FOUR years ago.

Here's another kick at the can, by a lawyer this time, desperately trying to spin a loss -- that they decided NOT to appeal, mind -- into a victory.

In Court, Arthur and the Pro-CAN argued that although the Report did reference the Vancouver CPCs and one of their executive directors, that the portion of the Report alleged to be defamatory was not talking about the Vancouver CPCs [crisis pregnancy centres] specifically. In fact, Arthur and Pro-CAN argued that this section of the Report talked about CPCs across North America. This is an important legal question because in order for the Report to be considered defamatory, there needs to be a target of the defamation. The Vancouver CPCs argued that they were the targets because they were specifically referred to in an appendix and because the Report as a whole was about CPCs in British Columbia, where they both operate. If, however, that section of the Report was found to be about CPCs in North America, of which there are approximately 4,200, then the sample is simply too large for any reasonable person to suspect that the Report is speaking about the Vancouver CPCs.

It’s a clever argument that has been used in many defamation cases in the past and unfortunately, it was successful in this case.

Not only clever but quick and effective, clearly.

But NOT, apparently, how the esteemed zygote zealot would have approached it.

As a lawyer, if I had a client seek my advice after being sued for making defamatory statements of fact, the first question I would ask is if the statements were true. If they were, that’s how we would defend the claim.

On no evidence whatsoever (buy hey, that's how they roll), he goes on to claim that Arthur's defense relied on that argument because it was the only one they had.

Well, duh. While we don't know what other arguments the team had up their sleeves, it's hard to imagine this simple defense of the truth wouldn't have been one of them.

But why roll out all that rigamarole and competing experts, especially the lying liars from the BAD (biased, agenda-driven) gang, when the whole butt-hurt exercise could be made to simply stop?

And as we pointed out, they continue to obsess over the general observations and conclusions in the report, while ignoring the damning demolition of the training manuals issued by the fetus fetishizing organization to which both fake clinics belong and presumably use to indoctrinate train their volunteers.

I am neither a lawyer nor a PR pro, but I would advise these people to STFU about this report. Their caterwauling and ridiculous attempts to spin a loss as a win are simply drawing more attention to it.

Which is a good thing. *evilsmiley*

Get the pdf of the whole report here and read Arthur's explanation of the case here.

Lying Costs! Send Money!

Regular readers of DJ! know that we are not keen on much to do with the Vatican Taliban here, with one exception, Raymond Gravel.

Seems he was a tad ticked at being called 'pro-abortion' by LifeShite, so he sued.

Today we learn that the case is going to trial.

A libel and defamation lawsuit against LifeSiteNews.com, filed by Canadian priest Father Raymond Gravel who describes himself as “pro-choice,” will go to trial.

Fr. Gravel claims that LifeSiteNews' depiction of him in the agency's news articles as “pro-abortion” is libelous, because he says he is “pro-choice” but does not support abortion per se.

In response to the advancement of the case, LifeSiteNews editor John-Henry Westen called the move “a grave danger to freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, not only in Canada, but in North America.”

Freedom is in grave danger! Send money!

Fr. Gravel claims that LifeSiteNews' reporting about him ruined his reputation as a politician and priest. He seeks damages of 500,000 Canadian dollars, or about $492,000, as well as costs.

On Jan. 11 a Quebec judge ruled that the lawsuit can advance to trial, dismissing the claims of LifeSiteNews that Fr. Gravel is merely intending to gag them.

The damages sought by Fr. Gravel are identical to a full year's budget for the site, according to its editors. It has already spent some $170,000 on the suit.

Waaah.

And its USian cousin better start raising some big bucks to defend against a potential? probable? suit by Dr LeRoy Carhart over this bit of libel.


ADDED: More details on the Gravel case. Also a wrinkle: defamation law is somewhat different in Quebec.

User Pay

Couple of things up front: I am not a lawyer. And I have not polled other DJ!ers on this. I'm speaking solely for myself.

I have no dog (so to speak) in this fight beyond my status as Internet user: blogger, Tweeter, and blog commenter.

So this happened.

Dr. Dawg will have his day in court, a panel of judges has ruled.

In a decision released Thursday, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reinstated the defamation suit of John Baglow, a.k.a. Dr. Dawg, an Ottawa blogger who said his reputation had been soiled in an online conservative chat room.

That allegation will now be the subject of a trial that could establish new rules for discourse in the Internet’s bruising marketplace of ideas.

“The issues raised in this action are all important because they arise in the relatively novel milieu of Internet defamation in the political blogosphere,” Justice Robert Blair said, writing for the three-member appeal panel.

Questions about what constitutes defamation in the caustic world of blogging have not been addressed by Canadian courts “in any significant way,” Blair noted. It means, he said, that a full-blown trial is needed to explore key questions, such as:

• Should the law accept that “anything goes” in the blogosphere?

• Are defamation standards on the Internet the same as those now applied to newspapers and TV?

• Should posts on a political blog be considered the same as ones on Facebook or Twitter?

A trial, Blair said, will allow the court — “whose members are perhaps not always the most up-to-date in matters involving the blogosphere” — to answer those questions with the benefit of cross-examination and expert evidence.

The appeal ruling overturns a lower court decision to throw out Baglow’s lawsuit before it could proceed to trial.

Relevant sections of the ruling at Morton's Musings.

So. There's going to be a trial. With facts and arguments and expert testimony and cross-examination.

You know, the stuff that helps inform the law in a fast-changing world.

And, presumably, at the end of the day, interested parties will have a better idea of what can and can't be said on the Innertoobz. And who is and is not responsible for content on a blog or discussion board.

How is this a bad thing?

Well, the bad part is that the individuals involved have to pay for it. And the costs could be substantial.

I'm no organizer but if someone would like to set up a way to fund BOTH sides of this case, I'd chip in.

Failing that, if/when Free Dominion and Dr Dawg get their own funding mechanisms in place, I'd chip in to BOTH of those.

It is not a matter of taking sides. It is a matter of setting some guidelines for current users of the Net and for future cases of outrage and umbrage.

Somebody's gotta pay for it. Why not the greater Canadian Internet community?

Image source.

MORE: With comments from a defamation lawyer.

UPDATE on Saturday, June 16/12: My response to Namó Mandos's post.


ADDED by fh on June 19/12: Isn't this an interesting development? I wonder who will debate.

Eyebrow raised in salute.

Roughly twice a year I get my hair cut and coiffed by a lovely woman, a business person who owns her own salon.

She listens to what I want, makes suggestions and prunes my hair so I can style it with my fingers. Since it can be gnarly, as well as curling and flipping in odd directions. it's a demonstration of her skills that the cut grows out nicely and requires no daily fussing.

This time she convinced me that my (also gnarly) eyebrows would benefit from a judicious weeding. This involved the application of warm wax around the imaginary perimeter of a normal eyebrow line, the firm pressing of a small cloth, and many merciless yanks.

After the swelling subsided - about 24 hours later - I observed the results. Who knew that brows, much like the berms along rivers, need something to anchor them? The removal of those sparse, wandering wisps precipitated un glissement de terrain.

The upside is that one of my eyebrows is quite mobile and often emphasizes what I'm thinking and saying. So now when I raise that brow, it is a perfectly defined, expressive arch instead of a fuzzy caterpillar wriggling between my forehead and my eye.

This calls for such salute. Is it my imagination or is Ezrant's apology a wee bit ... grudgy?