Freedom of Expression In Cyberspace
Here's something interesting: if you're living in the States and a newspaper writes something about you that's not true, it's up to you to prove that the newspaper was basically lying and out to get you. But if you're living in Canada, it's a different story. The onus is on the newspaper to prove that everything they've written is true.
Ghanian-born Cheickh Bangoura, a former UN official now living in Ontario, has launched a libel suit against The Washington Post with Canadian courts.
He says the Post articles from 1997 alleging sexual harassment, financial wrongdoing and nepotism while he was working for the UN Drug Control Program in Africa can be accessed through the net in Canada --- and that has a large impact on his reputation considering he's lived in Canada since 1997.
Free online access to the Post's articles is limited to only 14 days and there were only about seven paid subscribers to the newspaper in Ontario at the time the articles were published, according to various online reports.
Today, the Post, backed up by 50 other major newspaper players, posted a challenge to the $6.5 million Internet libel case.
The media group is arguing that if the case is allowed to proceed, we're looking at squashing the fundamental purpose of the world wide web --- major media news outlets would be forced to block access in certain countries.
That'd mean saying bye-bye to reading The New York Times and The BBC World News --- which, let's face it, is so much more interesting and cool than reading any of the papers published in Canada.
But the shittiest aspect of this whole thing is that if the case goes through, it means changing the landscape of cyberspace --- free expression would mean squat. Access to global information would be rendered null and void --- and that sort of beats the whole point of the Internet, doesn't it?
Something to keep my eye on...
Ghanian-born Cheickh Bangoura, a former UN official now living in Ontario, has launched a libel suit against The Washington Post with Canadian courts.
He says the Post articles from 1997 alleging sexual harassment, financial wrongdoing and nepotism while he was working for the UN Drug Control Program in Africa can be accessed through the net in Canada --- and that has a large impact on his reputation considering he's lived in Canada since 1997.
Free online access to the Post's articles is limited to only 14 days and there were only about seven paid subscribers to the newspaper in Ontario at the time the articles were published, according to various online reports.
Today, the Post, backed up by 50 other major newspaper players, posted a challenge to the $6.5 million Internet libel case.
The media group is arguing that if the case is allowed to proceed, we're looking at squashing the fundamental purpose of the world wide web --- major media news outlets would be forced to block access in certain countries.
That'd mean saying bye-bye to reading The New York Times and The BBC World News --- which, let's face it, is so much more interesting and cool than reading any of the papers published in Canada.
But the shittiest aspect of this whole thing is that if the case goes through, it means changing the landscape of cyberspace --- free expression would mean squat. Access to global information would be rendered null and void --- and that sort of beats the whole point of the Internet, doesn't it?
Something to keep my eye on...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home