Where is Ontario going when it comes to defamation in the Internet age? An initial audience survey found that most respondents felt that social media and other emerging « publishing » technologies were the main reason why defamation law needed further reform. Just over a quarter of respondents said the defamation law needed a major overhaul. It is hoped that the LCO`s considerable efforts will not be wasted in a four-year consultation process, which largely resulted in a practical plug-and-play solution for legislators. Hopefully, the Ontario government will not only recognize this process, but also take steps to expedite it and not only provide assistance and advice to the courts to navigate defamation cases in the internet age, but also provide individuals with direct access to justice and save everyone involved the time and expense that necessarily accompanies a full lawsuit. As we mentioned earlier, defamation lawsuits are usually followed by an anti-SLAPP lawsuit and result in significant costs for all parties involved in the early stages of this process. The Northern Ireland Law Commission (NI) commissioned Scott to review the defamation law, which led to a discussion paper which he submitted for consultation. Subsequently, Scott also wrote a report for the Northern Ireland Treasury, in which he included two bills recommended for consideration by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The first bill was based on the Defamation Act 2013, which applied to England and Wales, but with increased protection for internet publishers and a broader defence of honest opinions. The second bill also includes provisions to abolish the one-way rule and to make a judicial prohibition of claims prescribed if a publisher has issued a timely discursive appeal (correction or revocation) that reflects Scott`s work in this area.
The Court`s desire for legislative reform emerged more recently in Emeny v. Tomaszerski, in which Justice Sossin referred to the LCO`s 2017 Consultation Paper on Defamation in the Internet Age in the context of a dispute over comments on Twitter. [5] This new approach to publishing seems more suited to defamation in the internet age, where communication can be generalized across a variety of platforms and involves a number of parties hosting content without the active intention of communicating the expression. By requiring that publication (and republication) be intentional for defamation purposes, the LCO sets the necessary limits for applicants and complainants to file claims against unnecessary parties and with wide-ranging allegations. This is the final report of the Law Commission of Ontario`s (LCO) Defamation Act in the Internet Age. The LCO`s project examined Ontario`s defamation laws and how they should be updated to include « internet speech, » including social media, blogs, internet platforms and digital media. The report concludes that legislative reform is needed to modernize defamation and better protect freedom of expression in an online world. These reforms should build on successful developments in Ontario`s common law and anti-gag legislation.
The final report contains 39 recommendations on Ontario`s defamation law, substantive defamation law, publication, notice, statute of limitations, injunctions, jurisdiction, takedowns, Internet intermediaries and related matters. Key recommendations include: Ontario should enact new defamation legislation to promote access to justice and adapt defamation law to the realities of the Internet. The new law should contain provisions to: promote alternative dispute resolution for online defamation disputes; the introduction of a new notification regime for defamation complaints; o Introduction of a « single publication rule » setting a two-year limitation period for defamation actions; and o Expand the powers of courts to order injunctions to remove content online in limited and prescribed circumstances. The new defamation law is also expected to establish new legal responsibilities for Internet platforms hosting third-party content accessible to Ontarians. These obligations should include: Referral of defamation claims to online publishers; and remove the content if the publisher of the content does not respond to a notification.⢠Internet platforms that do not comply with these obligations should be fined. In order to protect freedom of expression, intermediary platforms should not be considered publishers when passively hosting third-party content. A complete list of recommendations can be found in Appendix A of the report. Anti-SLAPP provisions have been created to mitigate prosecutions of individuals or organizations as an indirect tool to restrict freedom of expression and deter parties from participating in public affairs. The LCO asserted that this bill serves a necessary purpose to mitigate the general circumstance that powerful individuals and organizations use defamation law as a tool to silence freedom of expression.
On Monday 27 July 2020, the Australian Law Reform Commission, in collaboration with the University of Sydney, hosted a webinar with a panel of experts discussing the possibility of a future ALRC inquiry into the reform of the Defamation Act. More than 350 people watched the event « live » and hundreds more signed up to watch the recording at a later date. The live webcast of the webinar, moderated by Wolters Kluwer CCH Learning, featured a nationwide interactive conversation where registration questions were welcomed and answered during the event. The LCO`s Notice and Removal Process recognizes that the civil justice system is ill-equipped to deal with online defamation complaints. It is costly and too slow to remedy the reputational damage that spreads in seconds in the digital world. The LCO`s project included the most extensive research and consultation on defamation laws in Canada. The project culminated in the publication of our final report in March 2020. The final report contains 39 recommendations to reform Ontario`s defamation laws in a variety of areas. The ALRC will receive further comments on the need to reform the email defamation law in reformpriorities@alrc.gov.au until 31 August 2020.
Before the Internet, defamation complaints generally concerned newspaper articles, books, magazines, and radio and television programs. The paradigm defendant was a professional media organization that published in the public interest and was subject to professional journalistic standards and other oversight mechanisms. The common law on defamation and the law on defamation and cowardice were developed primarily to take into account the characteristics of these cases. Justice Judith Gibson of the District Court of New South Wales insisted that, in order to achieve greater consistency, defamation reform should be considered in conjunction with other areas of law that also face liability issues for online publication methods, including copyright. tort, civil content, criminal speech, and deceptive and deceptive conduct. She pleaded for an ALRC investigation to « extend the cyber-restart of the defamation law planned by the Attorney General. » Overall, Scott`s research has influenced legislative and legal developments that serve to rebalance individual and social interests in reputation and freedom of expression reflected in defamation laws. They are largely moving towards better valuing free speech to ensure that powerful interests are less able to restrict critical speech through the threat of prosecution, thus ensuring a more open audience.