Should Internet-specific Principles of Law Be Adopted?

• Author: David A. Potts
• Profession: Barrister, Bar of Ontario
• Pages: 55-71

55

 : Should Internet-specic

Principles of Law Be Adopted?

A. introduCtion

“Like Wyatt Earp arr iving in Dodge City, law and order has come to cyberspace.”

W. John Moore, “Taming Cyberspace” ()  Nat’l J.  at 

“Maybe libel law is obsolete. Maybe it always was. But i n the world of Net

communications, it is hard to see why anyone should weep if libel lawsuits

disappeared altogether.”

Mike Godwi n, “Libel Law: Let it Die,” Wired (March, ) at 

“To s ay that libel and slander are rampant on the Internet would be an

understatement.”

R. Timothy Muth, “Old Doct rines on a New Frontier: Defamation and Ju risdiction

in Cyberspace,” e [Wisconsi n] Courier (September, )

As the above quotations demonstrate, cyberlibel has generated contro-

versy for many years. Justice Kirby in Dow Jones and Company Inc. v. Gut-

nick, [] HCA  at para.  stated:

KIRBY J. : Lord Bing ham of Corn hill recently wrote that, i n its impact on

the law of defamation, the Internet wil l require “almost every concept a nd

rule in the eld . . . to be reconsidered in the light of this unique medium

of in stant worldwide communication.” is appeal en livens such a recon-

sideration. [Footnote omitted.]

Courts a round the world have recogni zed the distinct ive features of the

Internet and the necessity of trying to apply the rules of defamation law to

the Internet.

56  Cyberlibel: Information Warfare in the st Century?

A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc.,•  NSSC , discussing Facebook

and privacy issues.

Black v. Breeden• ,  ONCA , on jurisdictional questions involving

cyberlibel.

Le Roux and Others v. Dey• (/ ), [] ZASCA ,  () SA 

(SCA), on defamatory meaning arising out of the multimedia nature

of the Internet.

Crookes v. Newton• ,  BCCA , discussing publication and hyper-

links.

Metropolitan Intern ational Schools Ltd. (t/a Skillstrain and/or Train-•

game) v. Designtechnica Corp (t/a Digital Trends) & Ors, [] EWHC

 (QB), on search engine liability.

Applause Store Productions Ltd. & Anor v. Raphael• , [] EWHC 

(QB), discussing Facebook.

Grant v. Torstar Corporation,•  ONCA , discussing the applica-

tion of a new defence of possible communication in matters of the public

interes t.

Bunt v. Tilley & Ors• , [] EWHC  (QB), discussing the liability of

passive intermediaries.

Bangoura v. Washington Post,•  CanLII  (ON C.A.), Bar rick

Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia,  Ca nLII   (ON C.A .), on questions of

damages and impact and ext ra-territorial application of injunctions.

Dow• Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, [] HCA , discussing the si ngle

publication rule.

Frequently par ties raise arguments that Internet-specic rules or prin-

ciples should be adopted in their particu lar case. e courts have thoroughly

considered and discu ssed the competing arg uments about t he development

and applications of Internet-specic rules.

See, for example: Blac k v. Breeden,  ONCA 

Metropolitan Internati onal Schools Ltd. (t/a Skillstrain and/or Traingame) v.

Designtechnica C orp (t/a Digital Trends) & Ors, [] EWHC  (QB)

Bangoura v. Washington Post,  Can LII  (ON C.A.)

Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foste r Parents Assn.,  BCCA 

Lewis & Ors v. King, [] EWCA Civ 

Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, [] HCA 

Loutchansky v. Times Newspa pers Ltd [] EWCA Civ 

e High Court of Aust ralia rejected an argument by Dow Jones in Dow

Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, [] HCA . e Court determined that, be-

cause of the characterist ics of the Internet, t he Court should not apply the