interesting article in the Toronto Star about how what we say online (about a company in particular) could be considered defamation...

this current tech craze is really a game changer on so many levels...

http://www.thestar.com/business/art...n-on-a-keyboard

quote:

Corporations, governments, charities and even Facebook members should think twice before hosting interactive comments, say lawyers who specialize in defamation. Having a comment box — or even a wall — is an invitation to potential liability. Cyber-libel is an emerging specialty, but one few businesses are prepared for, says Michael Smith, a libel lawyer with Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto. “The immediacy of social media and email has made it such that people are thinking even less about what they write before they post or press Send,” Smith says. That immediacy translates into an Internet soup of critical and defamatory comment, which can lower the reputation of individuals or organizations not just in their home country, but around the world. Canadian courts can hold employers liable as publishers of defamatory material simply because employees use their email accounts, servers, laptops, smartphones or other technology, Smith says. But mouthing off about poor service from a supplier, slagging a competitor, or complaining about a colleague could also land the originator of the comments in court. Just ask Courtney Love, the rock star who settled a defamation lawsuit in March, paying out $430,000 (U.S.) over disparaging tweets and negative comments she made in her MySpace blog about fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir. Although we haven’t seen the same type of celebrity tweeting and blogging suit in Canada, Michael Smith feels that is simply a matter of time. In 2009, Peter Smith (no relation to the lawyer) was the defendant in a defamation suit in Toronto by interior designer Carey Mudford. Peter Smith had posted negative comments about Mudford on two websites about Toronto-area business and renovation services. Although Peter Smith contended that his statements were based on fact, Justice Edward Belobaba of Ontario Superior Court agreed with Mudford that they hurt her reputation and cost her business. He awarded Mudford $35,000 in damages. Businesses and individuals should take heed from these cautionary tales, says Michael Smith, since case law has already established the Internet is not the haven of free speech that users believe, and there is no such thing as anonymity. Canadian judges are generally willing to order Internet service providers to disclose the identity of people using pseudonyms to criticize others, he says. Even forwarding an email or posting links on a webpage to another site could be construed as publication under Canadian libel laws, particularly since they have not been updated to take the Internet age into account, Michael Smith warns. He urges employers to create policies that outline employee responsibilities and to educate employees about the risks cyber-libel poses. Another expert in cyber-libel, lawyer David Potts, thinks employers have to go further. He views cyber-libel as a form of guerrilla warfare that can be deployed against companies or organizations. Potts believes firms need to think defensively and plan strategically to handle attacks before they arise. It’s extremely hard to erase comments from cyberspace, and they can destroy a firm’s reputation in a keystroke, says Potts, the author of Cyberlibel: Information Warfare in the 21st Century? Canadian courts have already acknowledged both the permanency and the breadth of cyber-libel, which judges consider in awarding damages. Publicly traded companies are particularly vulnerable on stock market websites, for example, Potts says, because penny stocks or thinly traded stocks can be moved up and down by negative comments on the Internet. Competitors and consumers may also launch their own defamatory attacks from what are called “gripe” or “suck” websites. Those sites range from review pages that rank health-care professionals, to consumer forums posting complaints about defective goods. Ideologically driven and boycott websites can also hurt a company’s reputation, Potts adds. And attacks by current or former employees can damage an institution or organization. The organizations that are harmed can sue — but that may not be the best approach. Lawsuits can draw more attention to the negative comments and result in their republication. “What I say to people is, if you take action, you can create or transform a problem into a disaster,” Potts says. Combatting cyber-libel requires an understanding of information technology, strategic studies and risk management, Potts adds. He counsels companies to think about where attacks could originate, based on their own corporate culture, and anticipate a response. Strategic planning should also involve coordinating damage control with a company’s legal representatives and public relations and management representatives, he says. Cyber-libel can be prevented and its harm mitigated, Potts says. “There are remedies — it just means you have to be more creative and more multi-disciplinary.”

___________________
http://www.beatport.com/jonathan-rosa/