Meanwhile

...Richard Warman settles with another FreeD anony, and another FreeD legal fundraiser ends with a plea for less talk, more scratch.

Date Set

...for an appeal of the ruling in the FreeD vs. Richard Warman case wherein Free Dominion owners Connie and Mark Fournier were ordered to turn over the IP addresses of eight FreeD members who allegedly posted defamatory comments re Mr. Warman.

And that date is April 6, 2010.

At the time of the initial ruling (back in March) Toronto employment lawyer and progblogger Garry Wise wrote:

An order for disclosure may have been justifiable if the statements made by the anonymous posters were, on their face, apparently actionable.

The Court's disinclination, however, to engage in any factual analysis of the alleged defamation or the necessary balancing of competing interests has created a dangerous precedent that should not be allowed to stand.

Interestingly enough, Gary was at yesterday's ProgBlogs BBQ and we fell to talking about this issue. If I am remembering his remarks correctly, his instinct was that the original decision would be upheld, but the missing "factual analysis" would hopefully be filled in by the appeals judge.

4 FreeD Anonies Identified

ARC has the story, and several background documents. Of the 8 John Does in the FreeDominion vs. Richard Warman defamation case, it has been possible to put a name and mailing address to 4, who have been served their legal paperwork over the past week or so.

The documents are interesting as a good example of how this on-line sleuthing stuff actually works. To put a name to various Internet handles, the investigation went from blogs to the comments section of online newspapers to flickr and elsewhere. This is all material found on public websites so, despite the bleating you may hear from certain sources, it is a long way from Internet "stalking".

PS. It also, contrary to what you might hear, did not involve hacking any sites in Panama with the DND (Dept. National Defense) computers. Trust me on that one.

Quebec Moves To Protect Free Speech

...from its most egregious abusers:

The bill is particularly aimed at combating what are known as SLAPPs, or strategic law suits against public participation.

Such suits - typically involving large claims of money for defamation or damage to reputation - are common in cases where citizens or non-governmental organizations speak out against the environmental impact of company operations or development plans.

H/T

Lots of back and forth in the article on how or whether the legislation will work, but you would figure that if 25 states can implement something along these lines, it is at least possible.

Incidentally, Connie/Ed are in court today for the hearing on their application for leave to appeal the order against them requiring that reveal the anonymous posters in the Warman case (they need leave from the court before they can appeal the order). Note: Sorry about the previous sentence.

In any case, this post from earlier this morning:

RedDog wrote:

Semi-related: but where is the legal funding issue? There had been talk of X number of people pitching in to carry a line of credit. Where and when to be so directed?

Ed Kennedy responded:

You will get a PM [private message] on that now.


...suggests that FreeD's method of funding their case is still a work in progress.

Whig Standard On On-Line Libel

A nice editorial, based on the FreeD appeal of the Warman ruling:

Online forums play a different role in hosting public comment, but they must share the responsibility to determine what is fair comment. It's one thing to facilitate a discussion online, but it is another when that online conversation is based on falsehoods.

Individuals and groups deserve protection from potentially hurtful and damaging comments. That is why there are libel and slander laws to provide a permanent layer of legal protection.

Online forums, just like mainstream media, have an obligation to ensure that individuals post comments that are in good taste and stay within the legal guidelines.

One of those things that really shouldn't have to be said.

By the way, has anyone else experienced the following: defamatory remarks appear anonymously in the comments section, and almost immediately their target (or the target's lawyer) arrives bearing a legal threat, raising the suspicion that the target might have posted the remark themselves.

A local politician once emailed me claiming that he suspected the Tory machine was doing this to him: posting defamatory remarks about a local Tory in on-line forums sympathetic to the politician, and then threatening the forum with libel.

I've had the same kind of material posted in my comments concerning a number of the folks I've written about (including an accusation of murder), but was able to removed them before any lawyers showed up.

Is there a name for this kind of trick?

FreeD To Appeal Warman Ruling If They Can Find The Dough

Mark Fournier said the couple doesn't have enough money right now to finance the appeal. They are hoping members of their website, bloggers and forum owners will donate to their legal fund.

That's about $25,000 all told, when their most recent fundraising attempts have come up short and it doesn't sound like they've had much luck appealing to outside funding sources.

FreeD Likely To Appeal Warman Ruling

From the Wiselaw Blog:

Connie Fournier said...
Mr. Wise, it is very likely we WILL be appealing this decision.
Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:58:00 PM

Most of the discussions on this at FreeD have been taking place in a closed thread, but the cost would involve paying the $5,000 charge already levied against the forum and then another at around $20,000 or so. Fund-raising efforts, Connie notes, would have to "reach out beyond FD".

Meanwhile, I wrote yesterday that the court order pertained to The Cools Post. That is not correct.

FreeD Vs. Warman: The Obvious Occurs

Free Dominion is ordered to turn over IP addresses for the "anonymous eight", an octet of true Conservatives so committed to the principles of Free Speech that they are willing to hide behind pseudonyms in order to slander Richard Warman.

The most important bit of the ruling is here. Warman gets access to

Now, Connie claims that:
For well over a year, the IP address information on every post has recorded the same number: 127.0.0.1

...and I'm not sure if year old IPs will help much in establishing the anonys' identity (though a few cases this can be figured out from strictly on-line sources). It occurs to me, however, that a number of these people claim to have contributed to the FreeD defense fund, and if the Fourniers are required to turn over billing details of these transactions, then that should seal the deal.

Another nice bit:

In the case before the court, we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service.

Apparently, FreeD can make you go blind.

Finally, none of this should have come as a surprise to anyone that's been paying attenion. As Judge Kershman wrote:

The fact that they're all sitting there stunned at FreeD speaks to a wilful ignorance of Canadian law and, since Connie and Mark are receiving paid/professional legal advice, speaks I think to the fact that they are playing forum members for saps.

PS. The Fourniers got dinged $5,000 by the judge for forcing this whole silly motion and hearing in the first place.

FreeD Short On Dough

We are about to launch a very professional campaign to raise funds for Free Dominion's Legal Defence. This campaign is in the planning stages, and should be going full-steam within a few weeks.

[...]

Although FDers have been wonderfully supportive, there just aren't enough of us to raise the tens of thousands of dollars we will likely need.

They also want $3,000 immediately, and since they are talking to the tune of $10,000s you can probably conclude that, despite the bluster, they are expecting to get stuck with the tab for Warman's motion demanding they turn over the sign up and forum posting details for the 8 FreeD Anonys.

FreeD's Defense: Heez Igrant, But So Iz Whee!

Mark and Connie are, of course, trying to protect the 8 pseuds caught up in Warman's law-suit against FreeD (these 8 "John Does" apparently fight for Freedom by defaming people anonymously, by the way). M&C are refusing to turn over sign-up and forum posting details that might lead to the 8's identification. Warman is trying to compel them via a court motion. M&C argue:

One of the notable aspects of Richard Warman's motion was its obvious lack of technical expertise. In a nutshell, they don't know what they are talking about. They don't understand the software, they don't understand what information is captured and stored and they don't have a clue about what IP addresses actually are.

[...]

Second, what little data we do have, IP’s from the posts in question, is quite literally useless because the website’s clock has been wrong for years and we have never been able to figure out how to fix it.

Think about that a moment.

Also, though we all know, or should know, the difficulties inherent in tying an IP address to a particular forum participant, this post makes clear that Connie and Mark could collect such information if they chose. For example, when I tricked Padraigh (one of the anonymous 8) into commenting several weeks ago, his IP became available for the harvesting by the forum administrator. Apparently, this was not done. On the other hand, they didn't have any trouble finding (and bandying about) my IP address way back when...

Most if not all common bulletin board systems have the ability to store IP addresses and match them to user-names. Certainly phpBB, the one FreeD is using, does. In fact, I would suspect that all the IPS employed by all the FreeD pseuds are sitting in the data-base.

Anti-Racist Canada Ties Ribbon To Free-D Pseud

And Droid1963's real name is...

And here is why we care.