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.

Warman Vs. Fournier: The Lawyers Respond

Two of them, at least, and they don't like it. Here's Gary Wise, and here's Michael Geist. Since they both make similar points, I will let Mr. Wise speak for both:

While I understand the freedominion authors to be an extremely tempting target to many in the blogosphere, little solace should be taken from this ruling.

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.

Based on Warman ruling, the mere commencement of a court proceeding may now give rise to an automatic entitlement to this form of disclosure.