Brian Burke has a daunting task ahead of him in suing bloggers and other Internet commenters for slander 鈥� the legal action is aimed at people as yet anonymous 鈥� but it鈥檚 an action whose time has come. The digital age has made it too easy to throw out accusations and information without regard for truth or reason.
Burke has held a number of prominent positions in professional hockey, including general manager, at various times, of the Vancouver Canucks, the Anaheim Ducks and the Toronto Maple Leafs. He has filed a lawsuit in sa国际传媒 Supreme Court, saying he was defamed in online comments accusing him of having an extramarital affair with a sports reporter.
Burke鈥檚 lawyer says the comments, allegedly made under pseudonyms such as 鈥淪lobberface鈥� and 鈥淢owerman,鈥� are false and defamatory, and they have hurt Burke鈥檚 family, as well as the family of Hazel Mae, the sports reporter named in the rumours. Mae supports Burke鈥檚 lawsuit.
鈥淎 lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes,鈥� said American humourist Mark Twain. Because of the Internet and social media, it has never been easier to spread those lies.
Before the digital age, the means to publish information widely was in the hands of a few 鈥� those who owned printing presses or broadcasting outlets. As the world of publishing evolved, so did the relevant laws, and so writers and broadcasters are constrained by libel and slander legislation.
But the legislation applies to anyone who publishes, and that means communicating information to the public. Everyone with a home computer, a tablet or a smartphone has the means to be a publisher these days. Disseminating slanderous or libellous material is against the law and subject to legal action, regardless of where and how the material originates.
A Comox Valley parent learned that in 2006 when the sa国际传媒 Supreme Court ruled she had maliciously defamed nine teachers, a retired school trustee and a parent in her efforts concerning school-related issues. The court said she had conducted a campaign of character assassination through chat rooms, email and websites. She was ordered to pay more than $650,000 in damages, establishing that private individuals are held to the same standard of proof as professional journalists when they publish information.
That鈥檚 an extreme case, but it contains a lesson. Mention something to another person, and it might be just gossip, restricted to a room. Send it out in an email, include it in a blog or post it on Facebook, and it can, as Twain suggested, go around the world in an eyeblink. And you can鈥檛 call it back.
Nearly all of the trash-talking these days comes anonymously. An anonymous comment is like an unsigned cheque 鈥� it has no validity. But that鈥檚 small comfort to the victims of the cowards who conduct their sniping wars from the underbrush of anonymity. It鈥檚 difficult to fight back when you don鈥檛 know the identity of those you are fighting.
鈥淪ticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me,鈥� children have chanted for generations, but unfair labels and groundless accusations do hurt. They have ruined reputations, broken businesses and damaged families. In some cases, they have motivated people to take their own lives.
Advocates of anonymous comment say it is vital to free expression, but freedom of expression is a phrase that evokes openness, fresh air and light, not the stench that comes from those who lack the courage to attach their names to their comments.
The ease with which information can be moved around today, anonymously or otherwise, does not relieve anyone of the responsibility to be truthful and fair.
