Bloggers murdered killed slain assassinated


  1. The Supreme Court of Canada in Grant vs Torstar ruled that with respect to the laws of defamation of character; slander and libel, bloggers should be treated no differently than journalist. Essentially, it means that the important distinction is not whether a person is a journalist or a blogger but whether they are “doing journalism”.

    A few clauses read:

    [96] A second preliminary question is what the new defence should be called. In arguments before us, the defence was referred to as the responsible journalism test. This has the value of capturing the essence of the defence in succinct style. However, the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets. I agree with Lord Hoffmann that the new defence is “available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium”: Jameel, at para. 54.

    [97] A review of recent defamation case law suggests that many actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media. While established journalistic standards provide a useful guide by which to evaluate the conduct of journalists and non-journalists alike, the applicable standards will necessarily evolve to keep pace with the norms of new communications media. For this reason, it is more accurate to refer to the new defence as responsible communication on matters of public interest.

    1. Interesting. I think bloggers will be “journalists” when it makes them liable for what they write but “not journalists” when it suits the Government… thanks for this!

Comments are closed.