• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨
  • 22nd Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference 📢

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
You are here: Home / Business / Angry bloggers beware! – Your anonymity is not guaranteed… unless you defame a politician

By Maanit Zemel | 2 Minutes Read August 8, 2011

Angry bloggers beware! – Your anonymity is not guaranteed… unless you defame a politician

anonymous-angryOne year ago, I wrote about the Canadian courts’ trend of ordering Internet service providers or website operators to reveal the identity of anonymous bloggers, when it is alleged that the bloggers had defamed the plaintiff. A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, suggests that, when the plaintiff is a politician, the bloggers may continue to remain anonymous.
In Morris v. Johnson , Phyllis Morris, the former mayor of the Town of Aurora, brought a motion for an order against the operators of a blog that Ms. Morris alleged had defamed her while she was the mayor. Ms. Morris wished to have the identity of the anonymous bloggers revealed, so that she could name them as defendants to her defamation action. After reviewing the recent trend in the caselaw, Justice C.J. Brown refused to grant Ms. Morris’ request.
Although she does not specifically say so in her reasons, Justice Brown’s decision suggests that different standards may be applied to cases where the plaintiff is a politician. The Judge’s approach appears to be that, when a person expresses his or her views on a political figure anonymously, that person is validly exercising their constitutional right of freedom of expression and is entitled to remain anonymous. This approach is different than the one taken by the courts to the alleged defamation of lay people. In those cases, the courts have assumed that, because the blogger chose to remain anonymous, he or she may have had ulterior and possibly malicious motives in posting the allegedly defamatory comments.
In my view, a different standard should not be applied to disclosure requests made by politicians. In an open and democratic society, someone who wishes to validly criticize a political figure should be able to do so openly and freely, without fear of repercussion. If he or she defames the politician and chooses to do so anonymously, maybe there was an ulterior motive to the posting – to maliciously cause harm to his or her reputation. Otherwise, why choose to remain anonymous?
Maanit Zemel, Associate
Miller Thomson LLP

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Follow me

Maanit Zemel

Commercial litigator and principal at MTZ Law Professional Corporation
Maanit Zemel is a commercial litigator admitted to practice in Ontario and New York, with substantial experience and expertise in internet and social media law, including Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL), online defamation, cyberbullying and cyber-security.
Follow me

Latest posts by Maanit Zemel (see all)

  • The new privacy tort – Another victory for victims of cyberbullying - February 16, 2016
  • Canadian cyberbullying laws – Where are they now? - January 18, 2016
  • My website allows users to post comments – can I be liable for defamation? - November 18, 2015

Article by Maanit Zemel / Business, Privacy / alleged defamation, anonymity, anonymous bloggers, bloggers, Blogging, constitutional right, defamation, defamatory comments, Freedom of expression, internet defamation, Internet Service Providers, ISP, ISPs, malicious motives, Morris v. Johnson, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Politician, politics, social media, social networking, Town of Aurora, website operators

Share with a friend or colleague

Learn the 10 essential HR policies in the time of COVID-19

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

About Maanit Zemel

Maanit Zemel is a commercial litigator admitted to practice in Ontario and New York, with substantial experience and expertise in internet and social media law, including Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL), online defamation, cyberbullying and cyber-security.

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference Inc. (known as La Référence in Quebec) provides Canadian organizations of any size with practical and authoritative resources to help ensure compliance.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2021 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy