SCC Supports Libel Defense of 'Responsible Communication'

This may be a surprise to you all, but for years, despite exercising due diligence, journalists reporting what others say could still be successfully sued for libel.

No more.

Two separate court cases defending the Toronto Star and The Ottawa Citizen appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to support lower court rulings which created a defense of Responsible Communication for libel claims. Today, the SCC supported that defense, further increasing our rights as responsible bloggers and journalists.

The Toronto Star and The National Post both report, if you want case background.

Micheal Geists explains a little more and provides us with thel egal definition from the ruling:

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.

The court then outlines the the formulation of the defence, including whether the publication was a matter of public interest and a responsible communication. It summarizes the required elements as:

A. The publication is on a matter of public interest


and:


B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:


(a) the seriousness of the allegation;
(b) the public importance of the matter;
(c) the urgency of the matter;
(d) the status and reliability of the source;
(e) whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;
(f) whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
(g) whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and
(h) any other relevant circumstances.

Don't party too hard. Your work must be thorough and your pockets deep to use this defense. In other words, you global warming denialists running around with false data accusing scientists of perpetuationg a hoax and commiting crimes aren't covered.