For the second time in a week, a group of Canadian Facebook users may have broken the law by publishing the names of youths charged under Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act. This law puts limitations on the publication of the identity of people charged under it; the basis for this is that revealing their names would be detrimental to rehabilitation and to public safety. The publication ban also applies to the identities of victims and witnesses in cases where people are charged under the act. There are exceptions to this gag order, such as in cases where the crime is transferred to adult court or if the youth court has found the accused guilty and imposed an adult sentence.
It happened with the first homicide of the year here in Toronto, in the case of a 14-year-old girl who was murdered on New Year’s Day. While newspapers, TV and radio stations and their associated websites complied with a 24-hour ban forbidding the publication of the victim’s name, some Toronto Facebook users created a memorial group in which both the victim and her two accused killers — a 17-year-old boy and 15-year-old — were named. The group was created by a 16-year-old who said “felt entitled to ‘pay attention’ to someone who was special to him and who had no idea he might have been violating the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
It happened again, this time in Alberta, where the names of four teenage boys accused of microwaving a cat to death were published in a Facebook group. Reactions were (understandably) harsh, with posted comments like “I think people like that should be shot”, “They will all get their faces smashed in by January 6th” and ” would say these monsters should be tortured, let society at them”.
These appear to be cases where technology has entered a grey area with the law. Referring to the case of the 14-year-old murdered in Toronto, a Toronto area constable said that “It’s a very good question if the people who post things on Facebook are actually breaking the YCJA. I guess it all boils down to whether Facebook is eventually determined by somebody that it is a publication.” In the story on the Alberta boys who accused of killing the cat, a British Columbia lawyer is of the opinion that the YCJA was broken and — as even someone at their first day of law school will tell you — ignorance of the law is no excuse.
My own opinion is that posting things online, whether in a blog, social network site, wiki or any other public online forum, is publication, even if you’re not doing it professionally. If online publishing gives you at least the same potential audience and reach as a city newspaper, then as an online publisher, you also have the same legal and ethical responsibilities that a city newspaper has.
Luckily for me, I worked at Crazy Go Nuts University’s main student newspaper, where we got brief on Canadian law and journalism and benefited from having one of the Globe and Mail’s lawyers do a regular Q&A session with us. I may not be able to quote chapter and verse of Canadian journo law, but I think I’ve can do a decent job at “sniff testing” to see if a posting will get me in legal hot water. I think that a number of bloggers — people who post articles on a regular basis — have made themselves familiar with the legal aspects of blogging, although I’m sure a number haven’t. Things can get hairy on online forums like Facebook, which is made for people who don’t publish regularly but do want some kind of online presence. On these places, users probably don’t think of themselves as publishers and might be unaware that they’re opening themselves up to charges of libel, defamation or violating the YCJA.
Paging Canadian lawyers who specialize in the internet — fellow neighbourhoodie Rob Hyndman, and friend-by-correspondence Michael Geist, I’m lookin’ at you! Do you know of any places where a Canadian blogger or Facebook user can find out more about the law and online publsihing?
Tap to see the source. This is yesterday’s daily New Yorker cartoon, created by Brendan…
C’mon, let it not be Asians this time. Last time was pretty bad. Here’s the…
Jon Stewart’s right, and we’ve been here before. Where we are now, I’ve been before…
Poppies thrive in overturned soil, which is why they bloom in battlefields. I’m in the…
In times of high dudgeon, there’s a tendency to throw integrity out the window. One…
A demonstrator at Texas State University in Austin, Texas on Wednesday, November 6, 2024. Photo…
View Comments
Doesn't it all kind of depend on 1) the jurisdiction of the hosted site and 2) the nationalities of the members of said group?
Seems to me that Canadians creating such a group are probably in violation of the law, but any other nationality doing so would be fair game, as long as the site was not hosted here.
The smart thing to do would be to have a non-citizen be the point of dissemination -- like the (US) PowerLine blog publishing details about the (Canadian, publication-blocked) Gomery Inquiry's Adscam testimony.
@Chris Taylor: Facebook's servers live in the U.S., and in both cases, the people who started the groups were Canadian.
Having a non-citizen as a point of dissemination works in cases like the Gomery Inquiry, where the issue is of interest nationwide and the online medium is a blog. In cases like the murder in Toronto and the animal abuse in Edmonton, where interest is local, and on a site like Facebook, where information is spread via who you have on your "friends" list, it doesn't work as well.
Hm... That's a good point.
I don't know that the info-spread is strictly on a friend-to-friend basis, though. The vast majority of groups I've joined on Facebook, I found through my own interests and careful searching -- not via recommendations from pals. That may be atypical of the Facebook experience, I don't know.
Yeah, but you get updates like "such and such just joined the xxx group", so you get information of what your friends are doing and can get to groups from there.
It really is getting kind of hard to find the line here. The difference between publication and simple free speech is getting more and more blurred in the Web 2.0 world.
The ability for anyone to write down thoughts and comments in a form that anyone anywhere in the world can see or read is turning gag orders and legal limits on information into jokes.
Do not copy an article 100 %
No more than 90 % max
Less is better
Trim it dowm. Remove unimportant lines, info.
Change the Headline
Add a link at the bottom to the original site and page.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social and criminal justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
In most cases, we recommend that you avoid reposting news articles in their entirety on public websites.
Instead, we recommend that you summarize, quote, discuss and/or link to the original article.
Making copies of articles for an internal archive or other non-public-facing repository is probably pretty safe. Not only because you're unlikely to be discovered, but because it would be much easier to show that you're not harming the market for the original work.
Not-for-profit organization licences
With an Access Copyright licence, not-for-profit organizations and professional associations can make copies from books, newspapers, periodicals and journals to meet their organizational mandates.
What is fair dealing?
The Copyright Act provides that dealing with any material protected by copyright for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review or news reporting is not an infringement of copyright. Fair dealing with a work does not require the permission of copyright owner or the payment of royalties.
Although well-recognized in Canada and abroad, fair dealing has never been clearly defined in Canadian legislation, and the courts have tried to interpret what it means. As a result, while a fair dealing exists, there is a lot of disagreement over what it includes.
In deciding whether copying is fair dealing, the courts have determined that the relevant factors to be considered include the length of the excerpts used, the relative importance and quality of the excerpts used, and whether a copy is made for academic or commercial purposes. Fair dealing usually involves copying only a reasonable portion of a work.
Fair dealing applies to photocopying as well as other methods of reproduction - including the making of slides, microfiche, or transparencies as well as to faxes and other methods of electronic transmission.