Changes to libel law extends protection for journalists, public communicators
|
January 17, 2010 6:00 AM
|
Canadian journalists now enjoy expanded protection of freedom of the press following two Supreme Court decisions last month.
On Dec. 22, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that journalists will be protected from defamation lawsuits as long as they act responsibly in reporting their stories, and if those stories are in the public interest.
The pair of decisions came as the result of two cases in which the Ottawa Citizen and Toronto Star had published material that yielded a negative effect on plaintiffs who subsequently sued for defamation.
Unable to prove their facts true under the existing law, the Supreme Court granted the media a new kind of defence altering Canada’s standing libel law.
The court stated that communications in the public interest do not have to be proved true if the publisher can display that they behaved responsibly, and with due diligence, in publishing them as they did.
The court also noted that the decision brings Canada in line with other western democracies who offer more significant protection to the media.
“A number of countries with common law traditions comparable to those of Canada have moved in recent years to modify the law of defamation to provide greater protection for communications on matters of public interest,” said Supreme Court chief justice Beverley McLachlin.
However, both the court and lawyers maintain that this is not a licence to freely defame.
“These decisions are certainly not a licence to publish anything and everything. They require proof that the decision to publish exactly what has in fact been published is, in the all circumstances, a responsible one,” said Chris Levy, a law professor at the University of Calgary.
Levy noted that many journalism professors in particular have commented that what this really requires is compliance with the ethical standards of journalism.
“It is also important to note that the court expressly chose to call the new defence ‘responsible communication,’ rather than ‘responsible journalism,’” said Levy. “This is designed to emphasize that the defence is available to all who communicate with the public.”
The decision also met with some favour among student journalists.
“I think that broader libel laws are good for journalists, as any democracy requires a vibrant public discourse which, in turn, requires a serious commitment to freedom of speech,” said Cam Cotton-O’Brien, editor-in-chief of the Gauntlet at U of C.
“That said, those exercising that freedom of speech should be careful not to frivolously abuse that capacity, as such abuse may come to obscure meaningful issues.”