Winning the right to be wrong

The Supreme Court of Canada is currently (Wednesday, Feb. 18) hearing an important test case involving libel law. The Ottawa Citizen, joined by other major newspapers and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, is appealing a jury award of $125,000 to an Ontario policeman, on the grounds the news story was adequately researched and was in the public interest. At stake is the long-standing requirement in law that reporters must be able to prove the truth of every statement in a story in court, in order to avoid a defamation ruling. Under existing practice, lawyers for the newspapers have argued, it is too easy for parties wishing to avoid public scrutiny to use the threat of a libel action to avoid press coverage. What is needed, they have argued, is a new doctrine under which a reporter who can show he or she inquired into a situation fully and fairly, and who produced a story that was in the public interest, can avoid sanctions under the defamation statutes. Such a change could apply to bloggers as well as print and electronic journalists, and could have the useful side-effect of forcing those posting information online to professionalize their work, something that is badly needed now. The court is likely to take some time to decide what to do with this case. But questions put to lawyers for both sides Tuesday suggest at least some of the judges are having problems with the idea that a public interest should be allowed equal time with considerations of personal reputation when it comes to considering defamation issues."If it is in the public interest, then they have the right to be wrong?" Madam Justice Rosalie Abella asked during Tuesday's hearing, according to Kirk Makin's account in The Globe and Mail. "If they have acted in the public interest, yes, they would have that right to be wrong," replied Paul Schabas, a lawyer for the Toronto Star.