Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Interesting Internet Defamation Lawsuit - Statute of Limitations Reset Online?

(1/4) > >>

Renegade:
This is really interesting... A lawsuit against a site that was taken offline in 2009 that had defamatory material on it... The statute of limitations is 2 years. Game over? Not quite...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1285850--pro-life-crisis-pregnancy-centres-sue-pro-choice-activist-for-2009-report

The statute of limitations for defamation is two years, but the groups argue that period has not expired because the report was published online and continues to be accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.

“The limitation period is accordingly renewed every day that the report remains online,” says the Notice of Civil Claim filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia on Oct. 25, which alternatively argues that the period is renewed every time someone finds and reads the report.

Don Crane, the lawyer representing Arthur, disagrees and plans to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds the limitation period has passed.
--- End quote ---

So... 

Does online accessibility reset the statute of limitations for defamation?

TaoPhoenix:
Well fooey, if the only criterion is "on the Internet", then the statute of limitations will *never* expire because someone will make it a point to keep juicy stuff and "re-publish" it as a service to lawyers and others.  >:(

TaoPhoenix:
It's also not clear if people can randomly look up posts they never were upset about before, and suddenly throw a lawsuit hissy fit.

40hz:
I think the plaintiffs are going for a really really long shot with that one in an attempt to extend existing law far beyond where it was ever intended to reach.

I'm guessing the judiciary will realize what they're up to and just say "Sorry folks. Nice try."

To do otherwise would open up anything ever published to potential defamation litigation.

Tinman57:
I think the plaintiffs are going for a really really long shot with that one in an attempt to extend existing law far beyond where it was ever intended to reach.

I'm guessing the judiciary will realize what they're up to and just say "Sorry folks. Nice try."

To do otherwise would open up anything ever published to potential defamation litigation.
-40hz (November 11, 2012, 01:09 PM)
--- End quote ---

But you forgot to figure in the idiocracy (I know that's not a real word other than the movie) of our judicial system.....

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page