Lawsuits about alleged libel in social media - discussion

[Low Light Mike]

Mar 17, 2016 13:32:21 GMT -8 person said:

I just realized something interesting. Kather Anne (remember the big caricatures of ferries) removed all her postings. That is why this thread shrunk to 44 pages. Her last post expressed dismay that Ferries was basically attacking her for opinions expressed. They have also attacked me - in the form of a lawsuit for defamation of character against one of their Vice Presidents. Things are getting interesting. Apparently I have " damaged the Plaintiffs reputation, and he has suffered distress and embarrassment". BCF has turned the page. Intimidate the people who do not support their precious cable ferry. They have picked on the wrong person.

Actually, based on some of the comments I've seen on the "BC Ferries - Our Marine Highway" facebook group today, some people probably don't like school-yard name calling (and I guess facebook is the place for that, because that's certainly not what we tolerate here). And they don't like allegations that specifically call out someone's professional competencies.

It makes sense to me that BC Ferries would push back legally, if there were personal accusations made against their professional employees. Good for them.



ps: Kather Anne posted a lot more than just in this here thread. She was well known throughout this forum. We miss her stuff.

[Low Light Mike]

Mar 17, 2016 20:18:20 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

Actually, based on some of the comments I've seen on the "BC Ferries - Our Marine Highway" facebook group today, some people probably don't like school-yard name calling (and I guess facebook is the place for that, because that's certainly not what we tolerate here). And they don't like allegations that specifically call out someone's professional competencies.

...and things have continued to get worse in this regard, at the various usual facebook sound-off groups.

I read it for entertainment, but it does make me cringe. And it makes me very thankful that it's not happening over here.

[Neil]

Clarification: the lawsuit against Pete Kimmerly is being brought by an employee of BC Ferries, but that person's legal bill is being paid by the company.

[Deleted]

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

[Low Light Mike]

Regarding the defamation suit, here's what Mr. Tony Law posted today in a publicly-viewable facebook page:

According to BC Ferries' Public Affairs Manager Darin Guenette this morning:

"A BC ferries employee has filed a suit against a Hornby Island resident for defamation arising from a Facebook post. The action is between two private individuals; BCF is not party to the suit."

"The sole defendant is a one Hornby Island resident; no other person is named as a defendant. The filing does contain a list of all people who are members of the Facebook page on which the defamatory posting was made. This is included in order to describe the extent to which the defamatory posting was published. This does not make those people defendants."

"We trust you will understand we cannot comment further because BCF is not party to the suit and the matter is before the courts."

[Deleted]

You are not up to the latest Flugel Horn, again by T. Law:

"Yes, the action is being brought by the BC Ferries employee as an individual. BC Ferries will be paying the employee’s legal fees since this matter arose as a result of his employment with BC Ferries."
Mike Corrigan
President & Chief Executive Officer

Might be on the news tonight?

[Low Light Mike]

Mar 18, 2016 16:37:51 GMT -8 @propwash said:

BC Ferries will be paying the employee’s legal fees since this matter arose as a result of his employment with BC Ferries."

This sounds fair and reasonable to me.

This opinion of mine is in the context of this being a lawsuit about damages caused by alleged libel.

I do not believe that this is a SLAPP-suit, and I do not believe that this suit is because the defendent was vocally opposed to the cable ferry project.

[kevins]

News Clip




from CTV newscast

[Low Light Mike]

Mar 18, 2016 18:35:00 GMT -8 kevins said:

News Clip

rom CTV newscast

Thanks very much for that link.

In the clip, Mr. Sean Smith shows a lot of wisdom about how social media works.

[Low Light Mike]

Here's a new thread, where any discussion about the current lawsuit (and any similar items yet to come) concerning alleged libel done through social media.

[Neil]

I've read the remarks being challenged in the lawsuit, and I remember reading them on the facebook page a few days ago and thinking that they did little to advance the argument against the cable ferry project. Sounded too spiteful, and too personal.

I'm not sure I agree with Mr Horn about this not being a 'SLAPP' case. No question the characterization of Mr Collins was unhelpful. But the vast majority of Mr Kimmerly's input on this project has been based on meticulous research that he did on the engineering, safety, operational, and financial aspects of this project, and he has been a major thorn in the side of BC Ferries. Some of his allegations remain unproven, but still subject to the results of ongoing operations. 

The intemperate remarks may have provided an opening for BC Ferries to sponsor a lawsuit against a notable irritant. I don't know. Seems to me that the readership of the Hornby and Denman facebook pages hardly constitutes a constituency which can have any tangible effect on Mr Collins' reputation, and that, if the couple of posts in question were really the only major sin, this could have been resolved by communication, short of a lawsuit.

I'm also troubled by the demand in the suit that the proprietor of the facebook page ensure that there is no further 'disparaging' remarks aimed at Mr Collins. I don't know what the legal definition of 'disparaging' is, but I suspect that if such a demand was supported in court, it would lead to possible legal chill with regard to freedom of speech on the part of anyone questioning the actions and record of people associated with BC Ferries. Kind of what 'SLAPP' cases hope to achieve.

[vancouverecho]

Mar 18, 2016 18:47:38 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

Mar 18, 2016 18:35:00 GMT -8 kevins said:

News Clip

rom CTV newscast

Thanks very much for that link.

In the clip, Mr. Sean Smith shows a lot of wisdom about how social media works.

Long time lurker, but decided to register an account upon reading about this in the news.

Full disclosure; I'm not involved in the lawsuit at all, nor am I a employee of BC Ferries, or have any relatives working for BC Ferries. I do not know anyone on Hornby Island for that matter, but I do know a thing or two about social media, law and politics. Thus, I will chime in based upon my knowledge on both social media and law.

My opinion on the matter: I don't think this is a SLAPP lawsuit from the bits and tidbits I've been reading. I haven't heard or seen what exactly was said. But based upon my knowledge on the current state of libel law, this lawsuit appears to be more about a person's statements in the media (both conventional and on social) that affects the reputation of another person versus BC Ferries wanting this person to shut up. The fact that BC Ferries is paying the person's legal fees is par for the course; most major organizations will generally support their employees in court if there is a lawsuit related to a person's employment, especially a senior executive. I also imagine that the exec and BC Ferries have gone through their due diligence in such a legal matter, such as considering ignoring the comments made by Peter, refuting it, or sending a cease and desist order against Peter prior to.

A lawsuit is usually what I would call the nuclear option: When one decides to use it, there's no turning back. It's the absolute last option one has until they have exhausted all options, and is the option no one wants to use.

The only defences Peter would have would fall under these categories:
1. The statements are the truth. While those statements may cause harm, if those statements are true, then that's a very solid defence against such lawsuit.
2. Absolute privilege: This won't apply to Peter, as the statements from what I can tell were made on social media, not while he was sworn as a witness in a trial or in front of Parliament
3. Qualified privilege: Also another defence that probably won't apply, as Peter was not in a position where he could comment and would has an interest or a duty, legal, social, or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it, especially on social media.
4. Fair comment: This one is the tricky one. Basically, fair comment means you can make a comment, even harshly, about issues of public interest, as long as the comments are honest, not malicious, and based on fact. This is where I think Peter's defence would focus in on, depending on what exactly was said.

Basically, for anyone on social media, when one comments, one must separate facts from one's own opinions. For example, stating here that "Flugel Horn is a alcoholic rapist" would probably land me in court (and off the board for that matter!).

Stating "I saw Flugel Horn at the local bar tonight. I saw him drink 10 beers that night and he was inappropriately touching women all night long until the bar owners kicked him out. I believe Flugel Horn is an alcoholic pervert." is better, as the facts, is separated from my opinion, and there's no malice involved with that statement. 

Also, another thing about being on social media is to exercise restraint. Think about one's post before you go ahead and post or "Like" or retweet something. Many people have found themselves receiving a court summons to a defamation lawsuit because one doesn't think about how public social media is. Your post on Facebook or Twitter, or even here could be seen by thousands, or even millions of people (or even by the media and reported there).

In short, with social media, if you are about to post something that you would not be happy to see as the top headlines on the 6 o'clock news, don't post it!

[Low Light Mike]

Mar 18, 2016 21:52:35 GMT -8 vancouverecho said:

Long time lurker, but decided to register an account upon reading about this in the news.

Welcome to the board officially. Thanks for taking the time to register and make this timely post. Your legal comments are much appreciated.

----------

Now, about your analogy, if you had said "Flugel Horn was drinking 10 bottles of Budweiser" you'd probably be in trouble.
- I have just finished enjoying a bottle of Hermannator, brewed by the fine people at Vancouver Island Brewery. It's a 9.5% eisbock, and right now it's making me sleepy.

Cheers !

[Mike C]

I will be brief, but my (albeit young) experience in public consultation is guiding me to believe that this is not a SLAPP suit for the aforementioned legal reasons. In addition, it is not unheard of for an organization to defend themselves against unjust remarks make against them in a consultation process.

This is not censorship - Peter, among others, have made their positions very clear, have posted their viewpoints here and elsewhere, and have been provided equal opportunity to participate in a process, despite this process being skewed or unproductive in the eyes of participants. The notion of censorship has been proven false with 44 pages of viewpoints and opinions on the matter.

[vancouverecho]

Mar 18, 2016 22:40:44 GMT -8 Mike C said:

I will be brief, but my (albeit young) experience in public consultation is guiding me to believe that this is not a SLAPP suit for the aforementioned legal reasons. In addition, it is not unheard of for an organization to defend themselves against unjust remarks make against them in a consultation process.

This is not censorship - Peter, among others, have made their positions very clear, have posted their viewpoints here and elsewhere, and have been provided equal opportunity to participate in a process, despite this process being skewed or unproductive in the eyes of participants. The notion of censorship has been proven false with 44 pages of viewpoints and opinions on the matter.

I would definitely would like to see the filings, as they would contain the rationale behind the lawsuit. I haven't seen any of Pete's postings either here or elsewhere to get a sense of what was exactly said that might have triggered such a lawsuit, but I imagine that since one doesn't sue other people lightly, I would expect that the remarks were mentioned more than once, and was repeated often in public.

Mar 18, 2016 21:44:03 GMT -8 Neil said:

I'm also troubled by the demand in the suit that the proprietor of the facebook page ensure that there is no further 'disparaging' remarks aimed at Mr Collins. I don't know what the legal definition of 'disparaging' is, but I suspect that if such a demand was supported in court, it would lead to possible legal chill with regard to freedom of speech on the part of anyone questioning the actions and record of people associated with BC Ferries. Kind of what 'SLAPP' cases hope to achieve.

In the legal sense, 'disparaging' specifically means false statements (or something that cannot be proven to be factual and correct) or unflattering. This request by the plaintiff is also very common in a defamation or libel lawsuit as well.

[kevins]

Some random thoughts.

This lawsuit does give the reputation a boost of the named person if their words can cause so much damage.

After all who is he when he is at home, some old retired sailor who has no degree in cable ferry design or operations?
no offense intended just trying to make a point of some sort. 
I do know the person involved and do not question his credibility.
like I said, watch what  you say and how you say it.



This sure will put a chill over the armchair ferry critics.

The question is: Why bring all this to court, or is it not designed to ever reach court?

What is the resolve requested?



From my view point - I thought the cable ferry was slowly gaining acceptance and fading into the background and leaving the naysayers behind.

[vancouverecho]

Mar 18, 2016 23:57:43 GMT -8 kevins said:

Some random thoughts.

This lawsuit does give the reputation a boost of the named person if their words can cause so much damage.

After all who is he when he is at home, some old retired sailor who has no degree in cable ferry design or operations?



This sure will put a chill over the armchair ferry critics.

The question is: Why bring all this to court, or is it not designed to ever reach court?

What is the resolve requested?



From my view point - I thought the cable ferry was slowly gaining acceptance and fading into the background and leaving the naysayers behind.

From my understanding of the nature of the lawsuit, I believe the lawsuit has to do more with the statements that were made about the BC Ferries exec by Peter, not about the cable ferry project itself. That's why the lawsuit was brought on by Mr Collins, not by BC Ferries itself.

I don't think BC Ferries as an organization cares about some retired sailor mouthing off about how he doesn't like their project. They can just ignore him. But a person, especially a high level executive WOULD care about their reputation, especially their professional reputation, and thus would care about some old sailor mouthing off about him, especially if that senior exec would like to have the option of a future career elsewhere.

What most likely happened was that criticism about the cable ferry program went from just plain criticism about the program, to personal attacks about certain people working at BC Ferries, specifically Mr Collins. And personal attacks, especially if the attacks are focused about one's professional competencies and judgement about a high level exec just invites a lawsuit.

[Kather Anne]

I would caution people to not offer opinion on the legal proceedings without a substantive direct citation from the documents that were delivered to Mr Kimmerly.



You may notice that I only comment when I can directly quote official BCF communication, or when I have irrefutable evidence - there is a reason for this.

[Neil]

Mar 19, 2016 7:44:37 GMT -8 Kather Anne said:

I would caution people to not offer opinion on the legal proceedings without a substantive direct citation from the documents that were delivered to Mr Kimmerly.



You may notice that I only comment when I can directly quote official BCF communication, or when I have irrefutable evidence - there is a reason for this.

I hope this means we have you back in our forum, Kather Anne. The loss of all your posts, and your insight,  has been a loss for the forum, in my view.

The lawsuit was freely shared among many- probably including yourself, so hopefully most people are speaking not just from speculation.

[Kather Anne]

Mar 19, 2016 21:58:22 GMT -8 Neil said:

The lawsuit was freely shared among many- probably including yourself, so hopefully most people are speaking not just from speculation.

Speculation could end and informed discussion could occur if Collins v Kimmerly (BC Supreme Civil (General) Vancouver Law Courts 162572) was posted here, in it's entirety.

[Mike C]

Mar 20, 2016 9:05:37 GMT -8 Kather Anne said:

Mar 19, 2016 21:58:22 GMT -8 Neil said:

The lawsuit was freely shared among many- probably including yourself, so hopefully most people are speaking not just from speculation.

Speculation could end and informed discussion could occur if Collins v Kimmerly (BC Supreme Civil (General) Vancouver Law Courts 162572) was posted here, in it's entirety.

You are right - it would be unfair to speculate on the facts of this case, and it can easily descend into a "he said-she said" debate. For the time being, I think we can safely have a discussion about the merits of such a lawsuit, rather than the case itself. After all, I think analyzing the public participation process (especially in cases of contentious issues), and the subsequent fallout, is a valuable discussion to have, no matter one's viewpoint of the cable ferry. The claims of censorship and intimidation as a result of this process are not small statements to make. We can have that conversation without picking apart this case.

[kevins]

this particular case should not be discussed but general discussion on lawsuits is fair game.
My question is if I comment that a particular vessel is in my opinion of poor design and ill suited for its purpose am I offending the Naval Arch, the project manager and on it goes?

[Low Light Mike]

Mar 20, 2016 11:49:25 GMT -8 kevins said:

this particular case should not be discussed but general discussion on lawsuits is fair game.
My question is if I comment that a particular vessel is in my opinion of poor design and ill suited for its purpose am I offending the Naval Arch, the project manager and on it goes?

OK:
The Queen of Richmond is a poorly suited ship for the Vargas Island to Estevan Point route. I think the company made a huge mistake in this ship assignment. They've made a lot of huge mistakes in recent years. We need some changes at that company.


Not OK:
The useless manager Mr. Flugel Horn doesn't know how to properly run a company because of that boneheaded decision he made to place the Queen of Richmond on that Estevan Point route. He obviously failed at all previous career attempts and Mr. Flugel Horn has no ability to run a shipping company. Mr. Flugel Horn is a useless manager and he is the reason for the failure of this route.

---------------


OK:
Whatever you want to think. Whatever lies and exaggerations you want to tell yourself or your cat.

[vancouverecho]

Peter, with all due respect, while I agree that you do own the right to have an opinion on the cable ferry program, and have the right to express it freely, that isn't the matter at hand in the lawsuit.

The matter at hand is the remarks that are directed at Mr Collins made both on social media and in the public. There is a point where one's comments online does become defamatory in nature, and that' what the lawsuit is about. Practically every Western nation has laws regarding what one can say about other people that could harm a person's reputation.

Also, everyone should remember that what one says on social media becomes part of the internet; you can never truly delete or remove a comment you make on the internet. That comment will continue to exist somewhere on the web, and it is searchable. Many people will fire off an email or post online and hit “post” before thinking about who will and can be seeing the statement and the likely consequences. Even when we make the statements to others in a less public forum, eventually we are going to be held responsible for what we say. With a medium such as Facebook where the statement is quickly publicized to the world, even if the posting was made in what is considered to be a closed group, the consequences can increase a thousandfold.

I'm reminded of a landmark case I've read about a few years back regarding defamatory comments made on social media by two employees at a car dealership. The comments of the employees caught the attention of the managers and owners of the dealership in question, and the dealership decided to fire both employees because of their comments made on Facebook. The courts upheld the firings of both employees as it was found that both employees made defamatory comments online about their bosses and the dealership.

The case, if anyone is interested in it, is Lougheed Imports Ltd. (West Coast Mazda) v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, 2010 CanLII 62482 (BC LRB), <http://canlii.ca/t/2d49w>.

Mar 20, 2016 16:51:45 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

Mar 20, 2016 11:49:25 GMT -8 kevins said:

this particular case should not be discussed but general discussion on lawsuits is fair game.
My question is if I comment that a particular vessel is in my opinion of poor design and ill suited for its purpose am I offending the Naval Arch, the project manager and on it goes?

OK:
The Queen of Richmond is a poorly suited ship for the Vargas Island to Estevan Point route. I think the company made a huge mistake in this ship assignment. They've made a lot of huge mistakes in recent years. We need some changes at that company.


Not OK:
The useless manager Mr. Flugel Horn doesn't know how to properly run a company because of that boneheaded decision he made to place the Queen of Richmond on that Estevan Point route. He obviously failed at all previous career attempts and Mr. Flugel Horn has no ability to run a shipping company. Mr. Flugel Horn is a useless manager and he is the reason for the failure of this route.

---------------


OK:
Whatever you want to think. Whatever lies and exaggerations you want to tell yourself or your cat.

Correct. As long as one sticks to the facts, clearly separates facts from opinion, and there's no malice intended in the remarks, you don't have to worry too much about a lawsuit. Or, if you do get sued regardless, it's a very solid defence.

[Neil]

I hope that Pete is not ignoring his counsel's advice to not get into a social media exchange about this case, if that has indeed been the advice.

There was clearly one word in the legally contested posts that was inflammatory, although, stronger terms are regularly levelled in the press at Donald Trump. The rest of what Mr Kimmerly said is open to interpretation, depending on Mr Collins' actual expertise and work history. This case will perhaps decide that. I'm sure the plaintiff and BC Ferries are hoping that this is a matter of pique and bad temper, and not some real insight into qualifications with regard to an experimental project. Time will tell.