Add this to the problem: in Canada, defamation is considered to be any negative comment about a person which could be seen to lower a person’s reputation. Malice is not at all required. The standard for libel carries with it reverse onus: you are guilty until proven innocent. There is also such a thing in Canada as false opinion. It is actually specifically allowed in statute in British Columbia for two people to make the exact same comment of opinion, and one to be found guilty, the other not if a court determines that, under the balance of probability, an otherwise fair comment was made maliciously by one of those persons. False facts are not required to be found guilty of libel. Vague, unintended innuendo is also enough to get you in trouble.

Canadian libel laws are ancient, and are the most antiquated, backwards libel laws in the western world. There are no exceptions for satire, parody, public interest or public figures. Criticize the Prime Minister in writing, saying some thing like “His judgment is clearly poor because he’s wanting troops to stay in Afghanistan” is technically libelous. He can sue, and unless the author can back up his opinion sufficiently to claim the defense of fair comment, the author is guilty.

Anonymous authors are not protected in any way. All you have to do in Canada to get IP records is file a libel suit against the anonymous author, and the provider will be court-ordered to hand over the information. Given that reverse onus is the standard, the anonymous blogger is considered guilty and thus has no privacy.

People who sue to cause libel chill face no sanctions aside from paying _some_ of the defendant’s costs. There is no counter-suit possible in such cases, though you can go to court to try to argue that more of your costs should be awarded. For an example of both libel chill and how innocent people get stuck with costs, see here: http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit

Canadians really don’t understand the constraints they live under because there are partial protections for journalists, and, by convention, politicians rarely sue for libel, and, in any event, they are covered by insurance for such things. But now, with so many normal communications online, cyber libel suits are growing in numbers. So far, the provinces show no signs of understanding the mess they are avoiding.

A key concern with Crookes’ suits is that he’s crossing provincial and international borders. Although he’s using British Columbia law, everyone he’s suing lives outside that province. David Weekly, of PBwiki.com in California, a defendant of Crookes, has told me that it’s possibly far more economical for him to simply block IPs from BC.

It’s worth mentioning that Crookes is not what Americans would consider a private citizen. He has been deeply involved in the Green Party of Canada, and the criticisms he faces come from the roles he played in that political party. The criticisms are tame compared to your average attack ad, and they have been in forums, wikis and blogs — places where right-of-reply exist. Despite apologies (http://openpolitics.ca/Wayne+Crookes) and offers to print whatever he wants, unedited, (http://openpolitics.ca/Wayne+Crookes'+right+to+reply) he has not been forthcoming to explain exactly why certain things others consider factual and/or fair are not seen so by him.

Be wary: anyone with an ‘interest’ in BC can sue there. It is quite possible for Americans to launch lawsuits there. Indeed, with a two year window in which to launch a libel suit, it is possible to create an interest in BC _after_ the material was published, and then sue. With the Internet being argued to allow world-wide publishing, BC looks like it may become the place to forum shop for libel suits.

If Crookes’ suits succeed, I suspect we will be soon enough seeing Americans suing each other in BC.