BC Court Rules That Internet Chat Room Owner Acted Reasonably in Responding to Defamatory Material

In a case concerning Internet defamation, the BC Supreme Court ruled that the British Columbia Federation of Foster Parents Association (the Federation) acted reasonably in responding to defamatory material posted to a chat room on its web site. The dispute arose from anonymous statements about Liza Carter, the plaintiff and a past president of the Federation, that were posted to the Federation's chat room. In addition, the plaintiff argued that the Federation's distribution of a newsletter, which included the Internet address for the chat room, constituted a publication of the defamatory material. The Court held that the chat room statements concerning the plaintiff were clearly defamatory. In considering liability for the publication of the material, the Court noted that, as the owner of the chat room, the Federation could be held liable. Following the notice-and-take-down approach found in American jurisprudence, the Court indicated that the Federation was obligated to take reasonable steps to stop publication once it became aware of the defamatory statements. On that basis, the Court relieved the Federation from liability given that it provided satisfactory instructions to its Internet Service Provider (ISP) to remove the material, despite the fact that the ISP failed to comply in a timely manner. However, even if the Federation had been found liable for the postings, the Court stated that the plaintiff's claim was barred by British Columbia's Limitations Act for failing to act within the relevant two-year period, after becoming aware of the defamatory material. Regarding the newsletter issue, the Court also declined to impose any liability on the Federation. The Court ruled that the inclusion of the Internet chat room address in its newsletter did not constitute a publication of the defamatory material posted to the chat room. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the Federation qualified under the "innocent disseminator" defence, given that there was nothing in the newsletter that was suggestive of the defamatory comments or would lead one to suppose that there was defamatory material posted to the chat room. Two additional key issues in the realm of Internet defamation were referred to. First, the Court considered whether a republication of the defamatory material occurred each time an individual accessed the chat room and held that there was no republication of the defamatory material, since the content of the chat room was never modified and there was a reasonably held belief by the Federation and the plaintiff that it had been shut down. On this basis, the ruling leaves open the possibility that a republication of the defamatory material could have occurred if the chat room's content had been modified. Second, although obiter, the Court clarified the Federation's status as the owner of the chat room. As an alternative argument, the Federation had attempted to assert that it did not act as publisher with respect to the chat room, but rather, it was akin to a telephone company, which is not liable for comments made by those use the lines. The Court disagreed. Referring to American jurisprudence and legislation, the Court rejected the telephone company analogy and indicated that Federation was not a publisher as it did not exercise any editorial control and played a passive role up until the defamatory content was discovered. However, once the Federation became aware of the defamatory material, it was under a positive obligation to act reasonably for the prevention of the continued publication of the defamatory material in order to avoid any potential liability. For the text of the judgment, see: Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Association et al., 2004 BCSC 137. For more information, see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?T12323208. Summary by: Colin Adams