The Court of Appeal for Ontario judgment in Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd., 2013 ONCA 405 (Ont. C.A.) (“Shtaif“) confirms that the six-week notice requirement and three-month limitation period under the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. L.12 (the “Act”), not the 2-year general limitation period in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O 2002 c.24, governs libel actions based on online versions of newspaper articles. (more…)
Related Posts:
CanLaw Lawyer Directory: Some People Never Learn (trialwarrior.com)
A Few Modest Proposals to the LSUC on Lawyer Directories (trialwarrior.com)
LSUC Issues Warning Concerning Lawyer Referral Service (trialwarrior.com)
The decision of Justice Newbould in Re Ghana Gold Corporation, 2013 ONSC 3284 (Ont. SCJ) ["Ghana Gold"] is an important reminder to always the read the footnotes in judgments. (more…)
For those who slept in or don’t have internet access: You may have missed the media fire-storm surrounding Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former NSA contractor, most recently employed by Booz Allen Hamilton, who shared hacked liberated divulged details on the agency’s call tracking program and another program called PRISM, which gathers Internet data on foreign citizens suspected of terror links.
Traitor or Patriot? The debate rages on. (more…)
Jorge R. Roig (Charleston School of Law) has posted “Emerging Technologies and Dwindling Speech”, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 16, 2013 (Forthcoming). The abstract reads:
Inspired in part by the recent holding in Bland v. Roberts that the use of the “Like” feature in Facebook is not covered by the Free Speech Clause, this article makes a brief foray into the approach that courts have taken in the recent past towards questions of First Amendment coverage in the context of emerging technologies. Specifically, this article will take a closer look at how courts have dealt with the issue of functionality in the context of First Amendment coverage of computer source code. The analysis of this and other recent experiences, when put in a larger context, reflects a continuing dissatisfaction on the part of both courts and legislatures with the current Supreme Court doctrine on First Amendment coverage. From this discussion, we can also derive some meaningful normative insights regarding the interplay between emerging technologies and First Amendment coverage doctrine. Finally, this article hopes to serve as a stepping stone in a more profound and long term pursuit of a comprehensive theory of constitutional individual rights coverage issues that might serve us well as the future brings unexpected changes in our society.
Download a copy of the paper via SSRN here.
 | HR on UPDATED: Good Grief! ‘Ba… |
 | Sandra Dotch on The Word Must Be Spoken Thrice… |
 | Patrick K on The Word Must Be Spoken Thrice… |
 | a on Twitter’s No Place For A… |
 | Caravaggio on UPDATED: Good Grief! ‘Ba… |
 | Antonin I. Pribetic on The Word Must Be Spoken Thrice… |
 | kimconard on The Word Must Be Spoken Thrice… |
 | @Recruiter_Law on Howard M. Erichson, “The… |
| Antonin I. Pribetic on Caveat Debitor: Don’t Re… |
 | april on Caveat Debitor: Don’t Re… |
