However, like many of her supporters, he has some of his facts wrong.

The truth is, Phyllis Morris did not sue anonymous bloggers. They were anonymous — so she didn’t know who they were. Result — the anonymous bloggers never spent 1 thin dime on this lawsuit.

What really happened was that Phyllis Morris sued 3 local families who were required to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend their names and the right for citizens of Auroran to freely criticize their local politicians.

In the end, the courts found no fault in anything they had done and she abandoned her lawsuit.

You may agree that anonymous bloggers should be held accountable for their words.

You may even agree with using your tax dollars to initiate a lawsuit.

But do not for one minute think this lawsuit was about suing anonymous bloggers.

The truth is that the 3 families Phyllis Morris sued were not anonymous bloggers. But they were the target of her attack.

So if you want to defend Phyllis Morris — at least have the courtesy to get the facts straight and admit what she really did.

Phyllis Morris used our tax dollars to launch a lawsuit for her own personal financial benefit and she sued 3 families who had nothing to do with the blog comments she was complaining about.

To carry Mr Vander Veen’s analogy further about schoolyard bullies — this sounds more like a bully who was afraid to fight their own fight — instead they got a gang together to intimidate and bully 3 smaller people — just because they happened to be standing in the schoolyard when snowballs were thrown.

Who’s really the coward?

Did you know Jack the Ripper may have walked Aurora in the 19th century.The Ripper was never found and a suspect had connections here.

No kidding….The tour times are

• Friday October 28 at 7 and 9pm.
• Saturday October 29 at 7 and 9 pm.
• Sunday October 30 at 7 and 9pm.

Tickets are available by calling 905-717-6647

His qualifications to comment are impressive. He is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law. He has a Bachelor of Laws degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Master of Laws degrees from Cambridge University in the UK and Columbia Law School in New York, and a Doctorate in Law from Columbia.

He recently commented on the Supreme Court decision around the case on internet linking http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1074612–supreme-court-stands-up-for-the-internet

The are many differences between the Alberta case that went to the Supreme Court and the recent lawsuit here in Aurora, but his final comment was very insightful

Given the connection between freedom of expression and the Internet, the Supreme Court has signaled that it will look with great skepticism at laws that could have a chilling effect on the ability for Canadians to fully participate online.

The decision on the Norwich motion — which by abandoning her appeal signals that Morris has accepted the wisdom of the courts — is equally important in defending Canadians’ ability to participate fully online.

Going forward, when similar lawsuits come before the courts, Phyllis Morris will be referenced as the leading case in this area. She made legal history.

When posting online, a witch hunt is not allowed. As a first step, a real case of defamation must be established before the courts will even consider a request for names to be released. Where the online posts concern political commentary, the court will be even more diligent in ensuring that the plaintiff makes out a real case of defamation.

In the Aurora case, no proof of defamation was made out. It is not simply enough to allege defamation as Morris did — the words themselves must be clear, and capable of a defamatory meaning. The Court held that she never did this — and Ms. Morris has now accepted their ruling.

This lack of proof that there was ever something defamatory said about her, even under a generous reading, was the significant factor on her motion being dismissed.

In fact, even where Ms. Morris could have submitted an affidavit to further explain why she thought the statements she viewed as hurting her reputation were defamatory, she did not do so.

Furthermore, while at least three motions were before the court at various points in the lawsuit, at no time did Phyllis Morris herself actually place any evidence before the court. Not once.

By not submitting an affidavit herself, Mrs. Morris neatly avoided having to answer any questions herself.

Instead, she argued her case in the press, mentioning claims about physical threats.

When push came to shove, Ms. Morris preferred to try her case outside of the Courts.

Now, she has no case to be tried. None whatsoever.

He recently offered his thoughts on the lawsuit here in Aurora. You might find his comments interesting.

One that seemed to  particularly summarized his position was;

She was a public official about whom the public has every right to comment.  Discussing how competently or incompetently she does her job is precisely the sort of thing that Freedom of Speech is for.  Public officials have no right NOT to be talked about.

We agree. As long as the comments are focused on performance of the duties that they were elected to execute, citizens have every right to comment. The good, the bad — and for some — the ugly.

You can read his entire post here.

http://christopherdiarmani.com/3938/freedom-of-speech/aurora-mayor-phyllis-morris-finally-drops-6-milliion-lawsuit-bloggers/

An online story appeared which indicated the lawsuit alleged that comments made by the 3 named defendants had defamed council and staff.

The banner was quick to correct the story after it was pointed out their facts were incorrect with the following Editors Note:  This is a corrected version of a previous story. The source of the allegedly defamatory comments has been amended.

The case revolved around whether or not comments made by anonymous bloggers on a local issues blog were defamatory toward staff and council. The suit alleged Mr. Hogg moderated the blog and Ms Bishenden was a former moderator, while Mr. Johnson was a frequent poster. The suit does not allege Mr. Hogg, Ms Bishenden or Mr. Johnson made any defamatory comments themselves.

This is a sensitive issue within the Aurora community so it is essential that the facts presented are correct.

You can read the full article here.

http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1228774–morris-drops-blogger-lawsuit

Not sure whether the article was changed before it went to print, so a correction may be necessary there as well.

This case deals with a blog publisher who published hyperlinks to other internet content.

The plaintiff argued that by creating the hyperlinks they became a “publisher” of defamatory material.

The defendant argued a link is not an endorsement.

The lower courts agreed with the defendant — as did the Supreme Court.

This ruling crystallizes the position that publishers of blogs are not responsible for the content written by others when posting hyperlinks on their blog.

While publishing hyperlinks to other content is not exactly the same as allowing comments to be published — it certainly supports the position that publishers  are not responsible for the comments of others.

The Toronto Star reports on the decision here.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1072362–supreme-court-ruling-big-victory-for-internet-freedom?bn=1

Megan O’Toole reports here. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/18/former-aurora-mayor-drops-blogger-lawsuit/

Is a re-entry into politics in the wind?

A discontinuance by a plaintiff is exceedingly rare in civil proceedings. In essence, the plaintiff, who has brought the fight to the defendants, admits that he or she no longer wishes to prosecute her claim. Where a plaintiff discontinues a claim, it could be reasonably assumed that they have recognized that their claim was fatally flawed and without merit from the outset.

This discontinuance is a total victory for the defendants, and substantiates and supports the position they took throughout this litigation—that they did nothing wrong.

The discontinuance also ends the Appeals to Judge Brown’s recent rulings — which have now been accepted by Ms. Morris.

It was manifestly unfair that the defendants were put to the time and expense of legal fees at the hands of Ms. Morris, most especially in light of the fact that Ms. Morris used tax dollars to pursue them in what appeared to be a politically motivated attack intended to silence their efforts to hold her government accountable.

It is equally telling that Ms. Morris discontinued the litigation when she was called upon to fund it out of her own pocket rather than use taxpayer funds as initially intended. She was fully prepared to use town resources to support her private lawsuit, at the towns’ sole risk and expense to her sole potential gain, despite the fact that the Town’s Code of Conduct states clearly that “public office is not to be used for personal gain”.

While the defendants, Hogg and Johnson defended their principles with their own funds — Phyllis Morris did not.

Hopefully, there has been a lesson learned from this experience. Freedom of expression is a fundamental democratic right of all Canadians — but it is a right that will be attacked, and will need protection.

Unfortunately, it is another blemish on the good name of Aurora that the defendants were called upon to personally defend this right.

Her alleged reason for beginning this lawsuit was because anonymous blog comments subjected her to “ridicule, hatred and contempt.”

However, in truth, it appears her own actions have damaged her reputation — well outside the boundaries of fair Aurora — far more than anything written in any local blog or newspaper.

Here’s another example of the coverage our former Mayor is generating for herself and our town.

Court of Public Opinion Renders Verdict in Phyllis Morris case: Guilty of Gross Stupidity

Phyllis Morris has gained a lot of notoriety since she lost her re-election bid to keep her job as mayor of Aurora, Ontario.  It was during that election that she got just a little too big for her own britches and started suing anyone and everyone who was related to a couple of blog posts she didn’t like. Read More