Facebook and a Canadian Court
March 17, 2009
Put this in the “risks of social networking” bucket. TheStar.com reported “Facebook User Poked by the Courts. Judge Rules Man Must Divulge What He’s Posted on Private Social Web site” here. TheStar.com said:
In a precedent-setting decision, a Toronto judge has ordered a man suing over injuries from a car accident to answer questions about content on his Facebook page that is off limits to the public.
For me the most important comment in the write up was:
A court can infer that Leduc’s Facebook site “likely contains some content relevant to the issue of how Mr. Leduc has been able to lead his life since the accident,” Brown [attorney] said. Brown said Leduc [defendant] can’t “hide behind self-set privacy controls” on a Web site that’s all about telling others about one’s life.
Interesting.
Stephen Arnold, March 17, 2009
Comments
2 Responses to “Facebook and a Canadian Court”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
My wife and I debated the ramifications of this story. I stand by my assertion. If incriminating material is “likely” to be located on private facets of Facebook, isn’t it equally likely to be found in one’s sock drawer or back pocket or personal diary? Why not just keep digging through one’s personal affects until that “likely” evidence is found? Human dignity notwithstanding, of course.
@ Brian – if it’s on the internet, it is in the public domain.
One needs to remember this much: in Canadian law, particularly in Ontario where this case is being heard, there are rules that govern this, and one of the rules falls under discovery of documents. This comes after the close of pleadings. The rule that allows this says that any documents that are relevant but not disclosed can be requested by the other side by way of motion. Of course, the motion can either be allowed or denied at the justice’s discretion.
If one desires that privacy, they would not use a facet such as Facebook to broadcast their life to the world. if they wanted privacy, they would not use such a tool.
Pursuant to this line of thought regarding the concept of privacy on the internet, is the idea that not all Facebook users utilize strident privacy controls and if one user who is familiar with the plaintiff in this case happens to have a photograph that proves on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff is probably not experiencing a lesser enjoyment of life then is that not grounds to check the plaintiff’s own Facebook?
Wasn’t it also you, dear husband, who suggested in a prior discussion, that a photograph can tell a story much better than words, which are limited in their capacity to express ideas? That there are only so many adjectives that can describe something? In a court of law, photographic evidence is far stronger than oral testimony ever can be. No matter how accurate and believable that testimony is, a photograph is just that much more powerful.