|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bishop sues blogger
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Have we discussed this already? I could find no prior thread about it.
Bishop sues blogger
I can only imagine the vicarious (sorry) satisfaction other bishops might have in considering such a remedy for themselves. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
IMO the defendant in this case, David Jenkins, makes David Virtue look like a pot-smoking librul hippy. Although I haven't, and don't want to, read Jenkins' posts that prompted the lawsuit by the bishop, I can guess at the kind of content from a quick perusal of the blog in question, Anglican Samizdat.
I have mixed feelings about this lawsuit. On one hand, I can understand a bishop being needled beyond endurance and seeking remedy. OTOH... freedom of speech? Chilling effect? Pointless creation of a martyr?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Michael Bird wasn't the bishop when that took place. I was curious and compared the date listed on your link (February 19, 2008). The Diocese of Niagara website says that Ralph Spence was bishop until February 29, 2008. Michael Bird's start date of episcopal ministry was March 1, 2008.
I am not familiar with any of the folks involved*, and do not know what role now-Bishop Bird may have had with regard to St Hilda's.
*Oh, wait a minute. I met Ralph Spence briefly at some church conference years before this. Not sure I could pick him out of a lineup though.
[ 02. August 2013, 02:10: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Michael Bird wasn't the bishop when that took place. I was curious and compared the date listed on your link (February 19, 2008). The Diocese of Niagara website says that Ralph Spence was bishop until February 29, 2008. Michael Bird's start date of episcopal ministry was March 1, 2008.
I am not familiar with any of the folks involved*, and do not know what role now-Bishop Bird may have had with regard to St Hilda's.
*Oh, wait a minute. I met Ralph Spence briefly at some church conference years before this. Not sure I could pick him out of a lineup though.
Ralph Spence was a decent writer on church heraldry. I gather from my friends in the area that the messaging around S Hilda's was not well-handled, but apart from that, I only know hearsay.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It looks as if this affair is a bit more complicated than just a libel situation - the post on Anglican Samizdat that discusses the case and says the 31 libellous blog posts have been taken down also relates the libel case to a church closure in 2008.
These may not be amont the 31 posts , but they do go back a ways
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I have mixed feelings about this lawsuit. On one hand, I can understand a bishop being needled beyond endurance and seeking remedy. OTOH... freedom of speech? Chilling effect? Pointless creation of a martyr?
Quite apart from the specific case in question, I see no problem in principle with a bishop (or any church leader) suing a blogger if libelous statements have been made.
"Free speech" is a clumsy shorthand and does not trump such basic human rights as the freedom to not have destructive lies told about you.
There is no such thing as absolute "free speech". I cannot say what I like when I like, with no regard to whether it is true or not and whether it damages other people unfairly. "Free speech" simply means the freedom to say what is right without fear or suppression or persecution. It is the freedom to express (and defend) an honestly held opinion, provided that this can be justified.
So, I should have the freedom to express unpopular opinions, such as "I believe all gays are going to burn in hell". But I do not have the freedom to peddle malicious lies about someone - especially when those lies may gravely harm that person's ability to do their work. So I cannot say "Paster Joe Schmoe is a paedophile, who uses the church's funds to feed his cocaine addiction."
What is more - if someone HAS been peddling destructive lies and refuses to back off, then resorting to legal processes may be essential. Unchallenged lies tend (especially on the Interweb) to quickly take on the mantle of "unquestioned fact". So, whilst turning the other cheek may be admirable, in reality such situations demand that some sort of action be taken, or else someone's whole ministry may be underminded to the point where they can no longer continue.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Go carefully on this one, Shipmates. It seems fine to discuss general principles re Christians in general and bishops in particular making use of the law, but with some kind of injunction in place, it's best to avoid the specifics which have given rise to the suit.
Inadvertent uttering or repeating a libel on these boards could drop the SoF domain owner in it big time and lead to site closure.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
This is exactly why I did not give my assessment of the situation, as one of my sources would have been the material likely covered under the injunction.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
What are the laws on libel in Canada? Are they closer to the UK (limited defenses against a libel suit) or the US (essentially willful ignorance or actual malice are the only ways to get nailed for it)?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
What are the laws on libel in Canada? Are they closer to the UK (limited defenses against a libel suit) or the US (essentially willful ignorance or actual malice are the only ways to get nailed for it)?
ISTM that Canada falls in the middle between UK and US ideas about libel. Someone with more knowledge of jurisprudence is very welcome to comment or correct me.
That middle-ish position is probably why I feel uncomfortable about a situation such as this, because I can see both sides of it. The UK approach to libel is, AIUI, why celebrities who feel their reputation has been injured choose to jurisdiction-shop a UK court, because they are more likely to win. The UK standards seem too broad to me. OTOH, [what is often communicated as] an American approach to freedom of speech seems equally extreme at the other end of the spectrum.
Barnabas62: I am happy, indeed prefer, to avoid discussing the specifics of this case. I thought the general topics around it might be interesting.
Oscar of course is correct that specific, criminal allegations against an individual might be libellous. How would more vague, more ecclesiastical critiques be perceived? For example, might it be considered libellous to refer to a bishop as "heretical"? If so, how many times would Katharine Jefferts Schori have cause to sue?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
No doubt this is paranoia ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) on my part, but I am beginning to wonder if seeing one's 'deepest thoughts in print' on this site , or indeed anywhere else is going to be such a good idea in the future.
I'm thinking of a future where the legal loop-hole which has allowed exploitation personal injuries is made do the same for defamation of character claims.
As one who has enjoyed a bit of spleen venting in the past I am , lately , becoming increasingly wary about having a rant over various issues , (esp those involving the use of a person's name).
It's as though we're moving towards a society where it's not so much big brother watching us, but more a case of big sister . And while the consequences of a loose tongue may not be as painful as in Orwell's fictitious world, they may yet prove to be equally as expensive.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Well, there was a thread about KJS a couple of months ago. She preached in S. America about a story from Acts. I think it was an Easter sermon. Many people in the Anglican world branded her a heretic, and we picked up the discussion here.
I think the thread wound up in DH, but it might be in Limbo or Oblivion now.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Saying that a bishop had engaged in heresy would fall under Fair Comment and might in some circumstances be Qualified Privilege. As a simple statement, calling a bishop heretical could be more problematic. I suspect that civil courts would be more than reluctant to get into definitions of heresy-- think of the patristic writer complaining that his baker asserted the double procession of the Father and the Son-- now we could have solicitors in Moose Jaw challenging similar issues before a Jain justice trying not to look too puzzled. Lawyers and their families must eat and they would be glad of such cases.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
No doubt this is paranoia on my part, but I am beginning to wonder if seeing one's 'deepest thoughts in print' on this site , or indeed anywhere else is going to be such a good idea in the future.
You may have a point, but Jenkins hasn't exactly been gracing the intertubes with his "deepest" thoughts. It's mostly scurrilous speculation about the families of gay and lesbian clergy, sophomoric mockery of virtually every action taken by General Synod, the House of Bishops as a body or its individual members.
He seems to get off on the attention and must be over the moon that +Michael has finally bitten. I don't know about the particulars to judge whether the suit could have been avoided, but I have misgivings about making a martyr of this man, and attributing "libel" to the blog seems to me to dignify its screeds in an unmerited way.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Between the REC parish in Westdale (ironically across the street from my favourite pub as a student), the Western Rite Christminster on Cannon St. and now this lawsuit (and the awful blog title), is there some peculiarity of the Diocese of Niagara that makes it so prone to trainwrecks?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I think it's fair to say that historically the Diocese had a problematic relationship with Anglo-Catholics at times, though it must be noted that now is not one of those times: the Niagara membership of the SCP Ontario branch overwhelms the Torontonians, and seem to find it quite congenial there. They even inducted one of the SSC brethren as rector in St Catharine's some months back, although he seems to have quickly found a new gig in Denver.
ETA: Oh, and don't forget the "1934 synod" - St John the Evangelist was the locus of the dispute that gave birth to it, and by extension to most of the Independent Sacramental movement in Canada. In fact, the Benedictines of Cannon Street have been evicted from the minster, and the 1934 archbishop has been putting them up at his pro-cathedral in Niagara Falls NY pro tem.
[ 03. August 2013, 20:00: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
