<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Daniel Keyes &#187; Libel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://danielkeyes.ca/journal/tag/libel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://danielkeyes.ca/journal</link>
	<description>Communication is my specialty</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:35:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Defending free expression</title>
		<link>http://danielkeyes.ca/journal/2009/02/18/defending-free-expression/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=defending-free-expression</link>
		<comments>http://danielkeyes.ca/journal/2009/02/18/defending-free-expression/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Keyes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daniel.keyes.ca/journal/?p=96</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A story that generated much publicity in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become the centrepiece of a Supreme Court hearing that could permanently alter the scope of defamation law in Canada. Lawyers for the Ottawa Citizen and &#8230; <a href="http://danielkeyes.ca/journal/2009/02/18/defending-free-expression/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>A story that generated much publicity in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become the centrepiece of a Supreme Court hearing that could permanently alter the scope of defamation law in Canada.</p>
<p>Lawyers for the Ottawa Citizen and more than a dozen other media organizations urged the top court yesterday to endorse a new defence against libel that would protect properly researched stories published in the public interest, even if they contain errors.</p></blockquote>
<p><a title="Ontario officer who visited 9/11 site at centre of libel law case" href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1299815" target="_blank">Full Story</a> (Thanks for bringing this story to my attention, <a title="Andrew Keyes" href="http://keyes.ca" target="_blank">Dad</a>) </p>
<p>As someone who practices journalism, this story is particularly relevant to me. As the law stands now, if I publish something that could potentially tarnish someone&#8217;s reputation, I can be charged with libel even if I approached the story with the best intentions for public interest or if the information was false because one of my sources lied to me. This makes publishing controversial stories quite risky, and discourages journalists from pursuing important stories that could put them in hot water. Depending how this case goes, that could all change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://danielkeyes.ca/journal/2009/02/18/defending-free-expression/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

