CNS opens legal defence fund
Posted on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 22:36 in Local News
(CNS): In the face of a law suit filed by the premier over an opinion piece published in May, Cayman News Service received so many offers from the community to help fight the legal challenge that it has opened an account to manage the defence fund so that those who are both willing and able to pitch in with the costs can do so. Cayman’s former auditor general, Dan Duguay, will be overseeing the fund to ensure all the contributions made by supporters will be used to pay legal expenses and that the account is fully transparent. CNS has now retained a lawyer to defend the suit as it prepares to take on the premier in the courts.
On 3 October McKeeva Bush filed suit against CNS owner Nicky Watson and CNS reporter Wendy Ledger over the publication of a Viewpoint about free speech by a regular CNS contributor who writes under the pen name “Bean Counter”. Bush has claimed the opinion piece was defamatory and is seeking damages as a result of its publication. The premier also filed suits on the same day against Randy Merren and Hurley’s Entertainment, the owner of the local radio station Rooster, and Daphne Orrett (a.k.a. Aunt Sookie) for comments broadcast on the morning call-in show CrossTalk.
When Bush first threatened Watson and Ledger with legal action in June, Watson responded to the premier with a comprehensive letter setting out why Bean Counter’s article was ‘fair comment’ and why the news site had decided not to publish an apology, among other demands. However, the premier continued with his action and filed suit on 3 October in the Grand Court.
Watson and Ledger have both said they will be contesting the action as it is important to defend the rights of people to criticise their government and leaders without fear.
“We have been very touched by the response from members of the community and the many words of encouragement and support from so many diverse quarters,” said Watson. “Since the suit was filed, many people have expressed their appreciation of CNS, not only for the bolder editorial style than they have been used to but also for the platform it provides for free speech to flourish in these islands.
“Wendy and I honestly feel that we are contributing to the maturing of politics in the Cayman Islands by supporting a vibrant forum for discussion about current affairs and a place to express both praise and dissatisfaction in our elected representatives. It is gratifying that others feel the same way and we want to assure CNS readers that we intend to continue throughout this rather turbulent period in the history of this country, and beyond.”
CNS has retained James Kennedy of Samson & McGrath to defend against the suit. As a very small and relatively new media house (CNS was launched in March 2008) and given the cost of legal action, Watson has set up an account that will allow people to contribute to the defence, which will be managed by the former auditor general.
“I am delighted to help CNS in this endeavour,” Duguay said “I am sure that I agree with most Caymanians that it is vitally important that we all help ensure a strong and vibrant press. As a former auditor general, I am a great advocate of transparency and accountability in public activities. A strong Auditor General's Office (which Cayman has) helps to promote these objectives. However, they must partner with a strong press to ensure that the public is informed and aware of public activities. I have always admired CNS for their strong stance regarding Cayman politics.
“Wendy and Nicky have agreed that I will be able to review all expenditures from this fund and no funds will be expended without my agreement. Funds contributed for this purpose will be used only to defend CNS from Mr Bush's lawsuit. We will be fully transparent and provide an accounting to all Caymanians, whether you contributed or not, as to how CNS spent any funds donated to them. Of course, all donations will be anonymous and we will not reveal the identity of any donors,” he explained, noting that any donated funds left in the account after the suit was won, lost or dropped would be given in an even split to the Pines Retirement Home and the Cayman Islands Crisis Centre.
Grateful to the former AG for his support and happy that an auditor of his calibre and integrity was willing to help, Watson said she hoped that the wider community would agree that, despite the obvious expense such a courtroom battle could create, it was important to take a stand.
“We believe that defending this case is the right thing to do for the sake of all our readers and the wider public, and we hope that those who agree with us and are able to do so will support us. It goes without saying that all financial contributions are gratefully recieved but just a few kind words to let us know that people are behind us also mean a great deal,” Watson said.
Fund details:
Cayman National Bank
Account name: Cayman News Service (Defence Fund)
Chequing account #: 011-12950
(Tibbetts Square branch for online deposits)
CNS address:
Cayman News Service
PO Box 132
KY2-2101 Cayman Brac
CAYMAN ISLANDS
A PayPal donation button has also been added to the CNS site under the first headline to enable donations by credit card and Paypal accounts.
Email this pageViewpoints
Comment Policy
The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of CNS or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by CNS. Read more
Recent Comments
- A crowd of over one hundred
3 hours 11 min ago - Wed 11:37, Mr Dilbert needs
3 hours 21 min ago - Has he been learning from
3 hours 23 min ago - Revoke the liquor license.
3 hours 40 min ago - Could someone please
4 hours 2 min ago - Now That is my Bushie. A man
4 hours 9 min ago - As usual Mac does not defend
4 hours 10 min ago - With all due respect you are
4 hours 13 min ago - I hope he has included God in
4 hours 17 min ago - Well the election campaign
4 hours 50 min ago
Latest Classifieds
- SpotCayman App for Grand Cayman
- Off The Beaten Track 50k this Sunday
- Last Chance to register for Off The Beaten Track Ultra-Marathon
- Immigration On-Line Launches Tuesday
- Split Level Family Home with pool
- Volunteers wanted
- H.S.A. Public Service Announcement
- GPS 4 Sale
- Flatmate Wanted in WB
- 3.75 acres with House
Search
Join Our Mailing List
Follow CNS via ...
Facebook Twitter RSS
Comments
FACTS.... The premier was/
FACTS....
The premier was/ is the same person that went around calling certain groups/ people ‘devil worshippers’ via video broadcast in a 'Christian community'
FACT people FACT
Isn’t that defamation of character?
We all claim to be from a Christian culture ok so if he is calling people devil worshippers via VIDEO broadcast in a Christian community is that not defamation of character.
So everyone that he called a devil worshipper can be sue against the Premier/ the government for defamation of character.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander...
I only wished he had called me a devil worshipper I would be walking straight to the bank.
Easy case for any lawyer the premier did all of the work by broadcasting video calling people devil worshippers and doing the work of the devil.
bunch of jokers...
I think the Big Mc has done
I think the Big Mc has done our Cayman Islands a great service by filing these suits! After all, give a man enough rope and he might just .....!
There might be more
There might be more contributors if there was confidence the depositor list would remain confidential. I'm sending my check direct, marked "advertising."
CNS: The donation list will remain completely confidential. However, we understand people's concern.
I dont wish bad for anyone
I dont wish bad for anyone and sometimes we must remember that "words are wind, but blow is unkind": even though we have recently been praising those passing blows.
I have commented on issues that were not defaming, deragatory or untruth; some are dealing with the leader of the opposition others about the member from North Side, however CNS refuse to post, but while reading the posting on the topics I come across , comments that CNS allow -one would wonder how did they allowed it; so I have to asked myself are they bias. I am not the only person who have experienced it.
Sorry I cant contribute towards your defence; my budget wont allow me;but I wholeheartedly wish this will not go any further.
CNS: There will alsways be a perception of bias because people only know when I delete their comments or those of their friends. Because McKeeva Bush and the UDP are in power, the majority of comments are about them, and therefore the majority of deleted comments are also about them.
During the last elections we were labeled a UDP blog by certain PPM supporters and I was asked, in all seriousness, if Mr Bush owned CNS.
We do appreciate your thoughts on the legal action and your contribution to the discussion.
Iam so grateful for CNS
Iam so grateful for CNS because without it most of us would not know what the hell is going on. I only wish that I had a few grand to throw in for you. Be like Bob Marley "DONT GIVE UP THE FIGHT".
FREEDOM OF SPEECH I wonder if
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
I wonder if McKeeva has forgotten that he was once sued in a court of law for slander and I believe was found Guilty.
He should be the last person in the world to talk about suing people XXXX
Poor old me, I even bought a
Poor old me, I even bought a dinner from West Bay United Church when Grammee was selling them to help him buy back his gardening truck which he had to sell to pay the settlement. How things change.
We love you anyway
We love you anyway sweetheart. As a matter of fact, we would go MUCH further than that to get him back his gardening truck today.
I never thought of it that
I never thought of it that way, now, there's a plan :)
In reply to 10.28 if that is
In reply to 10.28 if that is what you firmly believe then that is your right BUT having said that then the rights of our MLA's to be allowed to say what they want about anyone and hide behind Palimentary Privilege(I thinks thats what is called)should be taken away so that they can get on with the work we are paying them to do knowing that what they say can and will be used against them.Lets see how they feel when the shoe is on the other foot.
In reply to 17:23 you are so
In reply to 17:23 you are so right I wonder what you would do if you were wearing the shoe and somebody stepped on your corn, it's all relative isn't it. And don't forget innocent until proven guilty hey hey hey
CNS fabricates the news and
CNS fabricates the news and fabricates perceptions, then its only fair you fabricate your own fund for the fabrications you spew out there regularly. Hopefully the courts will rule on "accountability" which this blog seems to operate without any.
I would also be very interested to see just how much the PPM will support your fund. I'm sure the AG will be completely transparent about this................
Thumbs down aways, the news and comments of this website is as predictable as the stench coming from mount trashmore.
Yeah, the stench from
Yeah, the stench from comments from people like you is WORSE than Mount Trashmore.
The stench is from you. I
The stench is from you. I just don't know how you broke wind and actually transmitted it via http to poor Wendy and Nicky!! Excuse YOU!
The after smell from eating
The after smell from eating those Mac burgers can travel by any means imaginable. That's why our CUC bills are so outrageous.
I have heard down the marl
I have heard down the marl road that the Premier is in the fabrication business to, his company is called BS Enterprises. And we the public are the majority shareholders.
And you are a puppet, that is
And you are a puppet, that is the Premier's puppet. CNS doesn't fabricate, they print the story and the people post their opinions, their opinions and only their opinions, not like yourself who is being told on what to say......I guess if you don't agree with the PRemier you won't get your washing machine or bonus cheque this year for a vote....
Operating without
Operating without "accountability"? Are you talking about CNS, or the Government? GO SIT DOWN!!!!
AND SHUT UP!!!!
AND SHUT UP!!!!
Is that the same Mount
Is that the same Mount Trashmore that the UDP Government has done nothing about?
obviously written by a troll
obviously written by a troll that didn't like the sunshine poured on their dirty dealings by CNS
Then one has to wonder why
Then one has to wonder why you read it!
Spoken like another
Spoken like another misguilded UDP supporter, blind as a bat to what's going on in his own country, or may be just to dumb to understand.
Here's a little article from
Here's a little article from the Canadian media about a recent court case involving defamation on social media networks and blogs. Interesting reading.....
The Ontario Superior Court recently decided that a blog comment must pass a higher threshold before it's considered defamatory than statements made in other places.
Defamation is the communication to third parties of a false statement that tends to injure the reputation of an individual. Slander is oral defamation. Libel is written defamation.
The reasoning in the case of Baglow v. Smith includes the thought that an ongoing blogging thread is akin to a debate. The person who felt wronged by a comment has an opportunity to reply to set the record straight and lessen the impact on his reputation of the original statement.
That makes sense if the two parties were already both involved in the online banter. But might be less applicable if the aggrieved party had not been involved in the debate prior to the comment.
Another thought was that given the nature of the online forum, readers would be less likely to interpret comments such as in this case -- which suggested the person was a Taliban supporter -- as being intended to be factual.
It probably didn't help the complainant's case that he had made some derogatory comments of his own in the comment thread. To determine if a statement is defamatory, it must be looked at in the context of the conversation or publication as a whole, and not as an isolated statement.
But this decision doesn't mean the Internet is a defamation- free zone and that one can say whatever one wants with impunity. It just means the analysis as to whether particular comments on the Internet amount to defamation considers the nature of the medium. That makes sense, as defamation is about what the public thinks as a result of the comment.
Earlier defamation decisions about material posted on the Internet have awarded higher damage awards than if it had been published on paper. The rationale is there is a broader distribution of the comment.
So we could be in the position where a defamatory comment in an article on the Internet or in a blog post or on some form of social media might have a risk of a higher damage award -- but the threshold for being considered defamatory in the first place is higher. In other words, more potential damages, but less risk of being found defamatory in the first place.
And the risk of a comment being considered defamatory might be less if discussion ensues, especially if the aggrieved party is involved in the discussions.
The bottom line -- if someone makes a comment online about you that you think might affect your reputation, you should think carefully about what to do about it.
On the one hand, it might not attract enough attention to do any real harm, and the wrong reaction might just bring more attention to it. On the other hand, its online nature gives the opportunity for a measured, rational reply to set the record straight.
David Canton is a business lawyer and trade-mark agent with a technology focus at Harrison Pensa LLP. This article, written with the assistance of Elikem Baeta, contains general comments only, not legal advice. Contact David at 519-661-6776 or www.canton.elegal.ca.
Just glancing thru the
Just glancing thru the "thumbs-up and thumbs down" icons at the end of each entry, it seems they pretty much mirror the Cayman Compass' newspaper poll asking how many people would vote for the UDP if the elections were held now - LESS THAN 15%.
Very telling.
This is so ridiculous on
This is so ridiculous on the basis of this lawsuit, the premier would do better to tackle more serious natures of crime e.t.c that's hurting Tourism rather than his ego.
Its very interesting to see
Its very interesting to see most people who post here actually believe we have the Freedom of Speech and Freedom to gather in the Cayman Islands. I hope someone is reading their constitution and the local laws or they may be surprised.
Not everything you see on TV is applicable here. Just saying.
The real question is whether
The real question is whether you have read the Constitution.
Section 11 of the Constitution says: "No persons shall be hindered by government in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of expression, which includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his or her correspondence or other means of communication.
Section 12 says: "No persons shall be hindered by government in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of peaceful assembly and association, that is to say, his or her right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties or to form or beling to trade unions or other associations for the protection of his or her interests".
Of course these rights are qualified as they are in any other democratic society.
I have an idea. We can sell
I have an idea. We can sell all the fridges and windows and sofas and cases of beer and loads of fill and fresh beef and stoves and shingles next election and donate the proceeds to this very worthy cause. I mean, we don't necessarily have to actually VOTE for someone just because they buy us a fridge, right?
And we will see more law
And we will see more law suits, because we have a deficient constitution that does not represent the people of the Cayman Islands.
Let me ask you this, you are
Let me ask you this, you are forever lambasting the Constitution, have you ever actually read it? If you have then it is clear that you don't understand it. Section 11 of the Constitution protects freedom of expression or it at least it will when the the relevant sections come into force next year. In the meantime we can rely on our common law rights of freedom of expression. Do you understand that if we had not adopted the new Constitution we would be far worse off under the old one?
However, simply because there is a right in the Constitution does not mean that there is an end to all litigation. There is not a nation on earth more litigious than the United States of America.
The question will be what
The question will be what defenses are available. In the US a public figure must prove a slanderous statement was not a matter of opinion, was likely to be believed, was demonstrably false AND made with malicious intent. The premier's case would have no chance, but it is true that local politicians like sheriffs and mayors in the US still file such suits for the publicity, usually in connection with elections.
The only available defences
The only available defences in this case are (1) Justification, i.e. that the statements are true, and the burden will be on the defendant to show that on a balance of probabilities; or (2) Fair Comment. Fair does not mean reasonable, but signifies the absence of malice. The views expressed can be exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, provided they are honestly held. If the claimant can show that the publication was made maliciously, the defence of fair comment will not succeed.
Of course the irony is that on many occasions statements that would otherwise be actionable as defamation are made in the LA but are covered by absolute privilege.
I'm thrilled to hear Dan is
I'm thrilled to hear Dan is involved! Dan and CNS YIPPIEEEEEE! I wonder if dah WB Bobo don't think he might just have bitten off more than he can chew?
ATTENTION ALL POSTERS and
ATTENTION ALL POSTERS and READERS!
I am not sure if I am reapeating what others have said verbatum, however I would like to say that CNS has taken a very active role in providing a medium for the disseminating of the new and REALITY of the POLITICAL ATTROCITY that is unfolding before our eyes and within our lives her in the Cayman Islands. CNS has been well aware of the DRAGON we fight and has none-the-less taken that great burden of risk in further setting a TRUE precedence of Freedom of Speech and DEMOCRACY. CNS has been doing this for US, the People of the Cayman Islands and has done so without reluctance and with TRUE VALOR.
With that said, I am of the firmest(or should i say IRON CLAD) belief that WE as "The People"... the posters, commentors and readers and all others, SHOULD STAND UNITED with CNS in this battle against the Dragon... it is OUR battle just the same.
*** And if victorious, we should WAGE ANOTHER BATTLE. That one would be to SEEK TO HAVE McKEEVA REMOVED FROM POWER, from Govt., and from POLITICS INDEFINITELY here in our once hopeful little nation.
I will DEFINITELY be contributing as much as possibly can and again ask that we ALL contribute what we can, whether it is monitary or in any other ways.
@ CNS - Stay strong... We shall fight with you... AT YOUR SIDE!
Sincerely
Anon IRON CLAD
My fellow Caymanians, people
My fellow Caymanians, people around the globe are disposing of real Dictators. Why is it we cannot get rid of a fool fool wannabee dictator from West Bay? Fed up!!!
I sent in a note making a
I sent in a note making a comment as to why Dan Duquay was being used as it seems this is politicizing this even further XXXXX. I did not mean this in a negative way only bringing to light that the focus may shift on him rather than on the true reason of fight ing for free speech.
Maybe it was interpreted wrongly, screened and discarded...but what about my rights to free speech??
Come on CNS
And with the right of Freedom
And with the right of Freedom of Speech comes the responsibilty not to abuse that right.
Exercising my right to freedom of speech, I personally hope he wins not because I dont appreciate my rights but because enough is enough. Not everything said is worth saying. People need to know that there are limits on what can and cannot be said about a person in a public forum.
Bottom line is that there is no respect.
To 10:28, either this comment
To 10:28, either this comment is made by the Premier himself or a supporter.....
I will second the part about
I will second the part about no respect. lol
So you hope he wins but you
So you hope he wins but you think it is OK for him to slander people in the house and not be sued because of parliamentary privilege?
Respect? Respect is earned
Respect? Respect is earned not bought, or demanded. A crown does not make you King, no more than standing in a garage will make make you a Car.
You betrayed your bias by
You betrayed your bias by your own words. You do not desire justice, you desire revenge. A call for justice would side with whatever side had "clean hands" in the eyes of the law.
In regard to respect, the law does not mandate that I "respect" anyone; it merely sets forth guidelines as to how I might go about showing my disrespect, disdain, and utter loathing for anyone that I consider to be a totally unrespectable ignorant XXXXXXX moronic buffooon.
Bottom line is that my respect must be earned.
Anonymous 10:28 Who made you
Anonymous 10:28
Who made you the judge of what is and what is not abuse of that right of Fredon of Speech?? This is the real world, not just Cayman's world. Do you realize that there are other nations beyond the sea that surrounds this island?
Along your Bottom Line; Respect is not automatic, it is earned. We see the disrespect that he shows to others, women especially, and we realize that he does not deserve the respect that he feels his title provides.
This is a hard lesson but one that most of us learned in school.
If you are in politics you know that there will be those that do not agree with you.
If you think you can sail thru a LIFE of politricks without making enemies you are just as much a naive fool as that buffoon.
By 'no respect' we take it
By 'no respect' we take it you mean 'no respect' from either side. In which case we either have a 'real' problem or no problem at all. My parents always taught me that respect always goes two ways. I suppose so does 'no respect', but I would venture to say it is even more important for employees to have respect for their employers than vice versa.
Respect has to be earned and
Respect has to be earned and deserved, not demanded.
If there is no respect for the Premier, it is because he is not worthy of it
A family member of the
A family member of the premier? Note how I dropped the capital "P" off of the title.
No respect is due when only
No respect is due when only disrespect has been earned.
Unfortunately, that
Unfortunately, that bottomline comes straight from the top.
XXXXX I do have one question
XXXXX I do have one question though, who is funding the 'premiers' law suit? McWeeeever himself , or the Cayman 'taxpayer'. Are the Caymanian people paying to sue themselves out of the right to free speech? The dictators are falling Cayman, drag him out of the drain pipe and depose him.
Post new comment