Judgement against The Washington Post will be a problem for Indymedia.

03/10/05
To: Judge Pitt J. (SCJ Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
Re: Case Number C41379 ;
TUESDAY MARCH 8th, 2005
Bangoura, Cheickh v. The Washington Post et al

I would like to draw your attention to an article published on line in September 2002 by Joan E. Thomas§.

As a researcher who uses both on line archives and microfilms I find it hard to accept that your judgment in this case found that online content dated from 1997 is not legally the same as content found on microfilm.

I admit that there are some fundamental differences, but in this case the differences are mote. As technology has increased in efficiency news media has shifted it's archiving infrastructure to electronic format. In the days where microfilm was prominent this case would not be heard because it is a given that only professional researchers and reporters would bother to search the contents of those archives, therefore Mr. Bangor's claim could not be heard because the material in question was not considered examinable by the general public.

However, times have changed, and the process for research has itself moved into the arena of the common man. Even the profession of journalism is now crossing over to open publishing such as the case with Indymedia¶ of which I am proud to be part of.

I believe that the defendants are not liable for archived works that have already been updated. Mr. Bangor was found not guilty, this fact was also reported by The Washington Post as was the information concerning his charges when he worked with the United Nations in Africa. Any person seeking information about a public figure, and coming to conclusions about that person from archived works, is equally responsible to insure that the information is current.

I find that your judgment in this matter to be a threat to free speech, and lacking in understanding of current events.

Niel “Wolfe