The Ontario Court of Appeal on Tuesday ruled Christians may litigate against “digital activism” on social media aimed at disrupting pro-life prayer vigils, per Blacklock’s Reporter. A panel of Ontario judges ruled all Canadians may “speak what they understand to be the truth.” “A free and democratic society is one that is committed to permitting everyone to speak what they understand to be the truth about the most profound questions of being and flourishing and to advocate for laws and policies that reflect this,” wrote Justice Bradley Miller of the Court of Appeal.Christians were permitted to proceed with claims of internet harassment, defamation and civil conspiracy, wrote Miller.“These issues should go to trial,” he said.Christian pro-life prayer group 40 Days For Life, which operates nine branches in Ontario, hosts 12-hour prayer vigils on public streets. Evidence showed in 2021 the group was targeted in a series of TikTok videos that invited viewers to contact 40 Days’ employees and disrupt the vigils.Brooke Dietrich, a Cambridge, Ont. graduate student, admitted to posting videos that drew over 300,000 views.“She claimed her digital activism was a matter of trying to ‘send a message,’” wrote the court.“She made negative comments about 40 Days For Life and its activities including by stating that 40 Days lied, spread ‘false health information’ and engaged in ‘fearmongering’ and harassment.”“In two additional videos Ms. Dietrich posted contact information for two of 40 Days’ employees.”The TikTok videos suggested viewers disrupt 40 Days’ activities by enrolling for prayer vigils and “then not show up,” filing vexatious reports to Facebook claiming harassment by 40 Days and pretending to buy merchandise on 40 Days’ website. The Christian group successfully sought an injunction against ongoing TikTok targeting.“Ms. Dietrich argues that what is really going on in this litigation is that a well-funded adversary is using litigation to silence a young graduate student who successfully used TikTok to counter protest its activities,” wrote Miller. He rejected Dietrich’s appeal to quash the case.“Several of her videos encouraged others to interfere with 40 Days’ activities and vigils,” wrote Miller. “This is qualitatively different from counter speech. 40 Days did not take issue with Ms. Dietrich’s pro-choice expression or her stance against abortion protests at hospitals. It only raised concerns with the obstruction of its operations.”“At root the expressions did not involve an effort to counter speech with speech,” said the court. “Instead Ms. Dietrich is alleged to have led a campaign to prevent 40 Days from organizing and expressing its views.”Dietrich was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs. The student in a GoFundMe post said she’d raised $1,930 in eight months. “I am being sued for over $300,000 and have mounting legal fees,” wrote Deitrich.
The Ontario Court of Appeal on Tuesday ruled Christians may litigate against “digital activism” on social media aimed at disrupting pro-life prayer vigils, per Blacklock’s Reporter. A panel of Ontario judges ruled all Canadians may “speak what they understand to be the truth.” “A free and democratic society is one that is committed to permitting everyone to speak what they understand to be the truth about the most profound questions of being and flourishing and to advocate for laws and policies that reflect this,” wrote Justice Bradley Miller of the Court of Appeal.Christians were permitted to proceed with claims of internet harassment, defamation and civil conspiracy, wrote Miller.“These issues should go to trial,” he said.Christian pro-life prayer group 40 Days For Life, which operates nine branches in Ontario, hosts 12-hour prayer vigils on public streets. Evidence showed in 2021 the group was targeted in a series of TikTok videos that invited viewers to contact 40 Days’ employees and disrupt the vigils.Brooke Dietrich, a Cambridge, Ont. graduate student, admitted to posting videos that drew over 300,000 views.“She claimed her digital activism was a matter of trying to ‘send a message,’” wrote the court.“She made negative comments about 40 Days For Life and its activities including by stating that 40 Days lied, spread ‘false health information’ and engaged in ‘fearmongering’ and harassment.”“In two additional videos Ms. Dietrich posted contact information for two of 40 Days’ employees.”The TikTok videos suggested viewers disrupt 40 Days’ activities by enrolling for prayer vigils and “then not show up,” filing vexatious reports to Facebook claiming harassment by 40 Days and pretending to buy merchandise on 40 Days’ website. The Christian group successfully sought an injunction against ongoing TikTok targeting.“Ms. Dietrich argues that what is really going on in this litigation is that a well-funded adversary is using litigation to silence a young graduate student who successfully used TikTok to counter protest its activities,” wrote Miller. He rejected Dietrich’s appeal to quash the case.“Several of her videos encouraged others to interfere with 40 Days’ activities and vigils,” wrote Miller. “This is qualitatively different from counter speech. 40 Days did not take issue with Ms. Dietrich’s pro-choice expression or her stance against abortion protests at hospitals. It only raised concerns with the obstruction of its operations.”“At root the expressions did not involve an effort to counter speech with speech,” said the court. “Instead Ms. Dietrich is alleged to have led a campaign to prevent 40 Days from organizing and expressing its views.”Dietrich was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs. The student in a GoFundMe post said she’d raised $1,930 in eight months. “I am being sued for over $300,000 and have mounting legal fees,” wrote Deitrich.
.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
