Health workers shouldn’t have to go to court to stop online abuse
Last month, CATIE won a landmark $1.75M defamation case against an individual who undertook a sustained online hate campaign against our staff and volunteer board members. The attacks were driven by our commitment to publishing sexual health information and, as the judge acknowledged, by homophobia. The decision affirms that this kind of abuse is unlawful. But it also highlights a systemic failure: we should never have had to go to court to defend our right to do our work.
We are not alone. Other HIV organizations and public health workers were defamed by the same individual. 2SLGBTQIA+ health advocates continue to face waves of transphobic and homophobic harassment online. Clinicians and researchers promoting COVID-19 vaccines have received death threats. The problem is bigger than CATIE. Unlawful online abuse is undermining organizations and individuals working in the public interest.
Before taking the matter to court, we tried every avenue available. The automated reporting systems at Facebook and X ruled that the abuse did not violate their terms of service. The harassment also took place on the individual’s website, but the hosting providers, 4GoodHosting and Hostinger, said they would only act with a court order. That order took two years and significant financial resources. The law was on our side, but the system ensured we could not enforce it without extraordinary effort.
Meanwhile, the companies we appealed to are some of the most profitable in the world. Meta, the owner of Facebook, generated more than $62 billion (USD) in profit in 2024. These tech giants are not under-resourced organizations. They have the means to create fair and transparent systems for addressing unlawful abuse. They simply choose not to.
To be clear, these were not a few snarky social media comments. This individual published the names, photographs and professional details of our staff and board members on his website and connected social media accounts, labelled us “groomers” and “child predators,” and incited others to target us. He left threatening voicemails at our office that the judge described as “vile, unhinged and highly offensive.” His campaign has been ongoing for two years.
For non-profit organizations like ours – working to provide evidence-based health information – this is not just a nuisance. It is a direct barrier to carrying out our mission. If online spaces cannot be made safe from unlawful abuse, the very organizations tasked with improving public health will be undermined. It will become even more difficult to attract and retain the talented and competent professionals who choose to work and volunteer in public health if abuse is normalized.
What needs to change
- Platform accountability: Web and social media companies must investigate complaints of abuse without waiting for court orders.
- Appeal processes: When platforms rely on algorithms to judge abuse reports, there must be a human appeal process.
- Independent oversight: Just as broadcasters answer to regulators, online platforms need an independent body to hear complaints. Companies cannot be left to regulate themselves.
- Equal application: Any rules must apply equally to all platforms operating in Canada, regardless of where they are based. Otherwise, Canadian companies bear an unfair burden, and abusers will simply move their content to offshore hosting providers.
A missed opportunity
The federal government’s proposed Online Harms Act could have addressed cases like ours, but it was fraught with controversy and never made it into law before the end of the parliamentary session in January 2025. It remains unclear if or how it will be revived. Meanwhile, people and organizations targeted by unlawful online abuse are left with only the courts – an option too costly for most and too slow for the age of rapid-fire disinformation campaigns.
Free expression and its limits
This is not about silencing debate or unpopular opinions. It is about unlawful expression – defamation, hate and abuse – that our legal system already prohibits. The problem is that our current processes make those laws nearly impossible to enforce in online spaces.
The call to action
If Canada expects organizations like ours to continue providing life-saving health information, then our government must act. Broadcasters already face oversight. It is time for social media and web platforms to meet the same standard.
Andrew Brett is director of communications at CATIE, and was one of nine co-plaintiffs in CATIE et al v. Blackwell represented by Douglas W. Judson of Judson Howie LLP.