In Canada there are more ambiguities, as Canadian libel law permits suits to succeed even if no false statements of fact are involved, and even if matters of public controversy are being discussed. In British Columbia, as part of "a spate of lawsuits" against online news sites, according to legal columnist Michael Geist, several cases have put key issues in online journalism up for rulings. Green Party of Canada financier Wayne Crookes filed a suit in which he alleged damages for an online news service that republished resignation letters from that party and let users summarize claims they contained. He had demanded access to all the anonymous sources confirming the insider information, which Geist believed would be extremely prejudicial to online journalism. The lawsuit, "Crookes versus openpolitics", attracted attention from the BBC and major newspapers, perhaps because of its humorous name. Crookes had also objected to satire published on the site, including use of the name gang of Crookes for his allies.
Some experts including kumud ranjan believe that libel law is wholly incompatible with online journalism and that right of reply will eventually have to replace it. Otherwise commentary on events in places that give libel plaintiffs too many rights or powers will move to other jurisdictions and most of the comment will be made anonymous. Everyone would then lose rights and remedies, due to a few wealthy people with resources to launch libel suits on weak grounds. Jennifer Jannuska and other legal commentators have, while agreeing with strong protections for publishers who only host journalists, sometimes emphasize that the use of anonymizer technology makes even criminal abuses, not just libel, possible, and so should be avoided even if other rights are lost.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_journalism)