An Edmonton man has been ordered to pay $50,000 in damages to anti-hate crusader Richard Warman, who was targeted for death in a series of vile Internet postings.
The threats posted by William Grosvenor, a middle-aged stamp dealer, were 'vicious, profane and extreme,' Ontario Superior Court Judge Lynn Ratushny concluded in a ruling released this week.
The full judgement is here. My favorite bit, from Botiuk vs. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd., is this definition of a defamatory publication:
Note how similar the language is to section 13 of the Human Rights Act: This makes sense if you consider hate speech (and I have heard it described this way) as defamation against groups. But, since a number of people have made the argument that the language of (13).1 is hopelessly vague, it also begs the question: how is that vague if the concept of defamation is clear? Speechys?...Anyone??
Also, got my first look at Shaidle's The Tyranny of Nice. A review may follow eventually but, at a mere 98 pages, it very much looks like a publication some lawyer took a pair of garden shears too (severely clipped, in other words). Most of defamatory material on Lucy and Warman and Kinsella is missing. There's nothing, for example, re Kinsella's alleged superfluous 3rd nipple. In fact, I can't find any reference to Warren at all (although I have admittedly only glanced at my new E-book). And nothing about me! That really hurts. Anyway, what is left seems a boring cut-and paste of bowdlerized versions of blog posts you've probably already read. Like porn with the screw scenes marked over with red ink.
7 comments:
I bet Shaidle and MacMillan pissed their pants this morning.
I bet they did.
I bet Connie Fournier sniffed them afterwards.
Hey BCL,
I wrote about this on the Shotgun here.
You're right that defamation is a fuzzy concept. Some libertarians have argued against having any defamation laws at all, though I'm not one of them.
But making false accusations of statutory rape (which is what Grosvenor did) should qualify as defamation, if anything should. Indeed, I don't think it's going too far to consider such accusations defamation per se.
Best,
Terrence
Falsely accusing someone of a crime or of committing a 'crime-like' act, or even suggesting that a crime could have been made, is classic defamation and is very hard to defend.
The reason why defamation against groups usually isn't tolerated as a tort is because there isn't a definable victim, as torts are conflicts between private _persons_.
The now classic case is of the Toronto Police union suing The Toronto Star for a piece which statistically showed that some (unnamed) police used racial profiling. The Toronto Star survived that tort easily:
"The law is well settled that an action for defamation is a personal tort based on injury to one’s own reputation. A plaintiff in a defamation action must show that the publication complained of is reasonably capable of referring to him or her. The only question before this court is whether it is plain and obvious that the plaintiffs cannot succeed in showing that the articles complained of could reasonably be understood to refer to them as individuals or to any other particular member of the Toronto Police Service.
"...The articles complained of use general language such as “police” or “Toronto Police” and are about systemic racism. The articles do not name or identify any particular police officer. It is plain and obvious to us that the articles read all together, or individually, are not capable of being reasonably understood to suggest that each individual member of the Toronto Police is “racist” or engages in “racial profiling”. The motions judge conducted a careful analysis of the legal issues advanced by the appellants and rejected them. We agree substantially with his reasons and consequently this appeal must be dismissed."
I agree, let's keep Section 13 of the HRA.
As we've seen, HRCs are mostly incompetent to use this section properly. If they continue to use it attempting to suppress normal speech, it will backfire (again) on the HRCs.
BCL, I hope you're not suggesting that Warman's legal win is somehow an endorsement for the ham-handed manner HRCs have recently used Section 13.
That sounds more like your language ti, not mine.
HRC's have bungled into trying to suppress everyday political discourse. They have allowed themselves to become politicized, without regard to legal standards. Hence, their well publicized retreats.
Post a Comment