Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Help Out With Dr. Dawg's Legal Bill

Richard Warman has launched an Indiegogo campaign to help pay some of the legal expenses Dr. Dawg incurred during his legal battle with the Fourniers and others at FreeDominion.  You can find out more about it here.  They've collected about $400 in a couple of hours.  And I too will be donating $.  Very soon.  As soon as we pay for my dear mother's eye.  She threw it at dad and it broke against his head.

As for the Dawg's case, it's got even the lawyers confused.  Richard says:

In the weird world of libel law, the judge found that John had been defamed, but that because John had supported basic legal rights for child soldier Omar Khadr, the comment that John was a supporter of the Taliban was 'fair comment' and therefore legally okay.

As for me,  my understanding is that  a defamatory statement states a false fact and therefore cannot support an opinion protected by fair comment. The judgement in this case says both that the statement was defamatory AND that it was protected by fair comment, which sounds contradictory.

So I don't get it.


Gyor said...

No I will not support him, while I don't support the rightwingers and the comment was stupid and offensive, but I also don't support censorship and goofy lawsuits over every idiotic comment people on the net make. If I sued every idiot that called him a communist and even worse things, the courts would have no room for serious crimes.

Douggie Tremain said...

Same here. I supported those that were sued .I believe in free speech .

Tomasz Winnicki said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Polyorchnid Octopunch said...

I see the flying monkeys are out on this one.

Gh Lobe said...

Actually there is no contradiction in judge's ruling. The law says a statement must be either "factual" or "fair comment", which implies that the truthfulness of a fair comment may or may not be established however some people may genuinely hold that opinion. However if someone propagates a claim knowing that to be false, that constitutes malice and defamation. In this case the judge determined a person might have honestly and without malice held the opinion that supporting omar khedr's expatriation constitutes support for Taliban, even if untrue.

Harry Abrams said...

Instead of contributing to the legal expenses I've elected to plant some trees in Israel in Mr. Bagelow's name.