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.
5 comments:
Same here. I supported those that were sued .I believe in free speech .
I see the flying monkeys are out on this one.
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.
Instead of contributing to the legal expenses I've elected to plant some trees in Israel in Mr. Bagelow's name.
http://site.jnf.ca/main/index.php/take-action/plant-a-tree/
Post a Comment