[C. Edmund Wright]

Shame on you....I understand the legaleze....I just find it bureaucratic and effete and overly presumptious and boring, not to mention inefficient. And in typical legaleze, you have defined the terms but not yet splained why the preponderance of the evidence (if I’m learnt nuff to figger it out) burden is on Steyn et al.)

[nathanbedford]

Usually, but not always, when a defendant pleads an affirmative defense (the truth of the alleged libel, for example) the burden shifts to the party asserting the affirmative defense. It makes sense in logic that the proponent of the fact or a condition should have the responsibility for proving it. Otherwise, the other side is put to the task of disproving the negative.

Since Steyn is asserting this affirmative defense I believe he would be put to the proof.

Legalese is a shorthand to those who use the jargon. All professions do it, even authors of great books.