[conniew]

To be defamatory, it must.

Be false.
Be intended to harm.
And actually harm.

Did they prove their case, or has the court its head up its butt?

In Ontario, the law is different. Basically any negative comment is considered to be defamatory. Guilt is presumed, malice is presumed and damages are presumed.

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association recently wrote a paper about how bad this is, if you are interested in it:

http://ocla.ca/report-bill-83/

[Gay State Conservative]

In Ontario, the law is different. Basically any negative comment is considered to be defamatory. Guilt is presumed, malice is presumed and damages are presumed.

So does that mean that in a Parliamentary campaign if a candidate says "and my opponent doesn't even floss regularly" the opponent can just declare himself to be deeply hurt (I mean,who wants a representative with halitosis?) and,voila!,a $100,000 judgment?

[Born to Conserve]

Thanks for the link.

It appears anonymous retributive commentary may be the only defense. This doesn’t seem honorable, but there is no acceptable alternative.

“An armed society is a polite society,” and this refers to pens as well as swords.

[JBGUSA]

In Ontario, the law is different. Basically any negative comment is considered to be defamatory. Guilt is presumed, malice is presumed and damages are presumed.

The U.S. to my knowledge is the only country that has virtually absolute free speech. Thank G-d for the quirk of history that gave us that gift.