Each one of the cartoons will be presented in court for all to see. Also, though I certainly do not know Canadian law, I presume the plaintiff's lawyers will try to prove the cartoons have defamed or slandered Canadian muslims and that probably requires the cartoons to be proven to be false representations of mohammed's character (any lawyerly help here would be appreciated). It would be my hope that, directly or indirectly, mohammed's character is called into question...talk about blasphemy!
Drawing on my limited knowledge of US tort law, in order to prove any defemation you need to show injury. Further you need standing, considering that Mohammed,if he existed, has been dead for a long time, therefore he cannot sue.
Good point.
They may focus on either Negligent- or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (sounds like what they're gunning for from the talking points so far). To do so, they need to prove that the emotional trauma resulted in actual physical personal damage. (It's not enough to say, "I'm so close physically and emotionally to Old Mo' that it damaged my f-f-f-feeelings to see him 'defamed' by the cartoons.") It would be a stretch, although they might try it.
Of course, this is all based on my fuzzy recollections from Tort Law class, and it's only American Tort law, not Canadian. Interesting that it is an incentive to react to slights in the most extreme ways possible. Explains quite a bit of liberal hyper-reactionism, to me.
If they get the right self-loathing liberal jury, one or two hyper-sensitive Muzzies may just grab a few hundred million for their terrorist-condoning buddies.