Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 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?


197 posted on 01/29/2014 10:48:08 PM PST by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Born to Conserve
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/

203 posted on 01/30/2014 5:04:18 AM PST by conniew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson