U of R professor found liable of defamation for calling a book ‘racist garbage’
-
This post did not contain any content.
‘her lawyer reminded her they were fighting for “the principle of free speech.” “I’m hoping that the activists will now realize there are limits to their behavior,” she said.’
So the “principle of free speech” they were fighting for was the principle of limits to free speech?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Just another judge that needs a bullet between their eyes tbh
-
I’d like to know more about the ruling than what’s presented in the article. And I guess I’d need to know more about Canadian defamation law.
Not reading the book is unfortunate (sort of)…but it seems like a person could form a sincerely-held beliefs about a book without reading the thing cover to cover.
I haven’t read the book either but from the description and from my own knowledge of the systemic racism within Canada, the racist history of the RCMP and police forces in canada, and the known practice of “starlight tours”, I would 100% understand why someone would surmise that the book is racist garbage.
I almost want to read it to find out how the author could possibly justify any of the police actions, but I’d really rather not, so I’m just going to make my own assumptions about why the judge ruled the way they did (and I have one very obvious guess).
-
I’d like to know more about the ruling than what’s presented in the article. And I guess I’d need to know more about Canadian defamation law.
Not reading the book is unfortunate (sort of)…but it seems like a person could form a sincerely-held beliefs about a book without reading the thing cover to cover.
Canadian defamation law is actually much stricter than US law - truth isn’t always an absolute defense and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove their statements werent defamatory.
-
‘her lawyer reminded her they were fighting for “the principle of free speech.” “I’m hoping that the activists will now realize there are limits to their behavior,” she said.’
So the “principle of free speech” they were fighting for was the principle of limits to free speech?
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
-
‘her lawyer reminded her they were fighting for “the principle of free speech.” “I’m hoping that the activists will now realize there are limits to their behavior,” she said.’
So the “principle of free speech” they were fighting for was the principle of limits to free speech?
In Canada all rights are limited
But defamation laws exist in a lot of countries
-
‘her lawyer reminded her they were fighting for “the principle of free speech.” “I’m hoping that the activists will now realize there are limits to their behavior,” she said.’
So the “principle of free speech” they were fighting for was the principle of limits to free speech?
The ‘her’ is the author, the ‘they’ is the activist.
The comment was in relation to the size of the settlement, and the author’s satisfaction with the judgement.
-
The ‘her’ is the author, the ‘they’ is the activist.
The comment was in relation to the size of the settlement, and the author’s satisfaction with the judgement.
So, we may then add “smug” to “vile racist garbage”.
-
This post did not contain any content.
How can opinion and critique be defamation? This is insane. We can’t criticize racist bigots anymore apparently.
Sorry, I had to come back to this. The truth isn’t an absolute defense against defamation??? That’s the most insane thing I’ve ever heard. Sometimes it’s hard being Canadian.
-
Canadian defamation law is actually much stricter than US law - truth isn’t always an absolute defense and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove their statements werent defamatory.
Would you happen to have a cite supporting the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove their statements weren’t defamatory? I’m not familiar with that.
