When Jessamyn West was here for SLA, this topic came up at the after-event gathering.  I meant to post ……

I am not talking about Ezra’s Human Rights Commission in my comments here. I am strictly discussing the libel suit filed by Warman, which is a civil case.

I think you are the person who needs to “catch up” dear.

Ezra may have a lawyer, but he isn’t behaving like he’s got a good one. He is following his own course. Ezra seems to be thinking that speaking out on this issue is worth the risk as it is raising him money to be used in defense.

I am a known strong advocate for libel law reform in Canada, but if Warman’s Statement of Claim that he is not the author of the Cool’s post is true (or, more correctly, that the defendants can’t prove their claim that he is to be true) arguing in support of tolerating false attribution of authorship of racist material in the name of free speech is not something I am prepared to do.

It appears that the IP underlying the Cools post is a Rogers proxy, which was serving some 700,000 users at that time. One of those users may very well have been myself, as I used Rogers and was posting a lot on FD back then.

I am certainly NOT Richard Warman. I also did not post the Cools post. That’s one down, 699,999 to go.

When libel is found to have occurred by a judge, general damages are assumed to exist. The plaintiff need not prove any damages. The rules are different for special and punitive damages. This is not unusual in torts. With the tort of Malicious Prosecution, for example, you are awarded damages for defamation and aggravation. Trust me on that — I am shortly filing a Malicious Prosecution claim. Some other day I may write about it.

Remember, in Canada, we all have a legal right to reputation. It is a positive right, that is, we are assumed to have a good reputation unless proven otherwise.

I am very concerned about the conflict between freedom of expression and the right to reputation in this country, but if Warman was not the author of the Cools post, then he is entitled to damages.

JimBobby: The laws you talk about are *broken* with today’s technology. If we as a society keep laws on the books that are meant to deal with large printing presses, and those who operate them, and seriously apply them to the technology of today, nevermind tomorrow, unceasing absurdities, such as this, and society will suffer as a result.

This is assuredly NOT the first time Ezra has gotten into trouble for libel against people. Just ask Kevin Michael Grace about Ezra’s standards for columns he tried to submit to The Report Magazine.

Anybody who is listening to Ezra’s advice on this, should remember the old adage about a lawyer who represents himself having a fool for a client.

I think most people who are opposed to Warman are deluding themselves that this is going to be a slam-dunk no problem-o case for the defendants.

I doubt very few people have ever been on the other side of this kind of legal action. I have, and I can tell you right now, the onus is on the defendants to PROVE that they did not libel someone and cause them harm.

Since there are cases of numerous people calling for violence or harm to be done to Warman (One even made it onto Ezra’s moderated com-box) it’s going to be very easy for Warman to prove harm and malice on the part of the defendants.

The Speechies need to prove 1) That their statements are true 2) That the comments, despite being troubling to Warman are Fair Comments for the General public and 3)They posted remarks about Warman without any malice…

That’s going to be very hard to do. Espeiclly the last thing. The malice problem.

And he did it. He pulled the plug. Doesn’t get much more simple than that, unfortunately.