People here seem to be conflating winning a suit with the grounds to start one and the grounds to start one with the ability to do so.
Quote: 309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.
Note that I didn't disagree with this. But some people like the bludgeon of the law.
But they are the first line in the criminal process. And seeing as you posted sections of the CCoC, that is where the process you are referring to would start...
If they refuse to act, your next step is to present before a Justice of the Peace. Usually a retired Judge or new Judge.
Good luck getting any sympathy for having been called a name on the internet.
And if you think spending thousands of dollars on hiring a lawyer to file something you could file and be told to bugger off in one afternoon, is more your bag. Then more power to ya. But if you really want to waste your money, just send it to me...
Not at all. Some of us actually have dealt with or deal with the law on a regular basis.
That would require some pretty fancy dancing. In the case where SJP claimed that Cannuck is violent, he would have show cause to be deemed to have published something in the interest of public safety, or benefit.
So unless Cannuck has actually stated that he would assualt SJP, SJP has actually broken the very laws you posted. A threat of assault in and of itself is a crime.
And some people watch to much Law & Order Wednesday nights. Not that I am referring to you.
And really, what made you think I was willing to spend money on such trifles. I was merely pointing out that a person easily could start a civil action by way that there were grounds for criminal action. The fact that this is an internet forum and the insult to reputation so slight in no way negates this.
You, in particular, should look into the case law of this particular dandy. I think you will really like it, and I say this sincerely. Well, by like, I mean it is fuel for some of your fires.
Anyways, why would you seek a criminal suit when you have the grounds for a civil suit written out in the criminal code and it is much easier to make the action? I quote the Criminal Code because I have read it and the definitions espoused there will be upheld in a civil court.
And really, what made you think I was willing to spend money on such trifles. I was merely pointing out that a person easily could start a civil action by way that there were grounds for criminal action.
The fact that this is an internet forum and the insult to reputation so slight in no way negates this.
I didn't realize watching Law and Order on Wednesdays was considered by some to be dealing with the law.
I think when one starts posting on any internet forum one accepts the risk that somebody isn't going to agree....
Then I suggest you try it. If you think you have a chance, by all means. I can walk you through filing your own court papers, so as to remove the cost of a lawyer.
Whenever a person finds him self or her self in the predicament of name calling, and un substantiated innuendo out of anger on a specific subject of heated debate, one has called others unfair names, it is a violation with a degree of justification, provocation in the debate is unavoidable, Apologizing when wrong cleans ill unnecessary toxic feelings.
After all the entire human race is very adversarial. The justice industry loves that. It keeps them working and getting paid good. To avoid all that, mean intent is bad, freedom of speech WITH CONCIDERATION TO WORDING is my LIBERTY.
Dude, how many times do I have to point out that I just don't give a flaming intercourse about being insulted on the internet.
I would like to see the douchebag lawyer that would take something like this pro bono.
No, what I am saying is that someone with a pile of disposable money and the lack of anything better to do could easily go out and trounce on somebody for as slight a thing as this.
But seriously, look up the case law. You will rage to see how it was used. It is a tragedy.
George Gillespie of Ohio filed suit on September 16, 2005 against two chat room users who allegedly humiliated him in AOL chat discussions. The defendants, Bob Charpentier and Mike Marlowe, lived in Oregon and Alabama respectively at the time the suit was filed. Gillespie also sued AOL for allowing the alleged harassment to occur.Quote has been trimmed
According to Law.com, Gillespie alleged that the chat room participants "acted in an outrageous manner, which they knew or should have known would cause serious emotional distress to the plaintiff . . . The Defendants' conduct was so extreme and contemptible as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency." Gillespie also alleged that Charpentier and Marlowe intruded into his "private affairs" and claimed that Marlowe drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph his home (for posting on the web) and/or to file a change of address form with the local post office in order to disrupt his mail. Marlowe
As I have been trying to get through to you, we don't disagree. Nowhere did I claim it was easy. I claimed that one need not prove damages only insult to reputation. This is a fact. In fact, sadly in Canada, the onus is on the defendent to prove the comment was fair. Anyways, in parting, I quote this $221.80 suit, coming out of the states.
The Internets have now reported: we're serious business.
PS. Can someone spare some change, the $221 didn't cover my fare to the court house...
Online libel costs woman £10,000
A woman who waged an abusive internet campaign against a politician has been ordered to pay him £10,000 in damages. UK Independence Party member Michael Keith Smith brought the libel case against Tracy Williams over remarks she made on a Yahoo! discussion board.
Mr Smith, 53, of Fareham, Hampshire, contested the Portsmouth North constituency at the General Election.
Ms Williams, of Oldham, Gtr Manchester, used a pseudonym to post claims that he was a sexual offender and racist bigot.
Ms Williams had also claimed that the chartered surveyor had sexually harassed a female co-worker, had been charged with soliciting boys and cottaging and that he was a sexual deviant and pervert.
In June 2004, Mr Smith, of Portchester, Fareham, obtained a court order requiring the site operator to disclose Ms Williams' identity.
Judge Macduff QC said the legal proceedings that then followed only provoked her into more "frenzied abuse", which continued well into 2005.
But Ms Williams, who did not attend the High Court hearing and did not file a defence, had not tried to justify her statements which were clearly defamatory, the judge said.
Ms Williams had met a request for an apology with contempt, the court heard.
Mr Smith was awarded £5,000 general damages plus £5,000 aggravated damages to reflect the way Ms Williams had behaved.
He granted an injunction preventing further publication of the same or similar libels and ordered Ms Williams to pay the costs of the action, which Mr Smith put at £7,200.
So ... I've been called a poodle. To a wolf, that's an insult. Troll? Big deal.
Goat's a little stringy but rather tasty if marinated right....
It's not. In Canada you have to prove damages in order to collect damages. Unless it can be shown that a quantifiable ($$$) amount of damage was done, there is no grounds for a suit.
In their natural and ordinary meaning, the Words and FAQ and Continued Words meant and were understood to bear the false and defamatory meanings that the plaintiff is a stalker, abuser, harasser, criminal, evil, liar, killer, sexual predator, pervert, pedophile, coward, manipulator and hate monger who threatens others with death and violence, betrays confidences and is untrustworthy, is dangerous, abuses, impregnates and abandons women and publishes their personal information, encourages and actively assists and incites vulnerable people into committing suicide, and deserves to be jailed and killed.
I have never believed that your wife is a doctor, or that your son is in medical school. In fact I would be surprised if you are even married.
If you want people to think of you as an adult, start acting like one.
This childish shyte, called around until he found someone at the GTAA that knew who I was and my company name and proceeded to tell all sorts of tales of my supposed criminal activities at Pearson Int Airport. To the point that my security clearance was revoked and my contracts suspended. I had to hire a lawyer and jump through hoops to get my clearance back and get my contracts reinstated. It was eventually proven that I was in no way acting in any way criminal. The Police were informed by not only my lawyer, but the authorities at the GTAA and ThyssenKrupp. The individual was found and quess what he was charged with?
Nothing...not a damn thing. Not even mischief. Whe I queried my lawyer about suing the man, I was told to cough up some pretty big bucks, before he would even put pen to to paper. His advice, move on. It wasn't worth the time and aggrivation.
Should've shopped around for a better solicitor, one who needed money and was on your side. What this person did needn't be criminal, only malicious. If malice was the only reason, and things said were untrue you would have a case. If however they thought, or convinced a judge that they were acting in the best interest of security you might have a problem. I've seen folks win judgements on flimsier evidence, usually a nominal judgement, but at least its satisfaction.