An Apology

[Niflmir]

Yep, and I can pretty much guarantee you, it won't be money well spent.

Note that I didn't disagree with this. But some people like the bludgeon of the law.

 

[lone wolf]

There may be some CCofC stones to lob in the threat ... If you don't......... I will.......

edit: Provincial Offences Act....

 

[CDNBear]

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.

Not at all. Some of us actually have dealt with or deal with the law on a regular basis.

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.

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.

Note that I didn't disagree with this. But some people like the bludgeon of the law.

And some people watch to much Law & Order Wednesday nights. Not that I am referring to you.

 

[Niflmir]

No really?

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...;-)

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.

 

[Niflmir]

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.

I didn't realize watching Law and Order on Wednesdays was considered by some to be dealing with the law.

 

[lone wolf]

I think when one starts posting on any internet forum one accepts the risk that somebody isn't going to agree....

 

[Tonington]

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 think Canada would be better served by this course of action, then say another alternative route via the Human Rights Councils. Do away with those, and let the real courts hear the arguments.

 

[Niflmir]

I think when one starts posting on any internet forum one accepts the risk that somebody isn't going to agree....

Like the FBI, who love to take the internet seriously.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

LOL...

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.

This is true, but the legal hurdles you face to get heard are put there to stop stupid people from filing ridiculous or litigious claims. First you have to find a lawyer that is willing, though there's a joke in there, it really isn't that easy. Then you have to file your claim. Cha ching. If you know lawyers willing to go pro bono on name calling, send me their numbers, I have some real stuff for them to do. Perhaps it's my association with Lawyers with some class and serious case loads, but I have yet to meet one willing to lower himself to litigation over name calling. Then there is the monumental hurdle of proving intent in a court of law. Look that one up. It's not like at the HRC's.

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.

I didn't, I just thought that your belief in the solidity of the CCoC and its application to civil litigation was funny, if not a tad absurd on this topic. If it were even remotely applicable and seen by the courst in any great seriousness, there would be a monumental back log of civil suits waiting to be heard on this.

The fact that this is an internet forum and the insult to reputation so slight in no way negates this.

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.

 

[CDNBear]

I didn't realize watching Law and Order on Wednesdays was considered by some to be dealing with the law.

It isn't, hence my assertion. Some people seem to think that the law is stone and that it doles out its verdict in an hour...good luck with that...:lol:

I think when one starts posting on any internet forum one accepts the risk that somebody isn't going to agree....

I agree...;-)

Like the FBI, who love to take the internet seriously.

Watch lists are fun things to get on...

 

[Niflmir]

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.

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.

 

[Niflmir]

Watch lists are fun things to get on...

Behind my seven proxies? Good luck.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

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.

 

[Niflmir]

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.

Shackle yourself and the law won't have to.

In case anyone cannot tell I am not a big fan of libel law.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

Hardly my point Nif. You're sitting here trying to tell us how easy it is and how simple it is to. I'm telling you, it isn't. Even with clear cut cases with actual financial damages, it isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

I would like to see the douchebag lawyer that would take something like this pro bono.

Harry Kopyto comes to mind...:lol:

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.

And you would be right, to a degree.

But seriously, look up the case law. You will rage to see how it was used. It is a tragedy.

I already have, just since you posted the CCoC sections, lol. CanLII has an awesome site.

Behind my seven proxies? Good luck.

Holy shyte dude???!!! Who you hiding from? 8O

 

[Niflmir]

CanLII is good.

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.

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.
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 denied traveling to Ohio.
On January 30, 2006, AOL moved to dismiss the suit or stay it for improper venue. Judge Christopher J. Collier dismissed the suit against AOL on February 14, 2006, but the grounds for dismissal are unclear. Charpentier, acting pro se, filed a response and sought to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie. Following an oral hearing, the court dismissed Charpentier from the suit. The case docket indicates that the court entered a default judgment against Mike Marlowe on April 28, 2006 in the amount of $221.80.

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...

 

[CDNBear]

CanLII is good.

If you know what you're looking for, you can pretty much find anything you want there. I really like it, but I find it easier to go to the source. Call a lawyer, lol, call the local Police station as I did the other day about that Natve child who had his hair cut. It's so much easier then sifting through the minutia on th ent sometimes...

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.

I concede, I had you pegged wrong, my apologies Nif.

The Internets have now reported: we're serious business.

:lol:

PS. Can someone spare some change, the $221 didn't cover my fare to the court house...

:lol:

 

[lone wolf]

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....

 

[Niflmir]

Ok, I just cannot stay away from a legal area so frivolous as being insulted on the internet. Here is one more, from BBC News:

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.

No defence
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.

 

[CDNBear]

So ... I've been called a poodle. To a wolf, that's an insult. Troll? Big deal.

I felt the same way being called a typical righ wing caricature, lol.

Goat's a little stringy but rather tasty if marinated right....

Not bloddy likely...:-(