[klaatumail] Re: Dee Long news
- From: db65@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:08:04 +0000 (UTC)
> It is ultimately plaintiff's burden to prove, and I think
> she's very unlikely to persuade the court to her perspective.
Wesle, I don't recall where you live, so I may be out of line by even bringing
this up, but keep in mind that this is a Canadian court. If you're in the U.S.,
like I am, our laws and our court system is different. I'm not sure what the
laws are in Canada regarding this type of situation (Jaimie? anyone?) but the
freedoms that the U.S. laws give to our press may not be the same that Canadian
laws give to the press, and online press is not yet considered the same as the
printed press here in the U.S. and I wonder if it is there. There's actually
legal precedence here in the U.S. (recently too) where an online blogger can be
held liable for stating what was determined by the courts to be truthful
factual evidence, but not covered by "free speech" because it was published
online. Scary when you think about that.
> Regardless of the outcome, as another respondent said, no amount of
> remuneration can rescue her political career.
Regardless of the outcome, if she thinks she's going to get monetary
renumeration from Dee and Sydney, she's sadly mistaken. You can't take away
what they don't have.
In any case, this really stinks for Dee and Sydney. Happy Holidays indeed! :-(
Dave
Other related posts:
