[klaatumail] Dee's dispute
- From: Jim McNally <klaatu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:38:02 -0500
I won't get too wrapped up in the differences between Canadian and
American libel/slander law, since I have no Canadian experience. I'll
point out that (in apparent contrast to Canada) whatever is said in the
Legislative body is automatically immune from suit in the USA. This is
true for what is said in courts as well. How's that for a difference?
Those concepts are known as absolute privilege. It is why smart lawyers
try not to say too much to the media outside of the courtroom, and will
often rely on their written filings (pleadings) to give the media added
information. If a lawyer int eh USA says someone is a lying scum, he
might get sued. If he says it in court or in papers filed with the
court, he cannot be sued. If he says "our lawsuit alleges in paragraph
6 - and I quote - 'Smith is lying scum,'" he cannot be sued because he
is accurately quoting a court document. In a country that debates what
the meaning of the word "is" is, a statement about what's in the
pleadings is considered a statement about what's in the pleadings - and
not the accuracy of the allegation itself. This is also why the media
reports about a crime and doesn't always use "alleged" like they once
did - now they often say that the "police say Jones committed a robbery"
as long as it's an accurate statement of what the police actually say.
As for a blogger being sued successfully for factually accurate info,
I'd appreciate a case citation if anyone has it. Truthful information
can form the basis for some lawsuits, such as revealing private
information or interfering with a contract. But truth is always
considered an absolute defense to libel and slander (but not in British
law).
Jim
Other related posts:
