Not exact matches
When Katie Mohammed turned to Facebook to air concerns about her community — as millions of people do every day — she didn't think she'd ever be sued for
libel, and become the centre of a precedent - setting
case in Ontario's laws protecting speech in the public
interest.
As reported by The Times of London, five law lords unanimously ruled in favor of a public -
interest defense that more closely resembles the «actual malice» standard applied in U.S.
libel cases involving public officials and public figures.
Anyone
interested in reading further about Canada's blasphemy law should definitely check out Jeremy Patrick's excellent paper Not Dead, Just Sleeping: Canada's Prohibition on Blasphemous
Libel as a
Case Study in Obsolete Legislation, which is available here.
The
case gives rise to a number of
interesting libel law questions and casts doubt on the appropriateness of a proposed new «public
interest defence».
Nor can I discern in those First Amendment considerations that led us to restrict the States» powers to regulate defamation of public officials any additional
interest that is not served by the actual malice rule of New York Times, supra, but is substantially promoted by utilizing this Court as the ultimate arbiter of factual disputes in those
libel cases where no unusual factors, such as allegations of harassment or the existence of a jury verdict resting on erroneous instructions, cf. New York Times, supra, are present.
The context is a
libel case where the judge talks about the «astounding quantity and variety of commentaries on issues of public
interest, ranging from political debate in the House of Commons,... Continue reading SCC comments on blogging