Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
A good read: http://www.torys.com/Publications/Do.../LDR2008-5.pdf
I don't think there's any way Wenzel's suit meets this threshold.
(For those who won't read it, it essentially says that Nenshi's statements don't need to be true, nor does Nenshi need to believe that they are true... they only need to be things that one could rationally believe to be true on the basis of things that are true - and to me, they certainly meet at least that bar.) |
That definately covers the godfather comments. I think it still leaves some opening around the illegal contributions comments as you still need to base even the most ridiculous opinion on facts.
Quote:
|
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that if those facts are set out accurately (or are otherwise expected to be known to the audience) and the statements are obviously an expression of opinion and are rationally connected with those facts, even “outrageous” and “ridiculous” remarks will be protected. The Court also reiterated that the determination of whether a statement is “fact” or “comment” is to be generously interpreted to ensure that strong opinion, figurative speech or hyperbolic language is not unduly restricted.
|