Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson
I don't think either has much of a chance.
I don't think the one against Ford has a snowball's chance in hell. Especially when every media outlet continues to re-publish the alleged libelous remark without apparent concern for being sued in defamation themselves.
|
Huh? That's really not how libel works; actually, it's pretty-much backwards. Every republication of the offending statement can actually increase damage against the defendant, particularly if the defendant agreed to the original publication of the statement, which he arguably did by saying it on a TV interview, which he agreed to go on, where he was not under duress. He intended the remarks for widespread public consumption, so he is entirely responsible, regardless of who disseminates the results. (It's really curious that you don't talk about the fact that newspapers were eager to publish Nenshi's comments... How do you see those aspects of the cases as different from one-another?)
In the Hollingers/Black libel case, the fact that Hollingers' had issued the statement in a press release thus made it fair game to be reported on by newspapers, and this republication was further damaging to Hollingers'. The republications make it more likely, not less, that the case is successful. As with the Conrad Black case, there's no requirement on the plaintiff to go after every source that republishes the remark.
The responsible communication defense is relatively new but makes it extremely difficult to go after media in Canada anyway. It would be easy for the newspapers involved to make the claim that they were acting under responsible communication. The idea that a newspaper can commit libel by repeating a libelous remark is gone, unless there's a suggestion that they acted with malice.
Same reason the Furlong case in BC dropped the suit against the Georgia Strait. It would be impossible to prove that they acted with malice or otherwise exeeded the bounds of the responsible communication defense.