|
Post by td on Aug 4, 2007 3:24:03 GMT -5
I would like to both ask a question but also make sujestion! Is not libel, slander, false defamation of charector criminal offences? and if you do so in writting, causing it it to be read by ajudicating officialls in ANY legal proceedings is it not also perjury?/misleading the official/court And therego harrasement? And if that libel slander false defamation of charecter was perpotrated to endager the well being and/or life of a person is that not criminal endagerment of life? And would these also not be open to private prosecution?
|
|
litigator
Junior Member
The legal guy
Posts: 20
|
Post by litigator on Aug 4, 2007 5:42:22 GMT -5
To answer your question TD, Libel, Slander and Defamation of Character are civil torts and are dealt with in civil court. There may be some instances where the alleged libel, slander or defamation involves the criminal process however generally these issues are dealt with in a civil forum.
Defamation of Character
Defamation is where a shameful action is attributed to a man (he stole my purse), a shameful character (he is dishonest), a shameful course of action (he lives on the avails of prostitution), (or) a shameful condition (he has smallpox). Such words are considered defamatory because they tend to bring the man named into hatred, contempt or ridicule. The more modern definition (of defamation) is words tending to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
CANADIAN LIBEL LAW
What gives these powerful politicians the ability to shut down criticism and criminal investigations? The answer is Canadian libel law.
Under the current legal regime, you can be sued for anything you say about another person that damages their reputation. If sued, the onus is on you to prove the truth of your statements; the fact that you genuinely believed them to be true is not good enough. Even truth is not an absolute defence --- if the court finds you told the truth but your intent was malicious, you might lose anyway. Canadian libel law is so draconian that people come from all over the world to file libel suits in Ontario.
The impact on freedom of expression, a core value of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is severe. There's even a term for it: "libel chill". Libel chill means that people are afraid to criticize powerful people who might bankrupt them with a costly suit. It means that commentators have to think twice before needling public figures --- as cartoonist Josh Beutel learned when he was sued by controversial New Brunswick school teacher Malcolm Ross. Ever wonder why there's so little investigative journalism in Canada? The reason is simple: libel chill.
A good first step toward correcting this problem would be to reverse the burden of proof in lawsuits involving public figures: the plaintiff, not the defendant, must prove the statements in question are false. Furthermore, let's exempt statements of personal opinion or belief, and force the plaintiff to prove that the statements were made with malicious intent.
What is slander?
Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement. It can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently than libel: with slander, you have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensation. But with libel, the law presumes you suffered damages. For example, say that Bill told John you were a cheat, and then John refused to do business with you because of that. You sue Bill and prove that you lost business with John because of what Bill said. Bill would have to compensate you for the loss of John's business, but not for the general damage to your reputation. It can be very difficult to prove this sort of financial loss. That's why most slander cases never go to court
But in the following four examples, a slander lawsuit may succeed without you proving financial loss. Even though there's no permanent record of the slander, the law will presume damages, as if there were libel, if someone:
accuses you of a crime (unless they made the accusation to the police) accuses you of having a contagious disease makes negative remarks about you in your trade or business accuses you of adultery
Free Speech
The law protects a person's reputation but this protection can restrict other rights, such as the right to free speech. The law tries to balance these competing interests. Sometimes, even though someone made a defamatory statement that hurt a person's reputation, the law considers other interests more important. The law allows the following defences for a person who makes a defamatory statement.
What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?
1. Truth or justification A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.
2. Absolute privilege There are two main examples of this defence: statements made as evidence at a trial, and statements made in Parliament. This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of those statements in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying about being sued
3. Qualified privilege Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that that employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, the defense of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it.
4. Fair comment We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest, based on fact, and not malicious. For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist has the defence of fair comment.
The law of defamation protects your reputation against false statements. If a person makes a false statement to someone and it hurts your reputation, you can sue the person who made the false statement for damages. But because of other competing rights in our society, such as free speech and fair comment, you will not always win.
|
|
|
Post by bizzi on Aug 18, 2007 16:54:34 GMT -5
On the internet the law means shit... Don't quote the law near a hacker... You keep waving your slave rights around... that you call the law. And that is where they own you. That is why your name is all in capital letters on your "ID" cards. The law about 25 years ago became corrupt and no longer the law. no one follows it... give me a break.... and even when they do get busted the rich can buy their way out. Us poor just get screwed 3 ways from Sunday. And that is how the upper-class want it to be. Why do you think it's called 1st class on planes? And everyone else is coach? I guess it must have been to offensive to say the second class sits at the back... You live by their words our children will die by theirs. Oh wait they are already dying by their words. "In the name of child protection"......... Come on politicians... step up to the bar... and take it like a man you rats. (Smiles)
|
|