<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_23_0113250</id>
	<title>A New Libel Defense In Canada; For Blogs Too</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261589820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>roju writes <i>"The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-hands-victory-to-media/article1408613/">created a new defense against claims of defamation</a>, allowing for reporting in the public interest. They <a href="http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc61/2009scc61.html">specifically included bloggers</a> as eligible, writing: '...the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets.' and 'A review of recent defamation case law suggests that many actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media. ... [I]t is more accurate to refer to the new defense as responsible communication on matters of public interest.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>roju writes " The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has created a new defense against claims of defamation , allowing for reporting in the public interest .
They specifically included bloggers as eligible , writing : '...the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest , many of them online , which do not involve journalists .
These new disseminators of news and information should , absent good reasons for exclusion , be subject to the same laws as established media outlets .
' and 'A review of recent defamation case law suggests that many actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media .
... [ I ] t is more accurate to refer to the new defense as responsible communication on matters of public interest .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>roju writes "The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has created a new defense against claims of defamation, allowing for reporting in the public interest.
They specifically included bloggers as eligible, writing: '...the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists.
These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets.
' and 'A review of recent defamation case law suggests that many actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media.
... [I]t is more accurate to refer to the new defense as responsible communication on matters of public interest.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534206</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1259760780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK there is a cast-iron unbeatable defence against libel, that cannot under any circumstances fail to get you acquitted - what you say must be *true*.  If it's true, it cannot be libel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK there is a cast-iron unbeatable defence against libel , that can not under any circumstances fail to get you acquitted - what you say must be * true * .
If it 's true , it can not be libel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK there is a cast-iron unbeatable defence against libel, that cannot under any circumstances fail to get you acquitted - what you say must be *true*.
If it's true, it cannot be libel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532970</id>
	<title>How about this?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1261508580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about doing the sane thing and limiting libel to only really -damaging- things that were intentionally untrue. <br> <br>

For example (using examples from all over the world and not just Canada), the woman that was sued for libel after tweeting that their may have been mold in her apartment ( <a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html" title="chicagobreakingnews.com">http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html</a> [chicagobreakingnews.com] ) is not damaging. Twitter, Facebook, etc. should not be grounds for libel unless it was clearly meant to influence a large group of people against something and had no proof. Basically, Twitter, Facebook and even some blogs are akin to people talking in a crowded room, the comments may be untruthful, insightful or just plain random. They aren't meant to be taken seriously. <br> <br>

Truth also should be taken with a grain of salt. The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about doing the sane thing and limiting libel to only really -damaging- things that were intentionally untrue .
For example ( using examples from all over the world and not just Canada ) , the woman that was sued for libel after tweeting that their may have been mold in her apartment ( http : //www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html [ chicagobreakingnews.com ] ) is not damaging .
Twitter , Facebook , etc .
should not be grounds for libel unless it was clearly meant to influence a large group of people against something and had no proof .
Basically , Twitter , Facebook and even some blogs are akin to people talking in a crowded room , the comments may be untruthful , insightful or just plain random .
They are n't meant to be taken seriously .
Truth also should be taken with a grain of salt .
The average person is n't an expert on everything , so generally their comments will reflect that .
If someone said " Dell laptops are crap , my computer wo n't even boot up " and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR , that should n't be considered libel because they were not experts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about doing the sane thing and limiting libel to only really -damaging- things that were intentionally untrue.
For example (using examples from all over the world and not just Canada), the woman that was sued for libel after tweeting that their may have been mold in her apartment ( http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html [chicagobreakingnews.com] ) is not damaging.
Twitter, Facebook, etc.
should not be grounds for libel unless it was clearly meant to influence a large group of people against something and had no proof.
Basically, Twitter, Facebook and even some blogs are akin to people talking in a crowded room, the comments may be untruthful, insightful or just plain random.
They aren't meant to be taken seriously.
Truth also should be taken with a grain of salt.
The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that.
If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534868</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1259767320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strange that it doesn't occur to them to change their libel law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange that it does n't occur to them to change their libel law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange that it doesn't occur to them to change their libel law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30536152</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>txwikinger-slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1259775480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I would be interested to see the argument for jurisdiction in the UK court<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I would be interested to see the argument for jurisdiction in the UK court : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I would be interested to see the argument for jurisdiction in the UK court :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535142</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259769300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That isn't actually true.....you can still be sued for libel if you 'maliciously' mention spent convictions. Look up the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I don't know of any</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't actually true.....you can still be sued for libel if you 'maliciously ' mention spent convictions .
Look up the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act .
I do n't know of any</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't actually true.....you can still be sued for libel if you 'maliciously' mention spent convictions.
Look up the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
I don't know of any</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533016</id>
	<title>Re:Truth as a defense?</title>
	<author>G\_Biloba</author>
	<datestamp>1261509240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Truth as reasonable person sees it is not necessarily truth as far as the rule of law.  A reporter can get valid information that would not be admissible in court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth as reasonable person sees it is not necessarily truth as far as the rule of law .
A reporter can get valid information that would not be admissible in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth as reasonable person sees it is not necessarily truth as far as the rule of law.
A reporter can get valid information that would not be admissible in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533074</id>
	<title>Re:What about journalistic standards though?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261509900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because there's no standard for blogs to fact check their work.</p></div><p>What standards are there for "established media" to fact-check their work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there 's no standard for blogs to fact check their work.What standards are there for " established media " to fact-check their work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there's no standard for blogs to fact check their work.What standards are there for "established media" to fact-check their work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532910</id>
	<title>More ephemeral?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1261507920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough rather than these days where anything published online gets archived forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough rather than these days where anything published online gets archived forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough rather than these days where anything published online gets archived forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532896</id>
	<title>Geist's coverage</title>
	<author>roju</author>
	<datestamp>1261507740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Michael Geist <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4638/125/" title="michaelgeist.ca">also covers this</a> [michaelgeist.ca], writing "This is crucial decision for all publishers both big and small. It represents a major win for freedom of expression in Canada and should remove some of the libel chill that arises far too frequently."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Geist also covers this [ michaelgeist.ca ] , writing " This is crucial decision for all publishers both big and small .
It represents a major win for freedom of expression in Canada and should remove some of the libel chill that arises far too frequently .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Geist also covers this [michaelgeist.ca], writing "This is crucial decision for all publishers both big and small.
It represents a major win for freedom of expression in Canada and should remove some of the libel chill that arises far too frequently.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533168</id>
	<title>How convenient</title>
	<author>gmhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1261511220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is very convenient. Now, not only do I have a <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GirlfriendInCanada" title="tvtropes.org">girlfriend in Canada</a> [tvtropes.org], but my civil rights are located there as well. Shame about actually living in the US...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is very convenient .
Now , not only do I have a girlfriend in Canada [ tvtropes.org ] , but my civil rights are located there as well .
Shame about actually living in the US.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is very convenient.
Now, not only do I have a girlfriend in Canada [tvtropes.org], but my civil rights are located there as well.
Shame about actually living in the US...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532886</id>
	<title>CBC article has details...</title>
	<author>qvatch</author>
	<datestamp>1261507620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>More details on the CBC site(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/12/22/supreme-court-libel-responsible-journalism-citizen-star.html?ref=rss), including the actual checklist:

Excerpt from Supreme Court ruling

The defence of public interest responsible communication will apply where:

A. The publication is on a matter of public interest

and:

B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:

    * The seriousness of the allegation;
    * The public importance of the matter;
    * The urgency of the matter;
    * The status and reliability of the source;
    * Whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;
    * Whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
    * Whether the defamatory statement&rsquo;s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (&ldquo;reportage&rdquo;); and
    * Any other relevant circumstances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More details on the CBC site ( http : //www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/12/22/supreme-court-libel-responsible-journalism-citizen-star.html ? ref = rss ) , including the actual checklist : Excerpt from Supreme Court ruling The defence of public interest responsible communication will apply where : A. The publication is on a matter of public interest and : B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation , having regard to : * The seriousness of the allegation ; * The public importance of the matter ; * The urgency of the matter ; * The status and reliability of the source ; * Whether the plaintiff 's side of the story was sought and accurately reported ; * Whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable ; * Whether the defamatory statement    s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (    reportage    ) ; and * Any other relevant circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More details on the CBC site(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/12/22/supreme-court-libel-responsible-journalism-citizen-star.html?ref=rss), including the actual checklist:

Excerpt from Supreme Court ruling

The defence of public interest responsible communication will apply where:

A. The publication is on a matter of public interest

and:

B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:

    * The seriousness of the allegation;
    * The public importance of the matter;
    * The urgency of the matter;
    * The status and reliability of the source;
    * Whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;
    * Whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
    * Whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and
    * Any other relevant circumstances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534442</id>
	<title>Re:More ephemeral?</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1259763840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p><p>In the good old days (for me 70s and 80s) you had to dig, but you could still find most print material you were looking for.  I think that society is much better off generally when we have instant access to dated information.  One thing that's really cool and useful is that more and more VIDEO evidence is being kept around.  One of my hobbies is political activism, and thanks to YouTube, we can go back and actually see and hear politicians making campaign promises that they've now broken, or TV news reporters(entertainers) providing commentary that we now know to be BS.  It seems that most people get their information from television, and it's more powerful to have the actual video of past events and statements than to simply write about it.  Government and media personalities defame themselves without any help.  I like the fact that the people now have additional tools to prove how full of $#!t the government and MSM really are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough .
. .
" In the good old days ( for me 70s and 80s ) you had to dig , but you could still find most print material you were looking for .
I think that society is much better off generally when we have instant access to dated information .
One thing that 's really cool and useful is that more and more VIDEO evidence is being kept around .
One of my hobbies is political activism , and thanks to YouTube , we can go back and actually see and hear politicians making campaign promises that they 've now broken , or TV news reporters ( entertainers ) providing commentary that we now know to be BS .
It seems that most people get their information from television , and it 's more powerful to have the actual video of past events and statements than to simply write about it .
Government and media personalities defame themselves without any help .
I like the fact that the people now have additional tools to prove how full of $ # ! t the government and MSM really are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough .
. .
"In the good old days (for me 70s and 80s) you had to dig, but you could still find most print material you were looking for.
I think that society is much better off generally when we have instant access to dated information.
One thing that's really cool and useful is that more and more VIDEO evidence is being kept around.
One of my hobbies is political activism, and thanks to YouTube, we can go back and actually see and hear politicians making campaign promises that they've now broken, or TV news reporters(entertainers) providing commentary that we now know to be BS.
It seems that most people get their information from television, and it's more powerful to have the actual video of past events and statements than to simply write about it.
Government and media personalities defame themselves without any help.
I like the fact that the people now have additional tools to prove how full of $#!t the government and MSM really are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533856</id>
	<title>Re:What about satire?</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1259752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Satire is protected, that's why you see things like <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/" title="www.cbc.ca">RCM</a> [www.cbc.ca] and <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/" title="www.cbc.ca">This hour has 22min</a> [www.cbc.ca].  Something most people forget in Canada is our libel/slander/defamation laws are broken into three groups.  Those that cause actual harm/character assassination, those that cause danger to public order and everything else.  This more or less falls into "everything else" of course it'll probably end up back at the Supreme Court with a new category coming out of it unless parliament comes around and writes a law about it.  The chances of that happening are close to nil.  Law of force(via courts) work just as well unless something really screws up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Satire is protected , that 's why you see things like RCM [ www.cbc.ca ] and This hour has 22min [ www.cbc.ca ] .
Something most people forget in Canada is our libel/slander/defamation laws are broken into three groups .
Those that cause actual harm/character assassination , those that cause danger to public order and everything else .
This more or less falls into " everything else " of course it 'll probably end up back at the Supreme Court with a new category coming out of it unless parliament comes around and writes a law about it .
The chances of that happening are close to nil .
Law of force ( via courts ) work just as well unless something really screws up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Satire is protected, that's why you see things like RCM [www.cbc.ca] and This hour has 22min [www.cbc.ca].
Something most people forget in Canada is our libel/slander/defamation laws are broken into three groups.
Those that cause actual harm/character assassination, those that cause danger to public order and everything else.
This more or less falls into "everything else" of course it'll probably end up back at the Supreme Court with a new category coming out of it unless parliament comes around and writes a law about it.
The chances of that happening are close to nil.
Law of force(via courts) work just as well unless something really screws up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534924</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why you'd need something like this</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1259767680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, in Massachusetts:<br><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/13/staples\_libel\_ruling\_concerns\_news\_media\_groups?mode=PF" title="boston.com">"The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement."</a> [boston.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , in Massachusetts : " The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show " actual malice " by the person publishing the statement .
" [ boston.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, in Massachusetts:"The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
" [boston.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533096</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why you'd need something like this</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1261510260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US this judgement may not have been necessary for the reasons you've outlined but this was not in the US; it was in Canada where this legal judgement was apparently required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US this judgement may not have been necessary for the reasons you 've outlined but this was not in the US ; it was in Canada where this legal judgement was apparently required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US this judgement may not have been necessary for the reasons you've outlined but this was not in the US; it was in Canada where this legal judgement was apparently required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30536652</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>txwikinger-slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1259778000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An incorporation is a legal but not natural person. Hence, it might be difficult to claim that the statement comes from the incorporation. Furthermore, the board of directors has also fiduciary duties in regards to the incorporation and can be made personally liable if they neglect in those duties. Since you would likely be (one of) the director(s), you might still be liable for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An incorporation is a legal but not natural person .
Hence , it might be difficult to claim that the statement comes from the incorporation .
Furthermore , the board of directors has also fiduciary duties in regards to the incorporation and can be made personally liable if they neglect in those duties .
Since you would likely be ( one of ) the director ( s ) , you might still be liable for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An incorporation is a legal but not natural person.
Hence, it might be difficult to claim that the statement comes from the incorporation.
Furthermore, the board of directors has also fiduciary duties in regards to the incorporation and can be made personally liable if they neglect in those duties.
Since you would likely be (one of) the director(s), you might still be liable for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532978</id>
	<title>What about journalistic standards though?</title>
	<author>BuddyJesus</author>
	<datestamp>1261508760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they're subject to the same laws as established media outlets, does that mean that they basically get all of the benefits without any of the risks? Because there's no standard for blogs to fact check their work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're subject to the same laws as established media outlets , does that mean that they basically get all of the benefits without any of the risks ?
Because there 's no standard for blogs to fact check their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're subject to the same laws as established media outlets, does that mean that they basically get all of the benefits without any of the risks?
Because there's no standard for blogs to fact check their work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533176</id>
	<title>Glad they decided bloggers have free speech rights</title>
	<author>Yosemite\_Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1261511340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and not just "traditional journalists."
<br> <br>
Hopefully someday they'll get around to granting everyone (even ordinary citizens) free speech protection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and not just " traditional journalists .
" Hopefully someday they 'll get around to granting everyone ( even ordinary citizens ) free speech protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and not just "traditional journalists.
"
 
Hopefully someday they'll get around to granting everyone (even ordinary citizens) free speech protection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533620</id>
	<title>Defamation law in Canada</title>
	<author>telso</author>
	<datestamp>1259747460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of confusion in the comments, so here's the skinny on defamation law in Canada, taken directly from this judgment (removing citations for readability):<blockquote><div><p>[28] A plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages: (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.  If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damage are presumed, though this rule has been subject to strong criticism: [citations]. (The only exception is that slander requires proof of special damages, unless the impugned words were slanderous per se: [citation].) The plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant intended to do harm, or even that the defendant was careless. The tort is thus one of strict liability.<br>
<br>
[29] If the plaintiff proves the required elements, the onus then shifts to the defendant to advance a defence in order to escape liability.<br>
<br>
[30] Both statements of opinion and statements of fact may attract the defence of privilege, depending on the occasion on which they were made. Some "occasions", like Parliamentary and legal proceedings, are absolutely privileged.  Others, like reference letters or credit reports, enjoy "qualified" privilege, meaning that the privilege can be defeated by proof that the defendant acted with malice: [citation].  The defences of absolute and qualified privilege reflect the fact that "common convenience and welfare of society" sometimes requires untrammelled communications:  [citation]. The law acknowledges through recognition of privileged occasions that false and defamatory expression may sometimes contribute to desirable social ends.<br>
<br>
[31] In addition to privilege, statements of opinion, a category which includes any "deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof" ([citation]), may attract the defence of fair comment. As reformulated in WIC Radio, at para. 28, a defendant claiming fair comment must satisfy the following test: (a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (b) the comment must be based on fact; (c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment; (d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?; and (e) even though the comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice. WIC Radio expanded the fair comment defence by changing the traditional requirement that the opinion be one that a "fairminded" person could honestly hold, to a requirement that it be one that "anyone could honestly have expressed" (paras. 49-51), which allows for robust debate. As Binnie J. put it, "[w]e live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones" (para. 4).<br>
<br>
[32] Where statements of fact are at issue, usually only two defences are available: the defence that the statement was substantially true (justification); and the defence that the statement was made in a protected context (privilege).  The issue in this case is whether the defences to actions for defamatory statements of fact should be expanded, as has been done for statements of opinion, in recognition of the importance of freedom of expression in a free society.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Long story short: prove someone defamed you (defamatory, towards you, published), they're presumed guilty, with onus shifting. To defend themselves, they must prove either 1) the statements were absolutely privileged (from court or parliamentary testimony or documentation); 2) the statements enjoyed qualified privilege (certain other documents), though this can be defeated if malice can be shown; 3) if the statements were opinion, they are fair comment; or 4) if the statements of fact are at issue, they must be substantially true (justification).<br>
<br>
Whether the fourth point should be expanded to include statements that are probably true was what was at issue in this decision.  And the court decided that, essentially, if the trial judge determines the matter was in the public interest, <em>and</em> the jury is convinced the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, a defence to defamation has been established.<br>
<br>
IANAL, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of confusion in the comments , so here 's the skinny on defamation law in Canada , taken directly from this judgment ( removing citations for readability ) : [ 28 ] A plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages : ( 1 ) that the impugned words were defamatory , in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff 's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person ; ( 2 ) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff ; and ( 3 ) that the words were published , meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff .
If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities , falsity and damage are presumed , though this rule has been subject to strong criticism : [ citations ] .
( The only exception is that slander requires proof of special damages , unless the impugned words were slanderous per se : [ citation ] .
) The plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant intended to do harm , or even that the defendant was careless .
The tort is thus one of strict liability .
[ 29 ] If the plaintiff proves the required elements , the onus then shifts to the defendant to advance a defence in order to escape liability .
[ 30 ] Both statements of opinion and statements of fact may attract the defence of privilege , depending on the occasion on which they were made .
Some " occasions " , like Parliamentary and legal proceedings , are absolutely privileged .
Others , like reference letters or credit reports , enjoy " qualified " privilege , meaning that the privilege can be defeated by proof that the defendant acted with malice : [ citation ] .
The defences of absolute and qualified privilege reflect the fact that " common convenience and welfare of society " sometimes requires untrammelled communications : [ citation ] .
The law acknowledges through recognition of privileged occasions that false and defamatory expression may sometimes contribute to desirable social ends .
[ 31 ] In addition to privilege , statements of opinion , a category which includes any " deduction , inference , conclusion , criticism , judgment , remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof " ( [ citation ] ) , may attract the defence of fair comment .
As reformulated in WIC Radio , at para .
28 , a defendant claiming fair comment must satisfy the following test : ( a ) the comment must be on a matter of public interest ; ( b ) the comment must be based on fact ; ( c ) the comment , though it can include inferences of fact , must be recognisable as comment ; ( d ) the comment must satisfy the following objective test : could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts ?
; and ( e ) even though the comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice .
WIC Radio expanded the fair comment defence by changing the traditional requirement that the opinion be one that a " fairminded " person could honestly hold , to a requirement that it be one that " anyone could honestly have expressed " ( paras .
49-51 ) , which allows for robust debate .
As Binnie J. put it , " [ w ] e live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones " ( para .
4 ) . [ 32 ] Where statements of fact are at issue , usually only two defences are available : the defence that the statement was substantially true ( justification ) ; and the defence that the statement was made in a protected context ( privilege ) .
The issue in this case is whether the defences to actions for defamatory statements of fact should be expanded , as has been done for statements of opinion , in recognition of the importance of freedom of expression in a free society .
Long story short : prove someone defamed you ( defamatory , towards you , published ) , they 're presumed guilty , with onus shifting .
To defend themselves , they must prove either 1 ) the statements were absolutely privileged ( from court or parliamentary testimony or documentation ) ; 2 ) the statements enjoyed qualified privilege ( certain other documents ) , though this can be defeated if malice can be shown ; 3 ) if the statements were opinion , they are fair comment ; or 4 ) if the statements of fact are at issue , they must be substantially true ( justification ) .
Whether the fourth point should be expanded to include statements that are probably true was what was at issue in this decision .
And the court decided that , essentially , if the trial judge determines the matter was in the public interest , and the jury is convinced the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation , a defence to defamation has been established .
IANAL , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of confusion in the comments, so here's the skinny on defamation law in Canada, taken directly from this judgment (removing citations for readability):[28] A plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages: (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damage are presumed, though this rule has been subject to strong criticism: [citations].
(The only exception is that slander requires proof of special damages, unless the impugned words were slanderous per se: [citation].
) The plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant intended to do harm, or even that the defendant was careless.
The tort is thus one of strict liability.
[29] If the plaintiff proves the required elements, the onus then shifts to the defendant to advance a defence in order to escape liability.
[30] Both statements of opinion and statements of fact may attract the defence of privilege, depending on the occasion on which they were made.
Some "occasions", like Parliamentary and legal proceedings, are absolutely privileged.
Others, like reference letters or credit reports, enjoy "qualified" privilege, meaning that the privilege can be defeated by proof that the defendant acted with malice: [citation].
The defences of absolute and qualified privilege reflect the fact that "common convenience and welfare of society" sometimes requires untrammelled communications:  [citation].
The law acknowledges through recognition of privileged occasions that false and defamatory expression may sometimes contribute to desirable social ends.
[31] In addition to privilege, statements of opinion, a category which includes any "deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof" ([citation]), may attract the defence of fair comment.
As reformulated in WIC Radio, at para.
28, a defendant claiming fair comment must satisfy the following test: (a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (b) the comment must be based on fact; (c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment; (d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?
; and (e) even though the comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice.
WIC Radio expanded the fair comment defence by changing the traditional requirement that the opinion be one that a "fairminded" person could honestly hold, to a requirement that it be one that "anyone could honestly have expressed" (paras.
49-51), which allows for robust debate.
As Binnie J. put it, "[w]e live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones" (para.
4).

[32] Where statements of fact are at issue, usually only two defences are available: the defence that the statement was substantially true (justification); and the defence that the statement was made in a protected context (privilege).
The issue in this case is whether the defences to actions for defamatory statements of fact should be expanded, as has been done for statements of opinion, in recognition of the importance of freedom of expression in a free society.
Long story short: prove someone defamed you (defamatory, towards you, published), they're presumed guilty, with onus shifting.
To defend themselves, they must prove either 1) the statements were absolutely privileged (from court or parliamentary testimony or documentation); 2) the statements enjoyed qualified privilege (certain other documents), though this can be defeated if malice can be shown; 3) if the statements were opinion, they are fair comment; or 4) if the statements of fact are at issue, they must be substantially true (justification).
Whether the fourth point should be expanded to include statements that are probably true was what was at issue in this decision.
And the court decided that, essentially, if the trial judge determines the matter was in the public interest, and the jury is convinced the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, a defence to defamation has been established.
IANAL, etc.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533466</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>England is getting tired of every offended person coming to their country to try to silence their critics, and thus are considering <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/11/a-town-called-sue-england-weighing-changes-to-libel-law/" title="wsj.com">changing their laws</a> [wsj.com].<p><div class="quote"><p> A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would, among other things, require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue there.</p></div><p>They don't like being known for libel tourism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>England is getting tired of every offended person coming to their country to try to silence their critics , and thus are considering changing their laws [ wsj.com ] .
A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would , among other things , require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue there.They do n't like being known for libel tourism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>England is getting tired of every offended person coming to their country to try to silence their critics, and thus are considering changing their laws [wsj.com].
A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would, among other things, require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue there.They don't like being known for libel tourism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30543946</id>
	<title>Re:How about this?</title>
	<author>makuabob</author>
	<datestamp>1261670580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep! You hit the nail right on the head! Electronic babble... that's all it is. I pay such chatter no heed at all (unless it's really juicy).
<p>
(If I had any mod points, you'd get a +1 insightful.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep !
You hit the nail right on the head !
Electronic babble... that 's all it is .
I pay such chatter no heed at all ( unless it 's really juicy ) .
( If I had any mod points , you 'd get a + 1 insightful .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep!
You hit the nail right on the head!
Electronic babble... that's all it is.
I pay such chatter no heed at all (unless it's really juicy).
(If I had any mod points, you'd get a +1 insightful.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534128</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1259758800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would, among other things, require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue there.</p><p>Can't we just change the law so that it no longer reverses the burden of proof (so you nolonger have to prove your statements are *not* untrue) and as such upholds freedom of speech? FFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would , among other things , require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue there.Ca n't we just change the law so that it no longer reverses the burden of proof ( so you nolonger have to prove your statements are * not * untrue ) and as such upholds freedom of speech ?
FFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would, among other things, require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue there.Can't we just change the law so that it no longer reverses the burden of proof (so you nolonger have to prove your statements are *not* untrue) and as such upholds freedom of speech?
FFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30536506</id>
	<title>Not sure about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259777160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been praying for something to make sure morons with a public be responsible for what they say, but now that it's there I realise it's also a means to make morons shut up people with things to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been praying for something to make sure morons with a public be responsible for what they say , but now that it 's there I realise it 's also a means to make morons shut up people with things to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been praying for something to make sure morons with a public be responsible for what they say, but now that it's there I realise it's also a means to make morons shut up people with things to say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533436</id>
	<title>4chan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259744400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to 4chan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/ and vent your frustrations there. As long as you don't post CP or spam, you can say anything you want, true or false, politically correct or not. Be ready to be called names, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to 4chan /b/ and vent your frustrations there .
As long as you do n't post CP or spam , you can say anything you want , true or false , politically correct or not .
Be ready to be called names , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to 4chan /b/ and vent your frustrations there.
As long as you don't post CP or spam, you can say anything you want, true or false, politically correct or not.
Be ready to be called names, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533970</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>LordAndrewSama</author>
	<datestamp>1259755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With our economy the way it is, I'd not be surprised if "libel tourism" was actively supported, just taxed more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With our economy the way it is , I 'd not be surprised if " libel tourism " was actively supported , just taxed more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With our economy the way it is, I'd not be surprised if "libel tourism" was actively supported, just taxed more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533552</id>
	<title>Re:More ephemeral?</title>
	<author>Bartab</author>
	<datestamp>1259746560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm. Too bad? Time, and technology, marches on and what you prefer really doesn't come into consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm .
Too bad ?
Time , and technology , marches on and what you prefer really does n't come into consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm.
Too bad?
Time, and technology, marches on and what you prefer really doesn't come into consideration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535250</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why you'd need something like this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259769840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean there really shouldn't be some special exception saying "It is ok to slander/libel someone in certain situations." No, it shouldn't be allowed. I think the US has pretty sensible libel laws. In particular, there are three defenses:</p><p>1) The truth. If what you wrote was true, no matter how damaging, it's not libel. Libel is only untrue statements. So as long as you are telling the truth you can post it for whatever reasons you like, regardless of the harm it causes and have no worry about a successful libel suit.</p><p>2) Belief that it is true. If you reasonably believe what you are writing is true, that is also a defense against libel. So if a newspaper publishes a story based on good information that turns out to be false, it isn't libel. They reasonably believed it to be true.</p><p>3) No intent to cause harm. The final defense against libel is if you didn't intend for the statements to cause harm. This is generally in the case of satire and the like. If you are writing something you know to be false, but doing so in a way as to poke fun at someone, it isn't libel.</p><p>So the only way something is libel is if it is false, you know (or reasonably should know) it is false, and you write it anyhow with the intent of causing harm to your target.</p><p>To me, seems pretty reasonable and doesn't seem like any special protections are needed.</p></div><p>Those are all really nice defenses, the only problem is that virtually no one can afford to fight for them in court. I know I sure can't... so they're all equally useless for the average person vs. major corporation, rich doctor, politician, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean there really should n't be some special exception saying " It is ok to slander/libel someone in certain situations .
" No , it should n't be allowed .
I think the US has pretty sensible libel laws .
In particular , there are three defenses : 1 ) The truth .
If what you wrote was true , no matter how damaging , it 's not libel .
Libel is only untrue statements .
So as long as you are telling the truth you can post it for whatever reasons you like , regardless of the harm it causes and have no worry about a successful libel suit.2 ) Belief that it is true .
If you reasonably believe what you are writing is true , that is also a defense against libel .
So if a newspaper publishes a story based on good information that turns out to be false , it is n't libel .
They reasonably believed it to be true.3 ) No intent to cause harm .
The final defense against libel is if you did n't intend for the statements to cause harm .
This is generally in the case of satire and the like .
If you are writing something you know to be false , but doing so in a way as to poke fun at someone , it is n't libel.So the only way something is libel is if it is false , you know ( or reasonably should know ) it is false , and you write it anyhow with the intent of causing harm to your target.To me , seems pretty reasonable and does n't seem like any special protections are needed.Those are all really nice defenses , the only problem is that virtually no one can afford to fight for them in court .
I know I sure ca n't... so they 're all equally useless for the average person vs. major corporation , rich doctor , politician , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean there really shouldn't be some special exception saying "It is ok to slander/libel someone in certain situations.
" No, it shouldn't be allowed.
I think the US has pretty sensible libel laws.
In particular, there are three defenses:1) The truth.
If what you wrote was true, no matter how damaging, it's not libel.
Libel is only untrue statements.
So as long as you are telling the truth you can post it for whatever reasons you like, regardless of the harm it causes and have no worry about a successful libel suit.2) Belief that it is true.
If you reasonably believe what you are writing is true, that is also a defense against libel.
So if a newspaper publishes a story based on good information that turns out to be false, it isn't libel.
They reasonably believed it to be true.3) No intent to cause harm.
The final defense against libel is if you didn't intend for the statements to cause harm.
This is generally in the case of satire and the like.
If you are writing something you know to be false, but doing so in a way as to poke fun at someone, it isn't libel.So the only way something is libel is if it is false, you know (or reasonably should know) it is false, and you write it anyhow with the intent of causing harm to your target.To me, seems pretty reasonable and doesn't seem like any special protections are needed.Those are all really nice defenses, the only problem is that virtually no one can afford to fight for them in court.
I know I sure can't... so they're all equally useless for the average person vs. major corporation, rich doctor, politician, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533188</id>
	<title>As a 49 year old feminist grandmother</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261511460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I reject Canada which makes this story null and void as well as invalid since "canada" shouldn't exist in the first place in any way shape or form other than North North America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I reject Canada which makes this story null and void as well as invalid since " canada " should n't exist in the first place in any way shape or form other than North North America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reject Canada which makes this story null and void as well as invalid since "canada" shouldn't exist in the first place in any way shape or form other than North North America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535236</id>
	<title>Re:CBC article has details...</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1259769780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whether the defamatory statement&rsquo;s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (&ldquo;reportage&rdquo;);</p></div><p>What does that mean, exactly? Could someone give an example?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether the defamatory statement    s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (    reportage    ) ; What does that mean , exactly ?
Could someone give an example ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”);What does that mean, exactly?
Could someone give an example?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532882</id>
	<title>duece</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261507560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Took a massive shit when I got home.  Then a couple hours later, I had to take another.  It clogged the fucking toilet.  God damn low-flow water savers can't handle cowboy-neal size load.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Took a massive shit when I got home .
Then a couple hours later , I had to take another .
It clogged the fucking toilet .
God damn low-flow water savers ca n't handle cowboy-neal size load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Took a massive shit when I got home.
Then a couple hours later, I had to take another.
It clogged the fucking toilet.
God damn low-flow water savers can't handle cowboy-neal size load.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868</id>
	<title>This doesn't help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261507380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't help when you can be sued in England for blogging in Canada or anywhere else for that matter.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't help when you can be sued in England for blogging in Canada or anywhere else for that matter.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't help when you can be sued in England for blogging in Canada or anywhere else for that matter.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533230</id>
	<title>Traditional print media?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1259784060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm thinking that traditional print media looks a lot more ephemeral than blogging to me.  Something about the business model of selling advertising on four day stale news stamped on a dead tree in toxic ink, versus "profit is coming out.  I'm a Twitter advertiser." and "Here's phone camera video from the scene of the incident."  After all, it's difficult to print a 3D island of multimedia presentations of your products in a magazine ad.
</p><p>They had their clue with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">CueCat</a> [wikipedia.org], and lost it with hubris.  They could have it again with 2D barcodes scannable by cell phone cameras to link print stories to commentary, multimedia and updates.  But they won't because they're stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking that traditional print media looks a lot more ephemeral than blogging to me .
Something about the business model of selling advertising on four day stale news stamped on a dead tree in toxic ink , versus " profit is coming out .
I 'm a Twitter advertiser .
" and " Here 's phone camera video from the scene of the incident .
" After all , it 's difficult to print a 3D island of multimedia presentations of your products in a magazine ad .
They had their clue with CueCat [ wikipedia.org ] , and lost it with hubris .
They could have it again with 2D barcodes scannable by cell phone cameras to link print stories to commentary , multimedia and updates .
But they wo n't because they 're stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking that traditional print media looks a lot more ephemeral than blogging to me.
Something about the business model of selling advertising on four day stale news stamped on a dead tree in toxic ink, versus "profit is coming out.
I'm a Twitter advertiser.
" and "Here's phone camera video from the scene of the incident.
"  After all, it's difficult to print a 3D island of multimedia presentations of your products in a magazine ad.
They had their clue with CueCat [wikipedia.org], and lost it with hubris.
They could have it again with 2D barcodes scannable by cell phone cameras to link print stories to commentary, multimedia and updates.
But they won't because they're stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533092</id>
	<title>Re:What about journalistic standards though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261510200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Journalistic standards? Heh. Have you been cryogenicaly frozen for fifty years and have you just woken up? Welcome to
the modern world. We have McDonald's, SUVs for everyone, and Fox News.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalistic standards ?
Heh. Have you been cryogenicaly frozen for fifty years and have you just woken up ?
Welcome to the modern world .
We have McDonald 's , SUVs for everyone , and Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalistic standards?
Heh. Have you been cryogenicaly frozen for fifty years and have you just woken up?
Welcome to
the modern world.
We have McDonald's, SUVs for everyone, and Fox News.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534336</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1259762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Can't we just change the law so that it no longer reverses the burden of proof (so you nolonger have to prove your statements are *not* untrue) and as such upholds freedom of speech? FFS."</p><p>Freedom of Speech is a larger issue than libel defense.  Truth vs. lie might be an adequate protection against the specific charge of "libel", but under asinine laws like "The Canadian Human Rights Act"</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian\_Human\_Rights\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian\_Human\_Rights\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The concept of "truth" is completely irrelevant.  If you hurt someone's feelings (provided that they're not a heterosexual white person) you can still be dragged into civil court.  It would be a complete joke if it weren't for the fact that there are real penalties.  Canada doesn't have anything like the First Amendment and Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  In Canada, "Thoughtcrime" really is a crime if you happen to share your unpopular thoughts.  That's why I love visiting Canada, but sure as hell would never move there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ca n't we just change the law so that it no longer reverses the burden of proof ( so you nolonger have to prove your statements are * not * untrue ) and as such upholds freedom of speech ?
FFS. " Freedom of Speech is a larger issue than libel defense .
Truth vs. lie might be an adequate protection against the specific charge of " libel " , but under asinine laws like " The Canadian Human Rights Act " http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian \ _Human \ _Rights \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ] The concept of " truth " is completely irrelevant .
If you hurt someone 's feelings ( provided that they 're not a heterosexual white person ) you can still be dragged into civil court .
It would be a complete joke if it were n't for the fact that there are real penalties .
Canada does n't have anything like the First Amendment and Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Canada , " Thoughtcrime " really is a crime if you happen to share your unpopular thoughts .
That 's why I love visiting Canada , but sure as hell would never move there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can't we just change the law so that it no longer reverses the burden of proof (so you nolonger have to prove your statements are *not* untrue) and as such upholds freedom of speech?
FFS."Freedom of Speech is a larger issue than libel defense.
Truth vs. lie might be an adequate protection against the specific charge of "libel", but under asinine laws like "The Canadian Human Rights Act"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian\_Human\_Rights\_Act [wikipedia.org]The concept of "truth" is completely irrelevant.
If you hurt someone's feelings (provided that they're not a heterosexual white person) you can still be dragged into civil court.
It would be a complete joke if it weren't for the fact that there are real penalties.
Canada doesn't have anything like the First Amendment and Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  In Canada, "Thoughtcrime" really is a crime if you happen to share your unpopular thoughts.
That's why I love visiting Canada, but sure as hell would never move there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532950</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1261508340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like I need to incorporate myself just for my online presence. That way when I get sued for pissing everyone off I can just close my business down.
The idea's and expressions are solely that of Legally Inept Inc. a subsidiary of Betcha Can't Sue Me.
Please forward all complaints to our legal department trash@inbox.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like I need to incorporate myself just for my online presence .
That way when I get sued for pissing everyone off I can just close my business down .
The idea 's and expressions are solely that of Legally Inept Inc. a subsidiary of Betcha Ca n't Sue Me .
Please forward all complaints to our legal department trash @ inbox.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like I need to incorporate myself just for my online presence.
That way when I get sued for pissing everyone off I can just close my business down.
The idea's and expressions are solely that of Legally Inept Inc. a subsidiary of Betcha Can't Sue Me.
Please forward all complaints to our legal department trash@inbox.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532918</id>
	<title>I wonder how many times i break the law each day</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1261508100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We (USA) missed the chance to sue Canada.
Seriously I'm a legal clusterfuck but at least i know the difference between Defamation and Libel.
Sometimes I feel like I should be deported because I no longer conform to the you hurt my feelings now I'm going to sue you mentality.
Can they yank my citizenship because I'm not totally patriotic to the USA legal system yet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ( USA ) missed the chance to sue Canada .
Seriously I 'm a legal clusterfuck but at least i know the difference between Defamation and Libel .
Sometimes I feel like I should be deported because I no longer conform to the you hurt my feelings now I 'm going to sue you mentality .
Can they yank my citizenship because I 'm not totally patriotic to the USA legal system yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We (USA) missed the chance to sue Canada.
Seriously I'm a legal clusterfuck but at least i know the difference between Defamation and Libel.
Sometimes I feel like I should be deported because I no longer conform to the you hurt my feelings now I'm going to sue you mentality.
Can they yank my citizenship because I'm not totally patriotic to the USA legal system yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534826</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1259767080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Robert Maxwell won a few lawsuits - mainly against Private Eye - where what was printed was true.  The problem was the newspaper couldn't prove it at the time, it only came out when "Cap'n Bob" accidentally fell over a six-foot high rail.</p><p>Not that I'm suggesting a reversal of the burden of proof.  An ordinary person's career and life could be ruined by some malicious arsehole or big mouthed idiot spreading false allegations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Robert Maxwell won a few lawsuits - mainly against Private Eye - where what was printed was true .
The problem was the newspaper could n't prove it at the time , it only came out when " Cap'n Bob " accidentally fell over a six-foot high rail.Not that I 'm suggesting a reversal of the burden of proof .
An ordinary person 's career and life could be ruined by some malicious arsehole or big mouthed idiot spreading false allegations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Robert Maxwell won a few lawsuits - mainly against Private Eye - where what was printed was true.
The problem was the newspaper couldn't prove it at the time, it only came out when "Cap'n Bob" accidentally fell over a six-foot high rail.Not that I'm suggesting a reversal of the burden of proof.
An ordinary person's career and life could be ruined by some malicious arsehole or big mouthed idiot spreading false allegations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533078</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why you'd need something like this</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261510020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I understand the intent of the law correctly, the point here is that, while press also needs to at least try to check their facts for correctness before publishing them, they do not have time enough for a thorough investigation, because we - you and I and million other people out there - demand early, up-to-date news. Hence stringency of fact checking has to be balanced against the need to report current events.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand the intent of the law correctly , the point here is that , while press also needs to at least try to check their facts for correctness before publishing them , they do not have time enough for a thorough investigation , because we - you and I and million other people out there - demand early , up-to-date news .
Hence stringency of fact checking has to be balanced against the need to report current events .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand the intent of the law correctly, the point here is that, while press also needs to at least try to check their facts for correctness before publishing them, they do not have time enough for a thorough investigation, because we - you and I and million other people out there - demand early, up-to-date news.
Hence stringency of fact checking has to be balanced against the need to report current events.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533040</id>
	<title>What about satire?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261509480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know Canadian law, but if satire is protected, couldn't someone put a small disclaimer on the website?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know Canadian law , but if satire is protected , could n't someone put a small disclaimer on the website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know Canadian law, but if satire is protected, couldn't someone put a small disclaimer on the website?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30537860</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why you'd need something like this</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1259785260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American libel laws, from what I understand of them, are sensible.  Canada (where I am) has different libel laws; historically our love of free speech is not as strong as Americans.<br>
<br>
 The Justices' ruling (and it's freaking long) doesn't say it's OK to libel someone in certain situations.  It says the standard defenses against charges of libel aren't broad enough.  It also suggests that demanding a standard of judicial proof from reporters isn't reasonable.</p><blockquote><div><p>People who enter public life cannot reasonably expect to be immune from criticism, some of it harsh and undeserved. But nor does participation in public life amount to open season on reputation. [para. 58]</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The Justices are balancing two competing interests; if all goes well and their suggestions are followed, we may well end up with libel laws recognizable to Americans.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>American libel laws , from what I understand of them , are sensible .
Canada ( where I am ) has different libel laws ; historically our love of free speech is not as strong as Americans .
The Justices ' ruling ( and it 's freaking long ) does n't say it 's OK to libel someone in certain situations .
It says the standard defenses against charges of libel are n't broad enough .
It also suggests that demanding a standard of judicial proof from reporters is n't reasonable.People who enter public life can not reasonably expect to be immune from criticism , some of it harsh and undeserved .
But nor does participation in public life amount to open season on reputation .
[ para. 58 ] The Justices are balancing two competing interests ; if all goes well and their suggestions are followed , we may well end up with libel laws recognizable to Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American libel laws, from what I understand of them, are sensible.
Canada (where I am) has different libel laws; historically our love of free speech is not as strong as Americans.
The Justices' ruling (and it's freaking long) doesn't say it's OK to libel someone in certain situations.
It says the standard defenses against charges of libel aren't broad enough.
It also suggests that demanding a standard of judicial proof from reporters isn't reasonable.People who enter public life cannot reasonably expect to be immune from criticism, some of it harsh and undeserved.
But nor does participation in public life amount to open season on reputation.
[para. 58]

The Justices are balancing two competing interests; if all goes well and their suggestions are followed, we may well end up with libel laws recognizable to Americans.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533158</id>
	<title>What a lengthy judgement!</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1261511160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now for the benefit of Joe Six Pack, someone should create a flowchart outlining all possible scenarios to the point of acquittal or guilt in cases like this. How about that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now for the benefit of Joe Six Pack , someone should create a flowchart outlining all possible scenarios to the point of acquittal or guilt in cases like this .
How about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now for the benefit of Joe Six Pack, someone should create a flowchart outlining all possible scenarios to the point of acquittal or guilt in cases like this.
How about that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535510</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats a misrepresentation.</p><p>Section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects 'Freedom of Expression'.</p><p>It is limited by "Hate Speech", "Threats of Violence".</p><p>It allows for "the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing".</p><p>So, American, I'll grant its not the same, but to say we're a bunch of peons living under a tyrant is not only incorrect, its callously wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats a misrepresentation.Section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects 'Freedom of Expression'.It is limited by " Hate Speech " , " Threats of Violence " .It allows for " the pursuit of truth , participation in the community , or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing " .So , American , I 'll grant its not the same , but to say we 're a bunch of peons living under a tyrant is not only incorrect , its callously wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats a misrepresentation.Section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects 'Freedom of Expression'.It is limited by "Hate Speech", "Threats of Violence".It allows for "the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing".So, American, I'll grant its not the same, but to say we're a bunch of peons living under a tyrant is not only incorrect, its callously wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532916</id>
	<title>Truth as a defense?</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1261508040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So truth as a defense doesn't count?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So truth as a defense does n't count ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So truth as a defense doesn't count?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533086</id>
	<title>This allows for character assassination</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1261510080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that this new ruling only assists journalists and bloggers whose story about someone is false.</p><p>If the story was true, there is no libel, under existing law.</p><p>I think it will be easy to put a patina of professional responsible diligence on acts of deliberate<br>character assassination using lies and incendiary innuendo.</p><p>All you have to do is say that you got it from some sources, and tried to reach some sources<br>to contradict it but couldn't get hold of them by publication time etc. etc.</p><p>The media is already manufacturing opinion and making and breaking kings, and this<br>just allows them to do it using false stories with impunity.</p><p>Scary</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that this new ruling only assists journalists and bloggers whose story about someone is false.If the story was true , there is no libel , under existing law.I think it will be easy to put a patina of professional responsible diligence on acts of deliberatecharacter assassination using lies and incendiary innuendo.All you have to do is say that you got it from some sources , and tried to reach some sourcesto contradict it but could n't get hold of them by publication time etc .
etc.The media is already manufacturing opinion and making and breaking kings , and thisjust allows them to do it using false stories with impunity.Scary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that this new ruling only assists journalists and bloggers whose story about someone is false.If the story was true, there is no libel, under existing law.I think it will be easy to put a patina of professional responsible diligence on acts of deliberatecharacter assassination using lies and incendiary innuendo.All you have to do is say that you got it from some sources, and tried to reach some sourcesto contradict it but couldn't get hold of them by publication time etc.
etc.The media is already manufacturing opinion and making and breaking kings, and thisjust allows them to do it using false stories with impunity.Scary</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533700</id>
	<title>Re:Truth as a defense?</title>
	<author>coppro</author>
	<datestamp>1259749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Truth is already a defense. This case establishes a new defense; it doesn't invalidate the exsisting ones:
<dl> <dt>Justification</dt><dd>The statement was true</dd><dt>Privilege</dt><dd>If you have some legal or moral obligation to disclose the defamatory material - for instance, you are providing a reference for someone looking for a job, or you are testifying in court.</dd><dt>Fair comment</dt><dd>You are allowed to criticize as long as it is done fairly and is based on fact.</dd></dl></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth is already a defense .
This case establishes a new defense ; it does n't invalidate the exsisting ones : JustificationThe statement was truePrivilegeIf you have some legal or moral obligation to disclose the defamatory material - for instance , you are providing a reference for someone looking for a job , or you are testifying in court.Fair commentYou are allowed to criticize as long as it is done fairly and is based on fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth is already a defense.
This case establishes a new defense; it doesn't invalidate the exsisting ones:
 JustificationThe statement was truePrivilegeIf you have some legal or moral obligation to disclose the defamatory material - for instance, you are providing a reference for someone looking for a job, or you are testifying in court.Fair commentYou are allowed to criticize as long as it is done fairly and is based on fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026</id>
	<title>I don't see why you'd need something like this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261509360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean there really shouldn't be some special exception saying "It is ok to slander/libel someone in certain situations." No, it shouldn't be allowed. I think the US has pretty sensible libel laws. In particular, there are three defenses:</p><p>1) The truth. If what you wrote was true, no matter how damaging, it's not libel. Libel is only untrue statements. So as long as you are telling the truth you can post it for whatever reasons you like, regardless of the harm it causes and have no worry about a successful libel suit.</p><p>2) Belief that it is true. If you reasonably believe what you are writing is true, that is also a defense against libel. So if a newspaper publishes a story based on good information that turns out to be false, it isn't libel. They reasonably believed it to be true.</p><p>3) No intent to cause harm. The final defense against libel is if you didn't intend for the statements to cause harm. This is generally in the case of satire and the like. If you are writing something you know to be false, but doing so in a way as to poke fun at someone, it isn't libel.</p><p>So the only way something is libel is if it is false, you know (or reasonably should know) it is false, and you write it anyhow with the intent of causing harm to your target.</p><p>To me, seems pretty reasonable and doesn't seem like any special protections are needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean there really should n't be some special exception saying " It is ok to slander/libel someone in certain situations .
" No , it should n't be allowed .
I think the US has pretty sensible libel laws .
In particular , there are three defenses : 1 ) The truth .
If what you wrote was true , no matter how damaging , it 's not libel .
Libel is only untrue statements .
So as long as you are telling the truth you can post it for whatever reasons you like , regardless of the harm it causes and have no worry about a successful libel suit.2 ) Belief that it is true .
If you reasonably believe what you are writing is true , that is also a defense against libel .
So if a newspaper publishes a story based on good information that turns out to be false , it is n't libel .
They reasonably believed it to be true.3 ) No intent to cause harm .
The final defense against libel is if you did n't intend for the statements to cause harm .
This is generally in the case of satire and the like .
If you are writing something you know to be false , but doing so in a way as to poke fun at someone , it is n't libel.So the only way something is libel is if it is false , you know ( or reasonably should know ) it is false , and you write it anyhow with the intent of causing harm to your target.To me , seems pretty reasonable and does n't seem like any special protections are needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean there really shouldn't be some special exception saying "It is ok to slander/libel someone in certain situations.
" No, it shouldn't be allowed.
I think the US has pretty sensible libel laws.
In particular, there are three defenses:1) The truth.
If what you wrote was true, no matter how damaging, it's not libel.
Libel is only untrue statements.
So as long as you are telling the truth you can post it for whatever reasons you like, regardless of the harm it causes and have no worry about a successful libel suit.2) Belief that it is true.
If you reasonably believe what you are writing is true, that is also a defense against libel.
So if a newspaper publishes a story based on good information that turns out to be false, it isn't libel.
They reasonably believed it to be true.3) No intent to cause harm.
The final defense against libel is if you didn't intend for the statements to cause harm.
This is generally in the case of satire and the like.
If you are writing something you know to be false, but doing so in a way as to poke fun at someone, it isn't libel.So the only way something is libel is if it is false, you know (or reasonably should know) it is false, and you write it anyhow with the intent of causing harm to your target.To me, seems pretty reasonable and doesn't seem like any special protections are needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533306</id>
	<title>Re:More ephemeral?</title>
	<author>longhairedgnome</author>
	<datestamp>1259785200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most newspapers are just as archived as anything published online, maybe not as accessible but archived.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most newspapers are just as archived as anything published online , maybe not as accessible but archived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most newspapers are just as archived as anything published online, maybe not as accessible but archived.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534882</id>
	<title>Re:This allows for character assassination</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1259767380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this scary? If we put the burden of proof on journalists, it puts politicians in a place where they can very easily silence dissent -- the burden of proof in libel NEEDS to be on the plaintiff or it will be abused too often. When it comes to free speech issues, we always need to err on the side of freedom rather than civility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this scary ?
If we put the burden of proof on journalists , it puts politicians in a place where they can very easily silence dissent -- the burden of proof in libel NEEDS to be on the plaintiff or it will be abused too often .
When it comes to free speech issues , we always need to err on the side of freedom rather than civility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this scary?
If we put the burden of proof on journalists, it puts politicians in a place where they can very easily silence dissent -- the burden of proof in libel NEEDS to be on the plaintiff or it will be abused too often.
When it comes to free speech issues, we always need to err on the side of freedom rather than civility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533086</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30543946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30536152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30536652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30537860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0113250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30543946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534336
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30536152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30537860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30535250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30534442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30533552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0113250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30532950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0113250.30536652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
