Liberals Falsely Slander Harper: Communion Host

[jdobbin]

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?en...ry090728-112931

That wasn't Kinsella. And it doesn't mention an insider.

[punked]

That wasn't Kinsella. And it doesn't mention an insider.

You told me 5 minutes ago repeating an accusation was the samething as making it and then threatened a lawsuit from Kinsella.

Edited August 4, 2009 by punked

[Keepitsimple]

You are suggesting that he was fired for colluding with Liberals as the story suggests. And that story, according to the Chronicle, comes from Tory sources.

Not quite Dobbs - the Chronicle doesn't seem to know and your own snippet says that it likely came from Tory sources. They were speculating.

CTV — likely relying on Tory sources — has reported that editor Shawna Richer inserted the false assertion at the behest of publisher Jamie Irving, great-grandson of legendary industrialist K.C. Irving.

[punked]

Not quite Dobbs - the Chronicle doesn't seem to know and your own snippet says that it likely came from Tory sources. They were speculating.

Personally sense they Broke that story about the Cons early in the summer I have actually been reading the Chronicle more and more. They don't do a bad job, and can easily hang with the other major news outlets.

Edited August 4, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

You told me 5 minutes ago repeating an accusation was the samething as making it and then threatened a lawsuit from Kinsella.

He didn't make or repeat an accusation.

[jdobbin]

Not quite Dobbs - the Chronicle doesn't seem to know and your own snippet says that it likely came from Tory sources. They were speculating.

I had already quoted the same passage.

There are few theories on what happened but no evidence. One: That the Irvings were trying to curry favour with the Liberals and acted on their own. Two: That the Irvings were trying to curry favour with the Tories to get shipping contracts and retracted the story. Three: That Liberals were responsible according to Tories.

You can probably add a few more as well. No evidence of any.

All we know is that Lifesite News is likely to regret accusing Kinsella.

[benny]

Stephen Harper was accused of putting a communion host in his pocket.

By not eating immediately the host, like what should be done, Harper has in a sense pocketed this host. Figurative language departs from literal meaning to achieve a special effect or meaning.

[punked]

All we know is that Lifesite News is likely to regret accusing Kinsella.

He seems like such a legal expert, calling it Libel then linking to a Tom Cruise case won in Britain. Either way he did repeat the accusation by linking too them, just as I did when you said he was going to sue the pants off me like a 6 year old who feel off her bike.

Don't get me wrong Life Site are the bottom feeders of the news world. I just can't believe anyone is even responding too them.

They published his email I don't think they are taking it down until they get enough traffic off it.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09073012.html

[Cato]

He has already stated that he was going through a denial of service attack. Many of the times changed on his site because of it. He has the paperwork to back it up and he is suing the Lifesite News right now about all their accusations.

From Kinsella's site:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/

1. There is no word about denial of service there.

2. Such a claim is either pure lie or the dumb blathering of a layman - but who would have said such a nonsense to Kinsilla? Do you have the slightest idea, what denial of service means?

Btw, your constant reference to potential lawsuits stinks like a Liberal fish.

[jdobbin]

Don't get me wrong Life Site are the bottom feeders of the news world. I just can't believe anyone is even responding too them.

They published his email I don't think they are taking it down until they get enough traffic off it.

Kinsella has won every suit he has filed, every suit against him. I think he will hammer them.

[punked]

Kinsella has won every suit he has filed, every suit against him. I think he will hammer them.

The Contrarian reported the story too citing Life Site.

http://contrarian.ca/2009/07/30/wafergate-...stions-pile-up/

Ohhhh btw here is a short write up on "small" blogger Kinsella, and how he rolls.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/10/disgraced-li...bbyist-war.html

I think people have a fundamental right to say things in Canada. Yah even the crazies should have a right to say something. Ohhh by the way he didn't win that lawsuit, I think he will drop it.

Edited August 4, 2009 by punked

[benny]

Poor Warren Kinsella!, he found the following statement grossly defamatory, malicious, and false:

"Curiously, the time on Kinsella's blog post was changed earlier today to three hours later, a fact that could indicate an attempt to cover up the fact that he posted the Telegraph-Journal's July 8th story very early in the morning on the same date it was published."

Edited August 4, 2009 by benny

[jdobbin]

The Contrarian reported the story too citing Life Site.

I have cited Lifesite here as well. However, like the Contrarian, I am saying there is no evidence of Kinsella's involvement.

Ohhhh btw here is a short write up on "small" blogger Kinsella, and how he rolls.

I think people have a fundamental right to say things in Canada. Yah even the crazies should have a right to say something. Ohhh by the way he didn't win that lawsuit, I think he will drop it.

That lawsuit is still in progress as far I've heard. It was amended and expanded to $5 million back in February.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre. Nor does it mean defaming, slandering or libeling.

Or do you think the law should not apply?

Here is how Ezra Levant rolls:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?m=...ry080202-160703

[jdobbin]

Poor Warren Kinsella!, he found the following statement grossly defamatory, malicious, and false:

"Curiously, the time on Kinsella's blog post was changed earlier today to three hours later, a fact that could indicate an attempt to cover up the fact that he posted the Telegraph-Journal's July 8th story very early in the morning on the same date it was published."

He is suing over these very remarks. Would you like me to pass your name on to him?

[punked]

I have cited Lifesite here as well. However, like the Contrarian, I am saying there is no evidence of Kinsella's involvement.

That lawsuit is still in progress as far I've heard. It was amended and expanded to $5 million back in February.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre. Nor does it mean defaming, slandering or libeling.

Or do you think the law should not apply?

Here is how Ezra Levant rolls:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?m=...ry080202-160703

It does however mean holding our public figures accountable. I by no means have no qualms with Kinsealla and have linked too, and read his blog from time to time. However I think you should be allowed to speak your mind. Should we be so scared when their is fire in a movie theatre we don't do anything at all?

I mean honestly it is going to get to a point where can't have a cup coffee with your friends and say something. Speech in free, and saying someone edited their blog is a lot different from hate speech. Soon you will be comparing bloggers with Nazis.

Edited August 4, 2009 by punked

[benny]

He is suing over these very remarks. Would you like me to pass your name on to him?

If he is a man, he will come to ask.

[punked]

Macleans has Warrens response. He is right journalist should contact a person before they publish and article, but that is true of all media.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/30/waferga...cts/#more-73514

[jdobbin]

If he is a man, he will come to ask.

He just might.

[benny]

He just might.

I will not deny him of my precious services any longer.

[kimmy]

Seeing a member of this forum using threat of lawsuits to intimidate other members of this forum is the saddest thing I have seen on this forum in my many years here.

However, if that's the way things work, then we will all have to keep this new reality in mind. Accordingly, there are certain topics which I will no longer discuss on this site, and certain persons with whom I will no longer discuss anything at all. I encourage others to also be cautious here, as based on actions taken against members of other message boards, this does not appear to be an idle threat.

-k

[Malaclypse the Younger]

It may not be an idle threat, but it is a funny threat. Unless they can prove that significant psychological and financial harm was caused by whatever comments, the charge will get laughed out of court. Most threats of defamation charges on the internet are very laughable.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Malaclypse the Younger

[capricorn]

I encourage others to also be cautious here, as based on actions taken against members of other message boards, this does not appear to be an idle threat.

-k

Chilling, isn't it.

[benny]

In his lawsuit, Kinsella would have to explain why he has delayed for weeks his transition to a stronger platform if he finds the protection of his reputation so important.

[jdobbin]

Seeing a member of this forum using threat of lawsuits to intimidate other members of this forum is the saddest thing I have seen on this forum in my many years here.

The law has always been in place and the anonymity people feel to violate it on the Internet is ending. What is sad is that people think they can flout the law without consequence.

Free speech can still happen. Just don't think it means you are not answerable for defamation, libel and slander.

Companies now routinely go online and find out who says things about their company. You can express opinions or viewpoints but there is a line that can violate the law. The Internet is no different.

However, if that's the way things work, then we will all have to keep this new reality in mind. Accordingly, there are certain topics which I will no longer discuss on this site, and certain persons with whom I will no longer discuss anything at all. I encourage others to also be cautious here, as based on actions taken against members of other message boards, this does not appear to be an idle threat.

It is how the law works.

It is how this forum works. Step out of line, get banned. Break the law and the moderator and owners of the board will turn you in themselves.

Think that you are special and that free speech allows you to make claims that violate the law and be prepared to defend them in another forum, the court of law.

[jdobbin]

It may not be an idle threat, but it is a funny threat. Unless they can prove that significant psychological and financial harm was caused by whatever comments, the charge will get laughed out of court. Most threats of defamation charges on the internet are very laughable.

And yet we are seeing more damages awarded for violations of the law.