Michael Hardner Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 It seemed pretty obvious to me. All the lefties commenting seem to evidence a sense of smug satisfaction rather than the slightest concern about the law. Does this mean I'm not a lefty ? Finally. Part of my continuing observation of the zealotry of the left and their outrage at contrary opinions and beliefs. I get where you are going with this, really I do, but don't we need some more information as I posted above in order to have a discussion based on something other than supposition ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 I get where you are going with this, really I do, but don't we need some more information as I posted above in order to have a discussion based on something other than supposition ? And as I pointed out, this is not a case that can be safely discussed on a public forum. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Very few on the left that I encounter have the slightest support for freedom of speech when that speech disagrees with their own beliefs You must live in a very small place, or obviously avoid 'lefties' then Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 How would that be helpful? You want to discuss a notorious multiple litigator and his multiple litigations on this forum and risk being sued? If you go through the list of details I'm looking for, there's nothing in there that could possibly garner a successful suit. It costs a lawyer nothing to sue you, you know. He just has to file a few documents. Are you up to paying $50,000-$100,000 to hire another lawyer to defend yourself? We're not talking about the spectre of libel chill here. And we're in a strange paradox if we can't talk about whether this is libel chill because we're afraid of being sued for libel for even referencing the case. At a certain point, it drifts into conspiracy theory territory. From what you're saying, we could be sued for this thread itself. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 And as I pointed out, this is not a case that can be safely discussed on a public forum. That's really for the mods to decide, I think. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
guyser Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 And as I pointed out, this is not a case that can be safely discussed on a public forum. Of course it can. It was discussed in court ergo we are free from any concerns discussing it here. The problem is.....whaty was said about Warman? (not that he likely brought it on himself) Quote
waldo Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 I get where you are going with this, really I do, but don't we need some more information as I posted above in order to have a discussion based on something other than supposition ? of course, member Argus didn't reply in regard your quoted reference to his statement: "Part of my continuing observation of the zealotry of the left and their outrage at contrary opinions and beliefs." No, he ignored your quote of his statement... and his supposition remains strong/intact! Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 All the lefties commenting seem to evidence a sense of smug satisfaction rather than the slightest concern about the law.You should provide citations when referencing earlier posts so that it is clear that you're just making stuff up. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 All the lefties commenting seem to evidence a sense of smug satisfactionExcuse me? What part of my post shows smug satisfaction. I was trying to articulate concern for how this would relate to our dealings here. Quote
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Of course it can. It was discussed in court ergo we are free from any concerns discussing it here. The problem is.....whaty was said about Warman? (not that he likely brought it on himself) That is an absurd supposition. Clearly everything was discussed in court, including the original accusations about him, but that does not imply such suggestions can be made here safely. In any event, it would be foolish to even get involved in a topic which would inevitably result in statements about Warman he could choose to interpet as justyfing a suit. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 That's really for the mods to decide, I think. I'd agree with that. Fortunately we have not had a case of outright libel here. Sure we throw stuff back and forth, but overall no animosity behind it. Quote
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 I'd agree with that. Fortunately we have not had a case of outright libel here. Sure we throw stuff back and forth, but overall no animosity behind it. I don't think any of us really understand what constitutes libel given the sweeping nature of the law. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 That is an absurd supposition. Clearly everything was discussed in court, including the original accusations about him, but that does not imply such suggestions can be made here safely. In any event, it would be foolish to even get involved in a topic which would inevitably result in statements about Warman he could choose to interpet as justyfing a suit.Wrong We can discuss all of what was said, why it was said and what we think about it. We are not making the accusations against Warman, so he has no tools to use, we are discussing if we agree with them or not, or whether we think it be fair. But ther is certainly nothing anyone can do about us discussing it. Quote
waldo Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 in response to your own expressed "unsurprised colouring": colour me unsurprised that you so quickly turn this into you targeting "lefties", that you presume misuse... and you conflate (this example of) defamation/libel with free speech. Self-righteousness? You mean as in the self-righteous indignation you so easily/readily display in your expressed reaction to "progressive lefties" being "fine" with something you clearly know nothing about, or something that you can't seem to find the time or make the effort to better inform yourself of? It seemed pretty obvious to me. All the lefties commenting seem to evidence a sense of smug satisfaction rather than the slightest concern about the law. You included, obviously.Part of my continuing observation of the zealotry of the left and their outrage at contrary opinions and beliefs.So tell me, Waldo, would you, like Suzuki, jail climate deniers? beauty! With your expressed designation of "lefties" with your labeled, "smug satisfaction", "no concern for the law", "observed zealotry", "outrage at contrary opinions and beliefs"... you've clearly ratcheted it up a few notches... well beyond the simple narrow confines of this OP. Never let down your guard Argus! as for your thread distracting 'Suzuki' reference, feel free to actually quote the/his related statement you believe relevant to this thread or to a broader discussion of defamation/slander/libel... I'm particularly interested in you identifying just who (person or persons), you believe were defamed/slandered/libeled, and who (person or persons), you believe can/should initiate action. Quote
jbg Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Posted February 1, 2014 Wrong We can discuss all of what was said, why it was said and what we think about it. We are not making the accusations against Warman, so he has no tools to use, we are discussing if we agree with them or not, or whether we think it be fair. But ther is certainly nothing anyone can do about us discussing it. The discussion should not be about Warman; it should be about Canada's lack of free speech protection. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 The discussion should not be about Warman; it should be about Canada's lack of free speech protection. no - not when you continue your false OP statements improperly equating defamation with free speech infringement. You continuing to pronounce it... doesn't make it so. Quote
sharkman Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 The judge did not order the forum closed. He ordered that the libels not be repeated. The Fourniers chose to close the forum. You're missing the point, and missing the reason why this forum could be closed. Quote
jbg Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Posted February 1, 2014 no - not when you continue your false OP statements improperly equating defamation with free speech infringement. You continuing to pronounce it... doesn't make it so. The right of free speech is the right not to stand trial for the content of speech. And can you lay off the personal insults? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 The right of free speech is the right not to stand trial for the content of speech. And can you lay off the personal insults? nonsense! Again, the right to defame/slander/libel is not the right of free speech. You were not insulted... what was the insult you claim was made? Quote
jbg Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Posted February 1, 2014 nonsense! Again, the right to defame/slander/libel is not the right of free speech. You were not insulted... what was the insult you claim was made? The tenor of the comment. And the tenor of other comments calling me a "claimed American." Your style lends itslef to continual insults. I find your style very hard to endure. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 You're missing the point, and missing the reason why this forum could be closed. what point do you claim is missing? You improperly stated that forum was closed because of the court ruling... again, it was not. do tell - from the case/ruling, what do you claim to be "the missing reason" this forum, this MLW forum, could be closed? Quote
waldo Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 no - not when you continue your false OP statements improperly equating defamation with free speech infringement. You continuing to pronounce it... doesn't make it so. You were not insulted... what was the insult you claim was made? The tenor of the comment. my... "tenor"... in the post quoted above (bold highlighted) insulted you. How so? Quote
jacee Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 The discussion should not be about Warman; it should be about Canada's lack of free speech protection.You don't have defamation laws in the US? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 You don't have defamation laws in the US? Federal code...no. State legislation...several. Most defamation cases in the U.S. are civil torts, not criminal cases. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
sharkman Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) The tenor of the comment. And the tenor of other comments calling me a "claimed American." Your style lends itslef to continual insults. I find your style very hard to endure. Have you ever met someone who has a personal trait that is plainly obvious and annoying, yet the person with the trait has no idea they are so afflicted? That is Waldo. I never used to use the ignore button, but finally decided that life is too short to continually suffer someone else's annoying behaviour. Edited February 1, 2014 by sharkman Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.