A stale 2004 case on the internet and liable.

Another case here even with a political aspect.

Consider how defamation is not allowed to be claimed in relation to statements made in judicial proceedings.

Further usefulness:<blockquote class="smalltext">[16] Gatley on Libel and Slander, 10th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2004), p. 7, provides the following definition of libel and slander:<blockquote><i>1.3 Libel and slander. Defamation is committed when the defendant publishes to a third person words or matter containing an untrue imputation against the reputation of the plaintiff. Broadly speaking, if the publication is made in a permanent form or is broadcast or is part of a theatrical performance, it is libel; if in some transient form, it is slander. The most important distinction between the two is that libel is actionable per se - the law presumes that some damage will flow from it; for the publication of a slander to be actionable, on the other hand, some special damage must be proved to flow from it, unless it falls within certain specified categories.</i></blockquote></blockquote>So, without getting into the question of whether the statements are untrue or ture, is this transient? Is it <i>against</i> the reputation even? Some might say measures to give assurances to someone to allow them to make a decision relieved of a certain pressure might be a good thing to do.

What about when the reputation of the defendant stinks... ? I mean, nobody who hears that Mr. Harper attempted to bribe somebody would be at all surprised, so...

Or is 'reputation' another boring technical term of the art of lawyery?

(Or, wait, did I just impute? Because, um, if I did, are you taking clients?)

But that is not the point as there is an automatic assumption of the good reputation of all, not just people in high offices.

The notice.

Even Conrad Black??

(But seriously, why should the Liberals not delete emails and whatnot? Isn't libel only libel when it's done publically? Those materials would be private, or transitory and hence slander... Unless every watercooler conversation in every office in the world counts too, and I don't think it does, does it?)

But he enters jail today as a convict for a crime of deception. The universal assumption has been refuted by a specific finding of fact.

You know, one cannot blame the PM for at least trying. It's only common sense that the Libs should not be saying "He knew" when they could be saying "it would appear to some based on the evidence at hand that it is entirely possible that someone in such a position might or better yet should have known".

Sometimes, in the HOC, saying "Mister Speaker, we and the people of Canada would certainly be interested in a yes or no statement from the Honourable Mister Harper as to whether he was aware of the purported offer reported in the media as being made to Mr. Cadman and if so, was he aware that such an action could possibly be illegal?" says a lot more than the usual hooting and cat calling (plus it isn't libel or slander when worded properly).

Slapping a big "he knew and he knew it was illegal" on a website might be how many of us feel, but it's wrong.

The story is really more "Harper admitted he knew" - ripe with opportunity for misunderstanding...but for legal action?

Far as I know, not being a lawyer type, one can say "I think he knew", one can say "If he knew he should have known it was illegal" or "If he knew, and he knew it was illegal, then he's a jerk". One cannot say however "he knew and he knew it was illegal when he gave it his blessing, the jerk" without proof of such. The latter being slander if spoken aloud and unproven, definitely defamatory if unproven and libel if written for the world to see, oh,and unproven.

On the other hand, if he knew, and he knew it was illegal, then he was very uncharactistically careful.

Mrs. Cadman doesn't seem to think that Stephen Harper knew about an offer of vote-swaying million-dollar life insurance, and Stephen Harper's own recorded conversation indicates likewise.

Hence the entirely winnable libel suit.

Then again Chris, to quote someone else from last week "she wasn't there".

<i>...Mrs. Cadman doesn't seem to think that Stephen Harper knew about an offer of vote-swaying million-dollar life insurance, and Stephen Harper's own recorded conversation indicates likewise. Hence the entirely winnable libel suit....</i><p>Not really. It is about the appearance of the Harper statement at the time, not anything now to do with Cadman. Can you be liable for saying an admission of awareness of X is an admission of Y when the admission is couched in uncertain language? Would you bring a law suit over that?

Just tossing in the appropriateness of legal action, based on this train of thought (not pointing fingers at sean here, btw"

"not Tokyo"

One wonders, too, if the Liberals can now sue Harper for libel in relation to the anti-Dion "not a real leader" ad campaign as one wag at Stephen Taylor suggests. Maybe Ontario can sue Flaherty for defamation as well.

Well let's deal in specifics, since the interview and the Liberal press release are available.

In my books "I don't know the details. I knew that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?" + "I can tell you that I had told the individuals – I mean, they wanted to do it – but I told them they were wasting their time." does not quite equal "Canadians were shocked to hear Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s admission that he knew members of the Conservative Party tried to bribe former British Columbia MP Chuck Cadman in exchange for his vote, the Liberal Opposition said today."

(sources: Zytaruk interview as quoted by the <i>Star</i> and the Liberal press release)

I am completely in agreement with that. But it is also no defamation. It's clumsier and also to the point. Harper knew approaches were being made. Out of those approaches something was said that enraged Cadman. The rest is politics, not slander.<p>Ontario sue Flaherty...get it?

I'm just tremendously, tremendously amused.

Yes - amused is the word. Seems the legacy of Doctor Spock lives. Wa wa he called me a name, and I'm telling!

A new low in Canadian politico. Careful with your political dissent - attend to your diction lest ye be sued.