The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Canadian SC rules on fair media comments
Richy
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, I know people like to debate and discuss Supreme Court rulings, and I thought we could get some good mileage from this recent Canadian Supreme Court ruling:
9-0 ruling modernizes defence of fair comment
Complete text of ruling
Background on the case:
Some years ago, some schools in British Columbia decided to ban three children books that portrayed homosexual families. Then-popular conservative-wing activist Kari Simpson acclaimed the measure, while her ally-turned-nemesis, radio talk-show personality Rafe Mair accused her of being an power-hungry attention whore. On-air, Mair described Simpson’s opposition to gays using imagery from the KKK and the Nazis, saying that, when Simpson opposes homosexuals, “I could see Governor Wallace of Alabama standing on the steps of a schoolhouse shouting to the crowds that no Negroes would get into Alabama schools as long as he was governor.†Simpson sued Mair for defamation, and the case ended up in front of the Supreme Court, who last week ruled in favour of Mair.
The ruling:
The SC’s ruling extends of course beyond Mair and Simpson, and generalizes to all media personalities making provocative comments. The SC ruled that the media should not fear lawsuits for each provocative statement they make, as this would interfere with their mission to inform the public of important ongoing controversies on hot topics. This could potentially lead to the media censoring itself or refusing to report some stories for fear of lawsuits, which would be very bad.
But the SC does not give the media a free pass to say anything they want with no regard for the reputations of the people they attack, either. Rather, they ruled that comments are protected insofar as they reflect an “honest belief†about the issue. The SC included some guidelines to judge an “honest beliefâ€, including that it must be based on the facts or, if inferred from the facts, must be clearly labelled as inference and must be a conclusion that a reasonable person would honestly reach.
So... discuss?
I for one agree with the ruling. I think it strikes a good balance between protecting the media’s right to report vs. protecting public figures against the kind of baseless slander we see on US cable news (I’m looking at you Fox News). It also protects the public, by giving the media a legal framework to keep us informed of controversial topics without allowing them to become mud-slinging controversy whores (again, looking at you Fox).
9-0 ruling modernizes defence of fair comment
Complete text of ruling
Background on the case:
Some years ago, some schools in British Columbia decided to ban three children books that portrayed homosexual families. Then-popular conservative-wing activist Kari Simpson acclaimed the measure, while her ally-turned-nemesis, radio talk-show personality Rafe Mair accused her of being an power-hungry attention whore. On-air, Mair described Simpson’s opposition to gays using imagery from the KKK and the Nazis, saying that, when Simpson opposes homosexuals, “I could see Governor Wallace of Alabama standing on the steps of a schoolhouse shouting to the crowds that no Negroes would get into Alabama schools as long as he was governor.†Simpson sued Mair for defamation, and the case ended up in front of the Supreme Court, who last week ruled in favour of Mair.
The ruling:
The SC’s ruling extends of course beyond Mair and Simpson, and generalizes to all media personalities making provocative comments. The SC ruled that the media should not fear lawsuits for each provocative statement they make, as this would interfere with their mission to inform the public of important ongoing controversies on hot topics. This could potentially lead to the media censoring itself or refusing to report some stories for fear of lawsuits, which would be very bad.
But the SC does not give the media a free pass to say anything they want with no regard for the reputations of the people they attack, either. Rather, they ruled that comments are protected insofar as they reflect an “honest belief†about the issue. The SC included some guidelines to judge an “honest beliefâ€, including that it must be based on the facts or, if inferred from the facts, must be clearly labelled as inference and must be a conclusion that a reasonable person would honestly reach.
So... discuss?
I for one agree with the ruling. I think it strikes a good balance between protecting the media’s right to report vs. protecting public figures against the kind of baseless slander we see on US cable news (I’m looking at you Fox News). It also protects the public, by giving the media a legal framework to keep us informed of controversial topics without allowing them to become mud-slinging controversy whores (again, looking at you Fox).
Richy on
0
Posts
So it's not a simple matter of someone saying "I honestly believe that my opponent is worse than a satanistic pedophile Nazi", but of actually proving that, based on the facts, someone else would honestly reach that conclusion.