Comment 41519

By Keanin Loomis (anonymous) | Posted June 02, 2010 at 23:58:40

I'm a recovering, lawyer (caveat: US trained). In this case, US law seems to be much more logical and First Amendment Protections are very high. It's not libel if a) it's obviously opinion and/or 2) you can't prove it's actually false. There is no reasonable doubt that Mahesh was meerly stating his opinion and there is no way anyone can prove that they are not a racist.

Canada is much more plaintiff-friendly (i.e. intent is presumed and the statements must only be determined to lower the esteem of the members of plaintiff's community). And, it seems, a publisher can be held accountable. In this case, there are logical arguments to make - for one, it certainly is newsworthy that a quixotic candidate for mayor with a modicum of respectability decides to undermine his candidacy by throwing a public temper tantrum against a column that really had nothing to do with him and really said nothing untrue or unflattering (and isn't there the possibility that Dreschel was working on a flattering column of Mahesh that would have elevated his candidacy?). But, unless one is agitating to make judicial precedent on principle, and where the only thing that is guaranteed is that the lawyers make money, Ryan (and Cal) made the right move.

Whether a newspaper EDITORIALIST should hide behind such a candy-ass cause of action is a whole other matter. In my opinion, what most clearly demonstrates Dreschel's lack of judgment is this: publishing Mahesh's opinion letter so that the community can make a true determination on the legitimacy, temperament, judgment, fitness for office, etc. of each of its mayoral candidates does nothing to undermine your credibility. Thus, he has ironically undermined his.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds