Tuesday, June 19, 2007

That Steve Janke is one popular guy.

At the risk of being repetitive, I just checked and, yes indeedy, Steve Janke's whining for financial help is still front and centre at the Blogging Tories web site. Man, it must be nice to get that kind of extended storefront exposure when you're in deep doo-doo like that. Some people just have all the luck.

And if you're bored, Ted explains the ins and outs of blogging and defamation law, which can generally be summarized as, "Do not publicly describe someone as an ignorant dickwad or dumbass motherfucker."

Unless they are, of course. Then it's cool.

AFTERSNARK: As Ted points out, it is amusing for Janke to claim that he has "issued apologies and retractions on two separate occasions, each time as per his instructions," while, in the very next paragraph, Janke takes the position that "it's not right to be punished economically for telling the truth [emphasis added]."

Yeah, that kind of diminishes the value of an apology, don't you think?


thwap said...

Re: Aftersnark

Holy Shit! I hadn't really noticed that! (I'm such an easy-going, trusting soul.) But if Janke is crying about being sued, and he's apologized an retracted, he has to be real dumbass motherfucker to have stuck that in there.

Anonymous said...

Canadian free speech rights are a joke. Call in Amnesty International. You people need help.

thwap said...

Slander has been illegal for a while anonymous. If Janke isn't worried, then he can face the dude in court.

But if Janke is worried, the last thing he should be doing is apologizing and then blathering out "BUT IT'S TRUE!!!"

Use your fucking head.

Ti-Guy said...

Canadian free speech rights are a joke. Call in Amnesty International. You people need help.

But "Stupid speech rights" are alive and well, thank goodness. And that situation will remain...until we get the re-education camps going, that is.

Oh relax...Axel-Heilberg is lovely this time of year.

Dr.Dawg said...


Anonymous said...

"Slander has been illegal for a while anonymous."

Criminal defamation is still in the criminal code, although seldom prosecuted. Slander is spoken words alledgedly untrue, Libel is printed words -- And both are torts not criminal.

Also - in proving a slander/libel or defamation case, in Canada one must do a few things.

A) prove that there was an intent to harm the other party
B) prove that the allegations were known to be false when they were made - or should have known that they were false (which falls under the area of proving what a reasonable person would or would not believe)
C)Prove that the allegations made falsely were more than just somebody stating an opinion..
For example it's not libel to ask a question about somebody's conduct. But it is libel to state such and such did X, in keeping with the other rules above A and B.
D) there is still the exception of if you claim somebody committed criminal acts, there is no need to satisfy A or B. It's just assumed.
Just to be fair to Janke.

You are all right about Janke should have not put in the addendum he did if he wanted to stay out of hot water.

And if he wanted to avoid losing - he should not have printed any sort of apology. The guy who is suing him now has the apology.

Janke is pretty basically screwed -- and I'm surprised that he didn't obtain better legal representation to inform him of all this.

"The man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client"

Rev.Paperboy said...

Actually you are on more solid legal ground claiming that someone is an ignorant dickwad or dumbass motherfucker, since such evaluations of character are clearly an opinion, whereas calling someone a liar or a thief alleges that they have committed a crime, something that can be proved or disproved.

I'd love to see Joel Johannnsen Steve Janke prove in court that they aren't ignorant dickwads.

The defence that the claims made about the complaintant are obvious hyperbole/fiction for the purpose of satire or humor (the "I was kidding! What's the matter, can't you take a joke?" defence) has also been known to stand up well in court in cases involving prominent people (See Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt or Just About Anyone vs. Frank Magazine)

thwap said...

Re: anonymous 2 -

That's what i meant. :)