Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Ah, the irony of it all.
The Canadian Dumbass-o-sphere briefly stops shrieking hysterically about the socialist, Marxist, communist horror of "redistributing the wealth" long enough to redistribute the wealth in Ezra Levant's direction.
Wouldn't it be simpler if Ezra just stopped doing shit that was, you know, legally actionable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Come on CC, if he stopped doing things that were legally actionable, who would pay attention to him?
I mean, other than the attendants at medication time?
I hope these rubes have deep pockets because Ezra clearly likes spending their money.
"Remember, he's spending this money to fight for YOUR free speech."
but i haven't recklessly libeled anyone....
i'll tell ya, i'd be more impressed if he was spending his own money to fight for MY free speech, rather than funding his own reckless behavior with other people's money. but i'm funny that way.
KEvron
"Remember, he's spending this money to fight for YOUR free speech."
What a crock. The only free speech restriction I'm worried about are the SLAPP-style lawsuits, where you get sued by corporations for hurting their feelings. I believe Ezra has said not one word about them.
i should start a blog called "ezra's defense fund". i could pseudonymously detail ezra's case, then offer a simple donate button, without actually connecting the case to the donation.
a fool and his money....
KEvron
Or get a law degree, defame everyone, set up funds to defend your cases by skimming a buck here and there off the insensate, channel that business through your lawyer friends and in the whole process, look busy, gain experience with libel law (even if most of it involved cases where you were the defendant) and solidify your celebrity status by keeping your name in the media.
Now, that's wealth redistribution.
or even better: get a friend to do the same, though taking an opposing stance; both establish, then galvanize, their respective readerships, then fleece the whole lot with donation buttons.
i'm not saying that's the case here, but, given the gullibility the internets promote, the opportunity definitely exists.
KEvron
This isn't a free speech issue; it's a defamation issue. Brother Warren alleges that Brother Ezra said things about Brother Warren — that he's anti-semitic — that Brother Ezra well knows are not true.
why do you hate free speech, seer?
KEvron
that he's anti-semitic
It's worse than that, actually, if you read the statement of claim Ezra has so helpfully provided.
The law profession in this country has been in a downward spiral right into the toilet going on three decades now, starting with the coming of age of my generation (Reagan Youth). The profession tends to degrade morally in tandem with the moral decay of capitalism.
Advice (provided to me by my retired lawyer uncle): avoid lawyers if you can help it.
why do you hate free speech, seer?
I don't hate free speech. Freedom of speech is the right to speak without prior restraint or censorship. Freedom of speech does not immunize false statement of fact that injure another person's reputation. The law of defamation imposes the duty to speak factually about other persons and the duty to pay damages, in Canada when one maliciously defames another person. Because the remedy is imposed retroactively, it does not constitute prior restraint.
In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendant maliciously represented that plaintiff is anti-semitic, while knowing full well that he is not, thereby damaging plaintiff's reputation. Implicit in the complaint is the representation that Brother Ezra's own reputation is good enough to damage someone else's reputation, but that's a separate issue.
what was the middle part?
KEvron
Post a Comment