Words
Name: DXXX
IP Address: XXXXXX(XXXXXXX.ss.shawcable.net)
User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; XXXXXX)
Email: XXXXXXXX@shaw.ca
Subject: Legal strategy?
Comment:
On Friday, February 22, 2008, 08:25 AM, DXXX wrote:
Mr. Kinsella, please do not use my name or identifying information.
I am a second year law student and have an interest in speech issues and defamation law particularly. I have been following your on-going battles with various conservatives about free speech and hate laws. While I tend to be a libertarian (something I do not tell many of my clasmates!), I admire your conviction in taking these people on, while I do not always agree with you.
When I saw the National Post's apology and retraction to Richard Warman (congratulations to the lawyer who obtained it, BTW, it is one of the more comprehensive ones I have ever seen), and the amount of prominence you have given to it on your blog, a thought occurred to me.
It is only a theory, and I know I can never prove it. However it seems to me that your "side," if I can call it that, has waited until the latest possible date to serve the various defendants. In the meantime, you (not Mr. Warman)have used your site to stir these people up, in the expectation that would repeat the libel and therefore add to the amount of damages your side would receive. Which all of them did, over and over, therefore making the libel even worse. This has greatly added to the size of Mr. Warman's claim against them.
Of course, I cannot prove this theory. But if it is true, congratulations on the strategy. If this case plays out like I think it will, Mr. Warman will owe you thousands!
Sincerely,
DXXXXXX
RELATED POSTS: here. And here.
IP Address: XXXXXX(XXXXXXX.ss.shawcable.net)
User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; XXXXXX)
Email: XXXXXXXX@shaw.ca
Subject: Legal strategy?
Comment:
On Friday, February 22, 2008, 08:25 AM, DXXX wrote:
Mr. Kinsella, please do not use my name or identifying information.
I am a second year law student and have an interest in speech issues and defamation law particularly. I have been following your on-going battles with various conservatives about free speech and hate laws. While I tend to be a libertarian (something I do not tell many of my clasmates!), I admire your conviction in taking these people on, while I do not always agree with you.
When I saw the National Post's apology and retraction to Richard Warman (congratulations to the lawyer who obtained it, BTW, it is one of the more comprehensive ones I have ever seen), and the amount of prominence you have given to it on your blog, a thought occurred to me.
It is only a theory, and I know I can never prove it. However it seems to me that your "side," if I can call it that, has waited until the latest possible date to serve the various defendants. In the meantime, you (not Mr. Warman)have used your site to stir these people up, in the expectation that would repeat the libel and therefore add to the amount of damages your side would receive. Which all of them did, over and over, therefore making the libel even worse. This has greatly added to the size of Mr. Warman's claim against them.
Of course, I cannot prove this theory. But if it is true, congratulations on the strategy. If this case plays out like I think it will, Mr. Warman will owe you thousands!
Sincerely,
DXXXXXX
RELATED POSTS: here. And here.