Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal Subject: Re: Gone with the wind. Message-ID: <83@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Nov-85 22:00:38 EST Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.83 Posted: Sun Nov 3 22:00:38 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Nov-85 12:42:38 EST References: <913@decwrl.UUCP> <863@lsuc.UUCP> <823@psivax.UUCP> Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 24 Summary: In article <823@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <863@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >> >>The definition is set out clearly in the Criminal Code of Canada. >>Several extremely difficult tests must be satisfied. A jury of 12 >>unbiased ordinary men and women determine whether those criteria >>have been satisfied. >> >>"We" must be a jury, which is required to be UNANIMOUSLY convinced >>beyond a reasonable doubt that the publication was false, was published >>wilfully, was published by the accused who knew it to be false, and so on. >> > Hmm, this sounds a whole lot like the definition of libel in >US law! If this is an impediment to free speech, so is the US libel >code. I guess it's exactly like the US libel law if in the States: 1) the case is tried in a criminal (not civil) court, and 2) the plaintiff is not one or more *private* citizens but is in fact the ***government***, and 3) it is not necessary to prove that any damage was done in order to obtain a conviction and hence a possible jail term. J.B. Robinson