Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal Subject: Re: Gone with the wind. Message-ID: <823@psivax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 11:37:05 EST Article-I.D.: psivax.823 Posted: Wed Oct 30 11:37:05 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 08:36:04 EST References: <913@decwrl.UUCP> <863@lsuc.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 20 Xref: lsuc net.politics:1793 net.legal:1353 Summary: 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. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa