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