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