New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: My Love Letter To The United States Supreme Court, And The First Amendment

Print This Post

You may also like...

19 Responses

  1. Ken says:

    Readers interested in the concept of freedom of expression, and in how Canada continues to sell its birthright of liberty for the mess of pottage that is modern Canadian multi-culti right-not-to-be-offended dipshitttery, will find it worthwhile to read the entire opinion in Whiny Little Bitch v. Levant that Patrick linked above. It's amazing for the sort of things that said Whiny Little Bitch was suing for (basically, he feels entitled to be compensated for someone making fun of him for acting like a big girl's blouse), for how begrudgingly the court finds that some of Levant's expression is clearly protected even by Canada's anemic laws, and for the way the Court clearly feels that Ezra Levant is in the wrong to attempt to "denormalize" Canada's mechanism of official censorship, the CHRC and provincial Human Rights Commissions.

  2. Patrick says:

    I didn't address the court's self-serving justifications for enabling this blatant act of retaliation and censorship, but only because I was not in a serene state of mind to write this post today.

  3. Ken says:

    I will expect a note from a doctor.

  4. Patrick says:

    I feel insulted by that comment.

  5. Ken says:

    I was going to come back with "make that a note from your gynecologist," but then I realized that I know plenty of strong women, and really don't know any who are as contemptible and sissified as Vigna, so that would be unfair.

  6. Patrick says:

    The actual Levant decision, by the way, is the tinyurl link under the text "$25,000 judgment to Giacomo Vigna". It's the second hyperlink in the post.

    Or you can read it here.

  7. Salem says:


    The UK libel laws get a lot of criticism on this blog, but Canada is really something else.

  8. aelfheld says:

    After all, I am explicitly comparing Giacomo Vigna to a man who ordered the arrest and beating of Martin Luther King.

    That is an invidious comparison.

    The man who ordered the arrest and beating of Martin Luther King had some redeeming qualities. What they are I have no idea but it is certain that, in comparison to the anaerobic bacterium that is Giacomo Vigna, he had some.

  9. Ken says:

    "Ladies and gentlemen, I was planning on turning this fire hose on those Negro marchers, and releasing these vicious police dogs upon them. However, I find that I am not in a serene stage of mind. I feel anxiety."

  10. Hans says:

    Great post, Patrick. Guaranteed that you would be sued (and successfully) for defamation by Giacomo "Serenity Now!" Vigna had you been a resident Canadian posting this on the Internet. Hurt anyone's feelings in Canada, pay a hefty fine and/or go to jail.

    Vigna, Warman and their censorial ilk don't even consider suing Americans who post such views, because they know that their frivolous and vexatious SLAPP actions would be laughed out of court in the United States (which has truly robust constitutional protections for freedom of expression). This is undoubtedly a major reason why renowned Canuck commentator Mark Steyn has set up shop in New Hampshire rather than Ontario. There is just no way that he could publish freely in Canada without being continuously charged by Big Brother with "hate crimes" (read "thought crimes") or being tormented and bankrupted by censorial lawfare specialists of the Vigna, Warman and Kinsella varieties.

    It would be a great shame and loss for Canada if Ezra Levant was forced to flee the country to exercise his right of free expression, but it may well come down to that if he wants to express himself freely.

  11. Jit says:

    With respect, the facts you present are misleading. Levant lost for a more narrow reason, and would have in the United States. Even The Volunteer (an extremely libertarian Canadian blog) thinks the ruling was the correct one:

    If anything, the Canadian standards for libel are MORE sensible than the American ones (see e.g. Hill vs. Church of Scientology or Simpson v. WIC Radio).

  12. Ken says:

    It's difficult to understand how the post can be misleading when Patrick links, and tells readers to read, the decision in question, Jit. It's also rather difficult to credit Canadian libel laws as "sensible" when they allow Richard Warman to sue people for calling him a censor. And speaking as a lawyer who litigates libel cases — and has won SLAPP motions and collected fees from douchebags like "Serenity Now" Vigna — I find the proposition that he would have won in the United States highly dubious.

  13. Patrick says:

    Jit's just upset that I made fun of his little country.

  14. crunchback says:

    I seem to remember that the motto of Canada is: "Order and Good Government". Evidently, it is now: "Order and Good government: Choose One".

  1. November 23, 2010

    […] Pope Hat has a great post on freedom of speech in the United States and Canada. The post is very long and well worth reading, but here is an important excerpt: In Canada, you’d better watch what you say if you want to criticize The Man. You’d better make sure every word is the literal truth, and that you can back it up with records. […]

  2. November 23, 2010

    […] Link is here. Please click through and read. Thank you KS for sending it to me. This entry was posted in Canada, Human Rights Commission, freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Short video detailing a tiny bit of the Korean situation. […]

  3. November 26, 2010

    […] south of the border, launched a tirade that would get him arrested up here. I'll quote a section that I think I'm legally […]

  4. November 28, 2010

    […] […]

  5. November 30, 2010

    […] glad to be an American: that's how Patrick at Popehat feels following latest Canadian-libel-law outrage directed at conservative blogger Ezra […]