Minto购房悲剧----从走进Minto售房中心那一刻降临
- 主题发起人 budaowen
- 开始时间
pangniuniu
新手上路
- 注册
- 2011-05-12
- 消息
- 114
- 荣誉分数
- 3
- 声望点数
- 0
乘闲再说两句，有说诬陷的，有说诽谤的。
在不久之前，安省最高法院已经撤销了一起聊天室引起的诉讼，并宣布论坛是不同于报纸，杂志和书籍的公共聊天的媒介，各方面都能在上面发言辩论。
所以说网友们对LZ的支持是对LZ的不负责任会导致Minto的反诉，这纯粹是误导，长老也不要毫无根据地想当然嘛。
Blog vs. blog: Judge throws out defamation suit
Decision gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out
By Andrew Duffy, Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2011
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...amation+suit/5394818/story.html#ixzz1bk5GPw5O
A recent court decision gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online - and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
Photograph by: File photo, Getty Images
An Ontario Superior Court judge has tossed out a defamation suit launched by an Ottawa blogger, Dr. Dawg, who claimed that an Internet chat room post damaged his reputation by calling him a Taliban supporter.
Justice Peter Annis's decision adds to the emerging body of law that governs the Internet's unruly marketplace of ideas. It gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online — and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
"If this decision stands, it makes a Wild West saloon out of the blogosphere: it becomes a place where normal defamation law seems to be suspended," said Ottawa's John Baglow, a.k.a. Dr. Dawg.
The retired bureaucrat and former executive with the Public Service Alliance of Canada vowed to appeal the decision. Annis ruled that Baglow was not defamed last year by a post that said he is "one of the Taliban's more vocal supporters."
The statement was made on the Free Dominion website in the course of an acrimonious debate - taking place on three websites over several days - about federal politics and the legality of Canadian Omar Khadr's military trial in the U.S.
Free Dominion, a chat site that bills itself as "the voice of principled conservatism," is operated by Mark and Connie Fournier, of Kingston.
In an interview with the Citizen, Connie Fournier hailed the judge's decision as an important victory for political bloggers.
"We feel the defamation law is outdated and really hasn't progressed with technology," she said. "So we think this is a step in the right direction: the judge acknowledged that a discussion in the blogosphere is a far different thing than publishing something in the Ottawa Citizen."
Online political forums are honest, passionate and conversational, Fournier said, and should not be held to the same standard as other published material. "If you do that," she said, "you're really opening the way for a lot of frivolous lawsuits: the courts could be overtaken by people saying, 'He called me an idiot'."
Baglow, a left-wing political blogger, sued the Fourniers after they refused to take down the post, made by Roger Smith, of Burnaby, B.C., on Aug. 11, 2010.
Baglow said the post unfairly equated his call for Khadr's repatriation with being a Taliban booster. Although opposed to the war in Afghanistan, Baglow said, he is a patriotic Canadian who considers the Taliban a dangerous, tyrannical regime.
The Fourniers, however, insisted the comment was a normal part of the rough-and-tumble blogosphere; they asked Annis to dismiss the lawsuit before it went to court.
In his recent decision, Annis sided with the Fourniers, ruling the case raised no genuine issue for trial.
Given that the posting amounted to an opinion, rather than a statement of fact, it was less likely to damage Baglow's reputation, the judge said, since opinions are not as readily believed.
What's more, Annis said, in the context of a political blog in which insults and invective are regularly traded, the comment was not defamatory.
The judge noted that former NDP leader Jack Layton was often referred to in the blogosphere as "Taliban Jack" without legal consequences. "No reasonably informed Canadian would conclude that Mr. Layton was defamed by being called Taliban Jack, understanding that this was simply a catchy label attached to him by conservatives to showcase what they consider the weakness of the liberal argument in this political debate," Annis said.
"Reasonably informed readers of these blogs would understand that labelling the plaintiff (Baglow) a supporter of the Taliban as performing the same function and would not consider the comment capable of lessening the reputation of the plaintiff."
The judge said the blogosphere offers a different context for libel than books, magazines or newspapers. Internet blogging, he said, is "a form of public conversation" that allows people to respond immediately to defamatory statements.
To that end, Annis said, Baglow could have removed the sting of the offending post by a rejoinder that set out his opposition to the Taliban.
"More importantly to the issue of context," the judge said, "the blogging audience is expecting and would indeed want to hear a rejoinder of this nature where the parry and thrust of the debaters is appreciated as much as the substance of what they say."
Instead of taking the opportunity to respond, however, Baglow assumed another Internet identify and raised the possibility of a lawsuit.
Annis suggested Baglow showed bad form by "walking off the blogging stage" instead of answering the insult, which he said was consistent with the contemptuous tone of other exchanges in the debate.
The ruling has received considerable attention in the ever-boiling blogosphere.
Baglow has already posted about it on his Dawg's Blawg: "Needless to say, the mudfish on the far right are having a frenzied wankfest over this decision," he wrote, "but I can hardly blame them for that."
On Free Dominion, Mark Fournier wrote: "He (Baglow) tried to get the court to financially ruin our lives because he doesn't like our website. That he lost is justice."
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...amation+suit/5394818/story.html#ixzz1bk7lTzwn
在不久之前，安省最高法院已经撤销了一起聊天室引起的诉讼，并宣布论坛是不同于报纸，杂志和书籍的公共聊天的媒介，各方面都能在上面发言辩论。
所以说网友们对LZ的支持是对LZ的不负责任会导致Minto的反诉，这纯粹是误导，长老也不要毫无根据地想当然嘛。
Blog vs. blog: Judge throws out defamation suit
Decision gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out
By Andrew Duffy, Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2011
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...amation+suit/5394818/story.html#ixzz1bk5GPw5O
A recent court decision gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online - and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
Photograph by: File photo, Getty Images
An Ontario Superior Court judge has tossed out a defamation suit launched by an Ottawa blogger, Dr. Dawg, who claimed that an Internet chat room post damaged his reputation by calling him a Taliban supporter.
Justice Peter Annis's decision adds to the emerging body of law that governs the Internet's unruly marketplace of ideas. It gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online — and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
"If this decision stands, it makes a Wild West saloon out of the blogosphere: it becomes a place where normal defamation law seems to be suspended," said Ottawa's John Baglow, a.k.a. Dr. Dawg.
The retired bureaucrat and former executive with the Public Service Alliance of Canada vowed to appeal the decision. Annis ruled that Baglow was not defamed last year by a post that said he is "one of the Taliban's more vocal supporters."
The statement was made on the Free Dominion website in the course of an acrimonious debate - taking place on three websites over several days - about federal politics and the legality of Canadian Omar Khadr's military trial in the U.S.
Free Dominion, a chat site that bills itself as "the voice of principled conservatism," is operated by Mark and Connie Fournier, of Kingston.
In an interview with the Citizen, Connie Fournier hailed the judge's decision as an important victory for political bloggers.
"We feel the defamation law is outdated and really hasn't progressed with technology," she said. "So we think this is a step in the right direction: the judge acknowledged that a discussion in the blogosphere is a far different thing than publishing something in the Ottawa Citizen."
Online political forums are honest, passionate and conversational, Fournier said, and should not be held to the same standard as other published material. "If you do that," she said, "you're really opening the way for a lot of frivolous lawsuits: the courts could be overtaken by people saying, 'He called me an idiot'."
Baglow, a left-wing political blogger, sued the Fourniers after they refused to take down the post, made by Roger Smith, of Burnaby, B.C., on Aug. 11, 2010.
Baglow said the post unfairly equated his call for Khadr's repatriation with being a Taliban booster. Although opposed to the war in Afghanistan, Baglow said, he is a patriotic Canadian who considers the Taliban a dangerous, tyrannical regime.
The Fourniers, however, insisted the comment was a normal part of the rough-and-tumble blogosphere; they asked Annis to dismiss the lawsuit before it went to court.
In his recent decision, Annis sided with the Fourniers, ruling the case raised no genuine issue for trial.
Given that the posting amounted to an opinion, rather than a statement of fact, it was less likely to damage Baglow's reputation, the judge said, since opinions are not as readily believed.
What's more, Annis said, in the context of a political blog in which insults and invective are regularly traded, the comment was not defamatory.
The judge noted that former NDP leader Jack Layton was often referred to in the blogosphere as "Taliban Jack" without legal consequences. "No reasonably informed Canadian would conclude that Mr. Layton was defamed by being called Taliban Jack, understanding that this was simply a catchy label attached to him by conservatives to showcase what they consider the weakness of the liberal argument in this political debate," Annis said.
"Reasonably informed readers of these blogs would understand that labelling the plaintiff (Baglow) a supporter of the Taliban as performing the same function and would not consider the comment capable of lessening the reputation of the plaintiff."
The judge said the blogosphere offers a different context for libel than books, magazines or newspapers. Internet blogging, he said, is "a form of public conversation" that allows people to respond immediately to defamatory statements.
To that end, Annis said, Baglow could have removed the sting of the offending post by a rejoinder that set out his opposition to the Taliban.
"More importantly to the issue of context," the judge said, "the blogging audience is expecting and would indeed want to hear a rejoinder of this nature where the parry and thrust of the debaters is appreciated as much as the substance of what they say."
Instead of taking the opportunity to respond, however, Baglow assumed another Internet identify and raised the possibility of a lawsuit.
Annis suggested Baglow showed bad form by "walking off the blogging stage" instead of answering the insult, which he said was consistent with the contemptuous tone of other exchanges in the debate.
The ruling has received considerable attention in the ever-boiling blogosphere.
Baglow has already posted about it on his Dawg's Blawg: "Needless to say, the mudfish on the far right are having a frenzied wankfest over this decision," he wrote, "but I can hardly blame them for that."
On Free Dominion, Mark Fournier wrote: "He (Baglow) tried to get the court to financially ruin our lives because he doesn't like our website. That he lost is justice."
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...amation+suit/5394818/story.html#ixzz1bk7lTzwn
乘闲再说两句，有说诬陷的，有说诽谤的。
在不久之前，安省最高法院已经撤销了一起聊天室引起的诉讼，并宣布论坛是不同于报纸，杂志和书籍的公共聊天的媒介，各方面都能在上面发言辩论。
所以说网友们对LZ的支持是对LZ的不负责任会导致Minto的反诉，这纯粹是误导，长老也不要毫无根据地想当然嘛。
Blog vs. blog: Judge throws out defamation suit
Decision gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out
By Andrew Duffy, Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2011
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...amation+suit/5394818/story.html#ixzz1bk5GPw5O
A recent court decision gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online - and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
Photograph by: File photo, Getty Images
An Ontario Superior Court judge has tossed out a defamation suit launched by an Ottawa blogger, Dr. Dawg, who claimed that an Internet chat room post damaged his reputation by calling him a Taliban supporter.
Justice Peter Annis's decision adds to the emerging body of law that governs the Internet's unruly marketplace of ideas. It gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online — and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
"If this decision stands, it makes a Wild West saloon out of the blogosphere: it becomes a place where normal defamation law seems to be suspended," said Ottawa's John Baglow, a.k.a. Dr. Dawg.
The retired bureaucrat and former executive with the Public Service Alliance of Canada vowed to appeal the decision. Annis ruled that Baglow was not defamed last year by a post that said he is "one of the Taliban's more vocal supporters."
The statement was made on the Free Dominion website in the course of an acrimonious debate - taking place on three websites over several days - about federal politics and the legality of Canadian Omar Khadr's military trial in the U.S.
Free Dominion, a chat site that bills itself as "the voice of principled conservatism," is operated by Mark and Connie Fournier, of Kingston.
In an interview with the Citizen, Connie Fournier hailed the judge's decision as an important victory for political bloggers.
"We feel the defamation law is outdated and really hasn't progressed with technology," she said. "So we think this is a step in the right direction: the judge acknowledged that a discussion in the blogosphere is a far different thing than publishing something in the Ottawa Citizen."
Online political forums are honest, passionate and conversational, Fournier said, and should not be held to the same standard as other published material. "If you do that," she said, "you're really opening the way for a lot of frivolous lawsuits: the courts could be overtaken by people saying, 'He called me an idiot'."
Baglow, a left-wing political blogger, sued the Fourniers after they refused to take down the post, made by Roger Smith, of Burnaby, B.C., on Aug. 11, 2010.
Baglow said the post unfairly equated his call for Khadr's repatriation with being a Taliban booster. Although opposed to the war in Afghanistan, Baglow said, he is a patriotic Canadian who considers the Taliban a dangerous, tyrannical regime.
The Fourniers, however, insisted the comment was a normal part of the rough-and-tumble blogosphere; they asked Annis to dismiss the lawsuit before it went to court.
In his recent decision, Annis sided with the Fourniers, ruling the case raised no genuine issue for trial.
Given that the posting amounted to an opinion, rather than a statement of fact, it was less likely to damage Baglow's reputation, the judge said, since opinions are not as readily believed.
What's more, Annis said, in the context of a political blog in which insults and invective are regularly traded, the comment was not defamatory.
The judge noted that former NDP leader Jack Layton was often referred to in the blogosphere as "Taliban Jack" without legal consequences. "No reasonably informed Canadian would conclude that Mr. Layton was defamed by being called Taliban Jack, understanding that this was simply a catchy label attached to him by conservatives to showcase what they consider the weakness of the liberal argument in this political debate," Annis said.
"Reasonably informed readers of these blogs would understand that labelling the plaintiff (Baglow) a supporter of the Taliban as performing the same function and would not consider the comment capable of lessening the reputation of the plaintiff."
The judge said the blogosphere offers a different context for libel than books, magazines or newspapers. Internet blogging, he said, is "a form of public conversation" that allows people to respond immediately to defamatory statements.
To that end, Annis said, Baglow could have removed the sting of the offending post by a rejoinder that set out his opposition to the Taliban.
"More importantly to the issue of context," the judge said, "the blogging audience is expecting and would indeed want to hear a rejoinder of this nature where the parry and thrust of the debaters is appreciated as much as the substance of what they say."
Instead of taking the opportunity to respond, however, Baglow assumed another Internet identify and raised the possibility of a lawsuit.
Annis suggested Baglow showed bad form by "walking off the blogging stage" instead of answering the insult, which he said was consistent with the contemptuous tone of other exchanges in the debate.
The ruling has received considerable attention in the ever-boiling blogosphere.
Baglow has already posted about it on his Dawg's Blawg: "Needless to say, the mudfish on the far right are having a frenzied wankfest over this decision," he wrote, "but I can hardly blame them for that."
On Free Dominion, Mark Fournier wrote: "He (Baglow) tried to get the court to financially ruin our lives because he doesn't like our website. That he lost is justice."
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...amation+suit/5394818/story.html#ixzz1bk7lTzwn
谢谢您的信息。以那几位所谓"长老"的聪明才智，上通天，下达地，谈古论今，无所不知，无何不晓，此等信息怎能不知？无奈各有所需，各种表演也不奇怪。
下面这2个LINK就发生在本论坛，大家看看是法庭的力量大，还是群众运动的力量大
2005 年8月23日，求公理同学在CFC单方面的Blah Blah Blah， 当时也是CFC群情激愤， 愤怒声讨。。。。
http://bbs.comefromchina.com/forum66/thread373221.html
也不见被Blah 的一方在CFC废什么话， 几个月后，
2006年4月3日求公里同学的公开消毒
http://bbs.comefromchina.com/forum5/thread423368.html#post4327859
一切都要看对方怎么看CFC的群众运动了。。。不认真的话，随你便，爱咋地咋地， 认真的话， Minto的力量不比那位律师弱吧
2005 年8月23日，求公理同学在CFC单方面的Blah Blah Blah， 当时也是CFC群情激愤， 愤怒声讨。。。。
http://bbs.comefromchina.com/forum66/thread373221.html
也不见被Blah 的一方在CFC废什么话， 几个月后，
2006年4月3日求公里同学的公开消毒
http://bbs.comefromchina.com/forum5/thread423368.html#post4327859
一切都要看对方怎么看CFC的群众运动了。。。不认真的话，随你便，爱咋地咋地， 认真的话， Minto的力量不比那位律师弱吧
- 注册
- 2003-08-23
- 消息
- 26,235
- 荣誉分数
- 5,650
- 声望点数
- 373
老大，您的意思表达的够清楚啦，再说就多啦。人家已经把你当成minto的托啦，虽然我知道minto连你是谁都搞不清楚。
一番好心被当成了驴肝肺，还那么热心干嘛。
知道这个帖子，为啥这么火?因为你我之类“主和派”太多话，有些人正愁找不到对手。
试试歇两天，看看有多少人响应“出钱，出力”的“硬碰硬”号召。
“羊肉吃不到，惹来一身骚”的事情要少做。
今天我的这个帖子，应该没有攻击过任何人，各位不要对号入座，更不要砸砖，保持论坛平和，是大家应尽的义务。
一番好心被当成了驴肝肺，还那么热心干嘛。
知道这个帖子，为啥这么火?因为你我之类“主和派”太多话，有些人正愁找不到对手。
试试歇两天，看看有多少人响应“出钱，出力”的“硬碰硬”号召。
“羊肉吃不到，惹来一身骚”的事情要少做。
今天我的这个帖子，应该没有攻击过任何人，各位不要对号入座，更不要砸砖，保持论坛平和，是大家应尽的义务。
乘闲再说两句，有说诬陷的，有说诽谤的。
在不久之前，安省最高法院已经撤销了一起聊天室引起的诉讼，并宣布论坛是不同于报纸，杂志和书籍的公共聊天的媒介，各方面都能在上面发言辩论。
所以说网友们对LZ的支持是对LZ的不负责任会导致Minto的反诉，这纯粹是误导，长老也不要毫无根据地想当然嘛。
Blog vs. blog: Judge throws out defamation suit
Decision gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out
By Andrew Duffy, Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2011
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...amation+suit/5394818/story.html#ixzz1bk5GPw5O
A recent court decision gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online - and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
Photograph by: File photo, Getty Images
An Ontario Superior Court judge has tossed out a defamation suit launched by an Ottawa blogger, Dr. Dawg, who claimed that an Internet chat room post damaged his reputation by calling him a Taliban supporter.
Justice Peter Annis's decision adds to the emerging body of law that governs the Internet's unruly marketplace of ideas. It gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online — and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
"If this decision stands, it makes a Wild West saloon out of the blogosphere: it becomes a place where normal defamation law seems to be suspended," said Ottawa's John Baglow, a.k.a. Dr. Dawg.
The retired bureaucrat and former executive with the Public Service Alliance of Canada vowed to appeal the decision. Annis ruled that Baglow was not defamed last year by a post that said he is "one of the Taliban's more vocal supporters."
The statement was made on the Free Dominion website in the course of an acrimonious debate - taking place on three websites over several days - about federal politics and the legality of Canadian Omar Khadr's military trial in the U.S.
Free Dominion, a chat site that bills itself as "the voice of principled conservatism," is operated by Mark and Connie Fournier, of Kingston.
In an interview with the Citizen, Connie Fournier hailed the judge's decision as an important victory for political bloggers.
"We feel the defamation law is outdated and really hasn't progressed with technology," she said. "So we think this is a step in the right direction: the judge acknowledged that a discussion in the blogosphere is a far different thing than publishing something in the Ottawa Citizen."
Online political forums are honest, passionate and conversational, Fournier said, and should not be held to the same standard as other published material. "If you do that," she said, "you're really opening the way for a lot of frivolous lawsuits: the courts could be overtaken by people saying, 'He called me an idiot'."
Baglow, a left-wing political blogger, sued the Fourniers after they refused to take down the post, made by Roger Smith, of Burnaby, B.C., on Aug. 11, 2010.
Baglow said the post unfairly equated his call for Khadr's repatriation with being a Taliban booster. Although opposed to the war in Afghanistan, Baglow said, he is a patriotic Canadian who considers the Taliban a dangerous, tyrannical regime.
The Fourniers, however, insisted the comment was a normal part of the rough-and-tumble blogosphere; they asked Annis to dismiss the lawsuit before it went to court.
In his recent decision, Annis sided with the Fourniers, ruling the case raised no genuine issue for trial.
Given that the posting amounted to an opinion, rather than a statement of fact, it was less likely to damage Baglow's reputation, the judge said, since opinions are not as readily believed.
What's more, Annis said, in the context of a political blog in which insults and invective are regularly traded, the comment was not defamatory.
The judge noted that former NDP leader Jack Layton was often referred to in the blogosphere as "Taliban Jack" without legal consequences. "No reasonably informed Canadian would conclude that Mr. Layton was defamed by being called Taliban Jack, understanding that this was simply a catchy label attached to him by conservatives to showcase what they consider the weakness of the liberal argument in this political debate," Annis said.
"Reasonably informed readers of these blogs would understand that labelling the plaintiff (Baglow) a supporter of the Taliban as performing the same function and would not consider the comment capable of lessening the reputation of the plaintiff."
The judge said the blogosphere offers a different context for libel than books, magazines or newspapers. Internet blogging, he said, is "a form of public conversation" that allows people to respond immediately to defamatory statements.
To that end, Annis said, Baglow could have removed the sting of the offending post by a rejoinder that set out his opposition to the Taliban.
"More importantly to the issue of context," the judge said, "the blogging audience is expecting and would indeed want to hear a rejoinder of this nature where the parry and thrust of the debaters is appreciated as much as the substance of what they say."
Instead of taking the opportunity to respond, however, Baglow assumed another Internet identify and raised the possibility of a lawsuit.
Annis suggested Baglow showed bad form by "walking off the blogging stage" instead of answering the insult, which he said was consistent with the contemptuous tone of other exchanges in the debate.
The ruling has received considerable attention in the ever-boiling blogosphere.
Baglow has already posted about it on his Dawg's Blawg: "Needless to say, the mudfish on the far right are having a frenzied wankfest over this decision," he wrote, "but I can hardly blame them for that."
On Free Dominion, Mark Fournier wrote: "He (Baglow) tried to get the court to financially ruin our lives because he doesn't like our website. That he lost is justice."
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...amation+suit/5394818/story.html#ixzz1bk7lTzwn
Defamation suit is extremely hard to prove, since free speech is guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution.
One needs to establish direct causal effect between what's being said and damage to one's reputation for the charge to stand in court.
