this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
61 points (98.4% liked)

Canada

9965 readers
782 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ragica@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 day ago (3 children)

'her lawyer reminded her they were fighting for “the principle of free speech.” “I’m hoping that the activists will now realize there are limits to their behavior,” she said.'

So the "principle of free speech" they were fighting for was the principle of limits to free speech?

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

The 'her' is the author, the 'they' is the activist.

The comment was in relation to the size of the settlement, and the author's satisfaction with the judgement.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago

In Canada all rights are limited

But defamation laws exist in a lot of countries

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Free speech for me, but not for thee.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'd like to know more about the ruling than what's presented in the article. And I guess I'd need to know more about Canadian defamation law.

Not reading the book is unfortunate (sort of)...but it seems like a person could form a sincerely-held beliefs about a book without reading the thing cover to cover.

Canadian defamation law is actually much stricter than US law - truth isn't always an absolute defense and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove their statements werent defamatory.

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

I haven't read the book either but from the description and from my own knowledge of the systemic racism within Canada, the racist history of the RCMP and police forces in canada, and the known practice of "starlight tours", I would 100% understand why someone would surmise that the book is racist garbage.

I almost want to read it to find out how the author could possibly justify any of the police actions, but I'd really rather not, so I'm just going to make my own assumptions about why the judge ruled the way they did (and I have one very obvious guess).