Wily D wrote:
Hmm, interesting - I'll offer this ref http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?page=defamation-and-slapps/#faq_defences-to-d... Which notes that Canadians (sans Quebeckers, as is always the case) enjoy something being "substantially true" as a complete defense to libel, and defamation requires *either* slander or libel in Canada (possibly sans Quebec). There are a stack of other defenses, though none would apply here. Of course, the real damage for telling someone they're blocked indef, especially if you just note what they did in a non-derogitory way is likely to be very small - I could see nominal damages of $1 or less ...
Whether this sort of thing applies to Quebec depends on whether defamation is a federal or provincial matter. If this is provincial there would clearly be problems in trying to impose the Quebec Civil Code on residents of other provinces.
That said, if someone wanted to sue me in Guatamala or other places with unusual defamation laws, I suppose my only defense would be that you can't get blood from a stone. I'm also unclear on the enforcability of such judgements. Anyone know?
They'd have to get you there to enforce anything. Effectively that prevents you from going to visit Maya ruins in Guatemala.
There have been successful UK cases against Americans that would have failed in the US courts. The US has typically refused to honour any such decisions. Of course, people so affected travel to the UK at their own risk.
Ec