Wily D wrote:
Hmm, interesting - I'll offer this ref
http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?page=defamation-and-slapps/#faq_defences-to-…
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