mamooth
Diamond Member
No, not the Mann vs. Steyn case. That comes later. This is the case of Dr. Andrew Weaver being libeled by deniers.
2015 BCSC 165 Weaver v. Corcoran
---
[289] As in Leenen, the defamation in this case was serious. It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction. The libel was widely published by at least one high profile journalist and two others. In addition, the libel effectively ran through a serious of articles in a national newspaper published over a short and continuous time period. Re-publication of the libel occurred as established by the plaintiff.
[290] I am of the view a significant award is appropriate. The inferential meaning of the words implies a serious defect in character that impacts Dr. Weaver’s academic and professional world. The evidence establishes Dr. Weaver was deeply affected by what he perceived as a barrage of articles impugning his integrity and academic reputation. These gave rise to the “Wall of Hate” that he maintained outside his office; comments, he noted, which arose after the publication of those articles.
[291] I consider an award of $50,000 in general damages against all defendants jointly and severally to be appropriate in this case. I decline to award aggravated or punitive damages. I have not found malice to be present in this case.
---
It's Canada, of course, and it's highly unlikely a suit like that could win in the USA. And it's not a huge award. However, it's a welcome precedent.
Deniers, you can take heart that the "We weren't deliberately malicious, we were just stupid!" defense was taken into account as a mitigating factor for assigning damages. And always remember, if you don't want to get sued, don't make stuff up.
2015 BCSC 165 Weaver v. Corcoran
---
[289] As in Leenen, the defamation in this case was serious. It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction. The libel was widely published by at least one high profile journalist and two others. In addition, the libel effectively ran through a serious of articles in a national newspaper published over a short and continuous time period. Re-publication of the libel occurred as established by the plaintiff.
[290] I am of the view a significant award is appropriate. The inferential meaning of the words implies a serious defect in character that impacts Dr. Weaver’s academic and professional world. The evidence establishes Dr. Weaver was deeply affected by what he perceived as a barrage of articles impugning his integrity and academic reputation. These gave rise to the “Wall of Hate” that he maintained outside his office; comments, he noted, which arose after the publication of those articles.
[291] I consider an award of $50,000 in general damages against all defendants jointly and severally to be appropriate in this case. I decline to award aggravated or punitive damages. I have not found malice to be present in this case.
---
It's Canada, of course, and it's highly unlikely a suit like that could win in the USA. And it's not a huge award. However, it's a welcome precedent.
Deniers, you can take heart that the "We weren't deliberately malicious, we were just stupid!" defense was taken into account as a mitigating factor for assigning damages. And always remember, if you don't want to get sued, don't make stuff up.