Unfortunately, while very scummy framing, it's not something that would get anywhere in court. He is known for that incident, and they didn't call him any -ist. It doesn't matter that he's known for it because the media lied their asses off about it, he's known because of it.
Professor Brown notes that the common law of defamation has been described by scholars and judges as "artificial and archaic" and characterized by "absurdities", "irrationality", and "minute and barren distinctions"
I wonder how much of these "minute distinctions" need to be removed before Canadian libel law is as bad as America's. Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds discussed not only NYT v. Sullivan, but Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., which redefined "public figure" to mean anyone the media sees fit to demonize. SSRN is down right now, but here is the link to the law paper.
Next lawsuit is coming.
Unfortunately, while very scummy framing, it's not something that would get anywhere in court. He is known for that incident, and they didn't call him any -ist. It doesn't matter that he's known for it because the media lied their asses off about it, he's known because of it.
This.
While super weasely worded, there isn't anything technically incorrect about the title.
This is Canadian so he can't do shit about it
Canada has libel & slander laws too, looser than the US actually so it's easier not impossible.
No, not looser:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law
I wonder how much of these "minute distinctions" need to be removed before Canadian libel law is as bad as America's. Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds discussed not only NYT v. Sullivan, but Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., which redefined "public figure" to mean anyone the media sees fit to demonize. SSRN is down right now, but here is the link to the law paper.