In mid November, Oliver Canby got through my referral block of newipnow dot com and accessed my website despite being told as far back as 2012 to stay away – a notice he publicly stated he was ignoring. After all the attempts I have made to keep him off my website – and also keep Yuval Levental off as well – and failed; I’ve had it.
As of now, the blog lobby’s password protection has been removed. Both of you can look. It doesn’t matter. You can take no action to prevent me publishing what I have because it is all legal and above board. I am protected by the following realities of defamation law;
1. As you two are in America it is up to you to prove you (and only you and no one else, Levental) have been defamed. It is not up to me to prove anything. This is the reverse of Australian defamation law where if you defame me it is up to you to prove that what you said about me is in any way defensible. That applies to defamation cases activated by me.
2. Now I don’t know if this would apply in America or not but at a guess this is a pretty good guide when it comes to defences of accusations of defamation. I wouldn’t need to of course if either of you sued me as I said in point 1 but for the record here are the defences that apply;
a. It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.
b. It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that;
(i) the matter carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains, one or more other imputations (contextual imputations) that are substantially true; and
(ii) the defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.
c. It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that;
(i) the matter was an expression of opinion of the defendant, an employee or agent of the defendant or another person (the commentator) rather than a statement of fact; and
(ii) the opinion related to a matter of public interest; and
(iii) the opinion is based on proper material.
d. It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm.
Each of those applies to what I have said about not just you two, but others as well including Jonathan Mitchell in particular. I state my opinions of the basis of what I believe to be true based on what I have read and am responding to in each instance. I prefer obviously to rely on one’s own words rather than the opinions of others, but I will use the latter if I either agree with the commentary or if I believe the comment to be truthful.
This statement as I said doesn’t just apply to Canby and Levental. It applies to anyone else I have commented on here on the Blog Lobby – Best, Taylor, Cresp/Lurker, Pal, Joseph and Kagan as well as others as the case may be. I take my responsibilities in public comment very seriously. I am aware of my restrictions. The bottom line on all of you is that you have already got yourselves a reputation – and see point 2d in particular before you have a go at me for harming it. I can easily prove you have already done yourselves a lot of harm and I couldn’t harm you any more than that.
So if you want to take some sort of legal action against me – in the immortal words of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson;
Just Bring It!!