Supreme Court rules on "fair comment"

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the issue of "fair comment" in libel and defamation suits.

Read the story.

"An individual's reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but unavoidable roadkill on the highway of public controversy, but nor should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted to 'chill' freewheeling debate on matters of public interest," Mr. Justice Ian Binnie said.

Generally it allows people, in this case a radio commentator, to express exaggerated opinions if there is an "honest belief" that the facts are true.

The legal tests the court set out to determine "honest belief" include:

The comment must be on a matter of public interest.

It must be based on fact.

Although it can include inferences of fact, the comment must be recognizable as comment.

It must be capable of satisfying the question: Could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?

The fact remains that Blogger the Editor is a lying, mentally-ill, drug-addled douche bag.

If you look at that sentence, douche bag is the exaggerated opinion based on provable facts that she is a liar, has written extensively about being mentally ill and was "suitably medicated" in preparing to watch a TV broadcast of a town council meeting. She has made herself into a person of some minor public interest. Therefore, the comment is fair.