- Joined
- Aug 20, 2017
- Messages
- 8,213
- Reaction score
- 23,679
Hardly. It merely means that anyone writing about another culture needs to properly know their shit, which I think is a reasonable bar. But in the interests of compromise I'm willing to settle for expecting them to be more no likely to get things wrong then someone who's lived in that culture all that life. How does that sound? We hold them to the same standard rather than higher.Absolute nonsense. That road leads logically to one place - the only thing any human can write is an autobiography. It's madness.
Agemegos has touched on what I mean....and what specific harm was done in that case? The Sinn Fein bagmen were able to get more money out of Boston from sympathizers who read the WoD product? The UVF picked up their guns again? Be specific.
"A level of reputational harm that would be legally actionable under UK defamation laws if it was applied to an individual rather than a group". I know less about it, but I also think it reaches that level in Canadian law but not US law.
That said, I'm happy to use "insult" instead of "harm" here? It strikes me as mostly semantics anyway.
I think the same applies to criticism though. Unless someone goes "let's go round Pete Nash's house and break his windows" we're not really meeting the standard you're applying. Even hyberbolic threats of violence may not qualify. I may threaten to bop Voros on the nose (and he would deserve it as we all know) but it's empty unless I can actually do it or get someone else to.
A rabbithole of facts? Proving libel (slander is even harder to prove) is very difficult in any Western country besides the UK. That's a fact.
Yeah, I don't like our laws but libel reform is beyond the scope of this forum. But libel isn't *that* hard to legally prove in Candian law, just comparatively to the UK. (As you say, slander is a different matter)