Another article on the ClamFeed

The (Toronto) Globe and Mail 950721, page A1, lead story

$1.6-million libel award upheld Supreme Court defends 'importance of reputation' in Scientology decision

by Sean Fine, Justice Reporter

Public officials have the same right to protect their reputation as anyone else, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday in upholding a $1.6-million dollar libel award - the largest in the country's history. While several writer's groups had urged the court to permit a more freewheeling, U.S.-style system of public crticism, the court said unanimously that the current law of defamation strikes the proper balance between free speech and protecting reputations. [....] The case dates from September, 1984, when Toronto lawyer Morris Manning, accompanied by Church of Scientology representatives, held a news conference on the local courthouse steps. Wearing his barrister's gown, he read from documents that Scientology was planning to file with a court alleging that Casey Hill, an official in the Crown law office, had misled a high-court judge and violated orders sealing Scientology documents. Mr. Manning said Scientology was planning to file criminal contempt charges against Mr. Hill; the allegations were broadcast on televison stations that reach hundreds of thousands of people, and published in The Globe and Mail. However, during the contempt case, the charges against Mr. Hill were found to be untrue. Mr. Hill sued, and a jury awarded him $1.6-million, most of it from Scientology, since it had continued to press its contempt claim and repeat its allegations long after they were revealed to be without foundation. Mr. Manning was ordered to pay $150,000. [....] Kent Thomson, who represented [now Mr. Justice Hill of the Ontario Court's General Division], said the judgment "fully vindicates Casey Hill and his reputation." Rev. Al Buttnor, a spokesman for the Church of Scientology, said the decision is a severe setback for free speech. A civil-liberties group said the decision, in particular the size of the libel penalty it permits, will have a chilling effect on criticism of public officials. [....]

###

With public figures in the US I believe that "actual malice" is required to prove libel for a person "thrust into the vortex" of public opinion.

But it also seems as if as long as prior restraint on speech doesn't occur, nor does *government initiated* libel proceedings, then the threat to speech from libel prosecutions is minimal.

Why should malicious lying be a protected activity? Or, rather, why should a person lose the civil right of redress for damage simply because s/he enters public service?