It will not be precedent in the Caribbean unless a ruling is made by our local court. but it may be persuasive.

@Raquel Gilkes. You know you don’t need anyone to tell you that you are right and that the guidance given by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will likely be accepted by the Barbados courts and the CCJ and other courts in other common law jurisdictions.

@lemuel. I agree completely. It is quite a complex area of law – or can be – even if it does not involve the Internet. Your point if correct that there are many instances in which you know the truth of a situation, but lack the evidence that a court would consider necessary. Regrettably, in these instances, it is best if you simply hold your tongue or your pen or your keyboard, because unless you have proof that will stand up in court, you expose yourself to an action for defamation. It has been previously stated that an absence of malice is probably the best defense against defamation. I happen to agree with that as a general guideline. Therefore, I recommend to you only two very simple avenues to follow that will likely give the best protection. First, have (and send David) the solid evidence of what you allege. Second, ensure that there is an absence of malice.

As we move into the run-up for general elections, the blogs are going to be used (and often misused) by the spin doctors of the two main parties. Defamation in this respect comes under what has been called the “Public Figure Doctrine” and allows greater latitude when public figures are involved. However, once again absence of malice comes into play. Of course, public figures traditionally do not sue except in the most extreme circumstances, because, predictably, there is a certain amount of fear as to what other things such court cases might uncover and provide a platform for.

I would say that David and his associates at BU have been extremely effective in dealing with the avoidance of possible accusations of defamation. They have not been slow to issue very public apologies where they feel that defamation has occurred and to remove the offending posts when these have slipped through. In my view, BU has acted honourably and fairly in all instances, even when the likelihood of effective legal retaliation has been slight to none. This shows the utmost good-will (“uberrima fides” for the Latin scholars amongst us) on the part of BU.

However, BU/David, with the build-up to the elections kicking in and the spin doctors and party supporters looking for every advantage they can find, man, you got yuh wuk cut out fuh yuh!

@lemuel

Thanks for your comment believe it or not BU has a posted Comments Policy – http://bajan.wordpress.com/comments-policy/. BU’s journey so far can be described as a Project, a journey through uncharted waters. BU invite you to journey with us.