Legal Brief
This punkalawyer blogger is threatening an Ottawa-based blogger named Mark Bourrie with a libel suit over a post that has something to do with the former's supposed role in the Adscam thingie.
I would have linked to Bourrie's blog. But, today, he posted the notice of libel which contains the contentious paragraph. If I link to it, it could mean that I would be guilty of republishing the libel which is just as bad as making the original libel. I would rather avoid the grief.
Bourrie refuses to back down.
I am not familiar with the precedents, if any, on blogolibel lawsuits so I am going to keep an eye on this one.
UPPITY DATE: Tod Maffin has a great take here.
My prediction: Kinsella will back down when he realizes his case is unwinnable. In which case, Mark the blogger deserves an apology.
Dude. Seriously. You’re a lawyer. Relax. Drive your BMW around a couple of blocks.
TOMORROW NITE DATE: Uh, Warren, does this mean you're not giving me a lift to tomorrow night's blogstravanganza anymore?
Antonia,
Gee, sounds like the blogs are being somewhat threatening to someone, eh? Best to leave the fighting dogs to settle things on their own, I think!
Posted by: Bill-Muskoka | January 26, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Didn't take long to find Mark Bourrie's Blog and attack poodle warren Kinsella's SLAP suit. I guess fair comment rules only apply to Warren Kinsella. He didn't know nuttin', OK? Neither did Paul, or so he says.
First hand experiences aside, usually these kinds of PR 'bimbo' eruptions are reserved for those with a big chip on their shoulders, or something similar.
Warren must be feeling just a little uncomfortable to lash out in this fashion.
More Liberal skulduggery for diversionary purposes.
Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle | January 26, 2006 at 05:13 PM
Warren the K *hearts* bloggers.
Just go to http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings_april05.htm
and scroll down to April 15th for another example of his wackiness.
You're a class act, War.
Posted by: | January 26, 2006 at 08:39 PM
Well, blog advocates wanted weblogs to be taken seriously. Welcome to the big time -- people can and will threaten to sue the pants off you; sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's a scare tactic. I think that Kinsella's case may be weak, but who knows? If Mark is in fact libeling him, then he'll face the consequences.
Incidentally, I don't blame Antonia for not linking to Bourrie's blog. I'm no lawyer, but I've been on the receiving end of these actions and threats before. The situation in Canada is seriously screwed up -- reprinting or possibly linking to the "Libelous Words" exposes you to be named even if you make it clear that these are not your views or words, a situtation our American friends don't face. I find the system to be completely tilted in favour of the person making the complaint, but that's a whole other story...
Posted by: Ian King | January 26, 2006 at 09:56 PM
As Mark-Alan says, it's not difficult to find the mystery Ottawa blogger keeping watch up there. Go post a comforting word.
And have a blast at Fiddlers Green AZ - with or without the litigious Mr.K.!!
Posted by: Diana-Marie | January 26, 2006 at 11:20 PM
Apart from proving Mr. K is a jackass he is also rather ill advised to be pursuing this in light of the evidence of his "foisting" which was before the Gomery Commission and which I have up on my blog.
Posted by: Jay Currie | January 27, 2006 at 02:39 AM
Good work, mate. Pure gold, Kinseller feller. Way to draw everyone's attention to your role in Adscam, once again. And if you're stupid enough to take this to court (which obviously you won't because you can't be THAT insane), every little detail of your involvement (including a rehash of the Gomery Commission findings) will come out once again in drips and drabs on a daily basis for the whole world to see...magnified 100x. Smart move. Not.
Be a big boy and suck it up. A little 'free speech' in the blogosphere never hurt anyone, eh? That's what you keep saying is so great about blogs, isn't it? You know, the fact that you can say anything about anyone and no one can control your punk ass...nah-nah-nah-NAAAHHH-nah, etc.
Posted by: Glowbull | January 27, 2006 at 06:34 AM
Of course I'm giving you a ride. Don't be silly.
Thanks for the link, Jay.
Posted by: Warren K | January 27, 2006 at 10:23 AM
I think you'll find that this has more to do with personal animosity than bloggers' rights. It isn't the first time Kinsella and Bourrie have squared off over libel claims. They've be a'feuding for years.
By way of example, here's a link to one of their recent Internet spats:
http://www.commentsplease.com/collection/client/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=B83451F6-CB75-32B0-D9179CBA0C0C405E
If you ask me, neither one of them deserve the publicity.
Posted by: -K | January 27, 2006 at 02:01 PM
Had to happen eventually Warren, now do what Glowbull suggests and "suck it up".
Posted by: Jay Currie | January 27, 2006 at 02:06 PM