Today was a very exciting day in court, but, I have a bad tooth-ache and so I will be extremely brief…
Towards the end of the day, during Dr. Baglow’s cross examination, the term SLAPP came up. The judge was puzzled.
Dr. Baglow explained that SLAPP is a commonly used abbreviation for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
Madam Justice marveled at this concept, said she’s never heard of this before and busily scribbling notes, asked for an example.
Oh, and this afternoon, she also asked what a ‘thread’ is.
Excuse me, my tooth-ache just got worse…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
March 28, 2014 at 16:59
I wouldn’t be too hard on the judge regarding prior internet knowledge–the principles of defamation are well established and the parties and their counsel really should be able to argue why internet political debate is or is not something that requires some variations on these principles. I’d say it is similar to a judge having to decide something like a medical malpractice case–the judge needn’t be a doctor to figure it out-that is what the expert testimony that the court of appeal envisioned would be brought into a trial is meant to do. Now it may be these litigants can’t afford experts…
March 29, 2014 at 17:53
Marky Mark said:
..similar to a judge having to decide something like a medical malpractice case–the judge needn’t be a doctor to figure it out-that is what the expert testimony … is meant to do.
Now it may be these litigants can’t afford experts…
In this particular case, the Court is hearing expert testimony from Connie Fournier, whose personal knowledge of operating a discussion forum in Canada will assist the Court’s understanding of the nature of internet ‘lawfare’.
March 29, 2014 at 18:02
Yes, I am sure it will.
We have only seen the prosecution’s side of the story – and not complete, at that!
Instead of the 3 days this trial was scheduled for, it took 5 full days so far, we will come back for 3 days to hear the rest of the cross-examination of Dr. Baglow in June (as his communication with his lawyer is severely limited until the cross examination is complete), and then we’ll be back for a week in September to hear the defense’s side of the story.
Connie is a brilliant person and I am sure that she will do a very good job explaining things to the court. Mr. Smith is very passionate about freedom of speech and it is clear to any observer that he is honest in his convictions.
By the way, Maikeru, Dr. Baglow has testified he knows your real-life name, but did not out you in court.
March 29, 2014 at 18:30
By the way, Maikeru, Dr. Baglow has testified he knows your real-life name, but did not out you in court.
Unlike Mr. Baglow, Mr. Warman, or say, Mr. Abrams, I’ve used my real-life name on FreeDominion since I joined there.
I used the same name on Jay Currie’s original blogsite, wherein Mr. Baglow stated, as is his wont, that I was a ‘nazi’.
My personal impression of Mr. Baglow is that he suffers from a dementia of sorts, which surfaces at the oddest moments – as when he caught the nonsense that emanates from Warren Kinsella during the ‘Fernhill Incident’, but tongue-bathed that weirdo rather than giving him the tongue-lashing he deserved.
I’m confident that any and every posting I’ve made on FreeDominion is acceptable by any reasonable person who reads them, and that I’m a decent example of FreeDominion members.
April 1, 2014 at 05:59
She sounds positively bewildered.