Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Ban the new testement with the Zundel law
Message-ID: <415@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 14:11:34 EST
Article-I.D.: mnetor.415
Posted: Fri Apr 12 14:11:34 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 16:05:32 EST
References: <407@mnetor.UUCP> <5459@utzoo.UUCP> <260@looking.UUCP> <413@mnetor.UUCP> <414@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 38

> 	However, can we in good faith take away the principle of the
> accussed being innocent until proven guilty? The answer I would
> give is, "no". There seems to be just too much chance of 
> innocent questioning being interpreted wrongly. How can we tell
> that the accused intended to incite hatred? We are not mind
> readers. And if we convict someone who had no intent, have we
> not defeated the right of free speech? True, it is difficult to
> obtain a conviction in most such cases, but as in general, we
> must have certain safeguards to prevent conviction of the innocent.
> 
> Cheers,		Fred Williams

Yup, I agree with most of what you said, only a minor disagreement
with the last paragraph (as I have included here).

The paragraph seems to imply that you think that in a suit for
libel/slander that the onus of proof should be on the plaintiff.
Right?  (or were you just refering to criminal charges?)

That means that if I am accused of murder by someone, that in a suit
of libel/slander I should have to prove that I didn't?  Yech!  I hope not!
The whole point of the libel/slander laws is to protect individuals
from unfounded accusations.  (As the criminal law does by making
the Crown *prove* it's assertions).  If we make the libel/slander
laws work for groups, then we have the situation where the group
defamed does *not* have to prove the allegations false (because they
are the ones accused), the defamer has to prove them true.

Therefore, if we extend the libel/slander laws to apply to groups,
then the "accused" *is* protected by the "onus of proof", the "accuser" 
isn't.  The only difference is that the accused brings the suit, 
not the accuser (as it is in criminal cases)

Right?
-- 
Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd.
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321