Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb
From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Censorship in Canada, Freedom of Speech and Zundel
Message-ID: <501@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 15:41:24 EST
Article-I.D.: ccivax.501
Posted: Thu Mar 20 15:41:24 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 23:09:24 EST
References: <1725@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?)
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 16
Summary: was it simply lible/slander?

>> To recap his case we should recall that the prosecutor had to 
>>prove that the content of his pamphlets was false. In addition, it had to 
>>be shown that he was capable of knowing them to be false and that his 
>>intent was to arouse hatred against a particular group. The prosecution
>>failing on any one of these points might have acquited Zundel.
>
Wasn't the prosecutor also supposed to prove that Zundel also advocated
action (rather than just hatred) against the target groups?  Or that
actions against the target groups as a result of his pamphlets caused
damages to members of those groups? (I don't know the answer)

If those additional facts were provable in a U.S. civil proceeding, the
result would have been a class action lible suit.  It might not have
sent Zundel to jail, but it would have made it hard to do business.
If they were provable beyond a reasonable doubt, there might be a
case for criminal lible.