To: scion who wrote (11514 ) 10/20/2011 11:12:58 PM From: SI Dave Respond to I believe these two findings by the U.S. federal court are the more relevant passages from iHub's landmark SPEECH Act case. The SPEECH Act bars enforcement of foreign defamation judgment where the foreign laws do not provide as much protection of speech as the First Amendment and/or do not provide the protections of the CDA.19. The parties acknowledge, and the Court finds, that Canadian law does not provide as much protection of speech as the First Amendment, federal law, and Florida law. For example, the First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff who is either a public official or public figure must prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice, meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard to the statement’s truth or falsity. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 111 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964); Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (1967). The Canadian Supreme Court has specifically refused to adopt the Sullivan actual malice standards for Canadian defamation actions. See Hill v. Church of Scientology, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 (Can.) (stating that Court will not adopt Sullivan standard in Canada). See also Grant v. Torstar Corp., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 (Can.) (modifying Canadian Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 18 Filed 06/20/11 Page 5 of 6 defamation law while still rejecting First Amendment standards); Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 1:9.75, at 1-17 – 1-29 (describing differences between United States law and “the more plaintiff-friendly” Canadian defamation law). 20. Nor does Canadian law provide the protections for freedom of on-line speech provided by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230.
