Of course, we don’t live there. So I guess you are safe.

I don’t understand the need for this kind of juvenile snark on your website.

I don’t understand people who go around asking themselves if there is a need for other people to express themselves in a particular way. I view that as sort of a tell.

We don’t ask ourselves, “Who will get this joke?” We say to ourselves, “The right people will get the joke.”

— Joel Hodgson

When I comment at Walter Olson’s site, I try to do it in a manner that I won’t bring shame to Mr. Olson. I don’t want others to think that his audience is made up of low-rent people.

But when I write at my own site, I’m writing for my own amusement. If others are amused or informed, that pleases me, but not so much that I’m going to begin writing think-tank whitepapers to satisfy some Gumby from a podunk country barely larger than New York.

I don’t understand the need for this kind of juvenile snark on your website. That sort of thing tends to confirm Canadian biases of Americans as myopic loudmouth jerks who spout off about things that aren’t any of their business. We get used to tuning it out as just ignorant noise. So it really does little to advance anyone’s understanding of your views, other than those that already know in their heart of hearts that the USA is the best country, like, ever. Which I’m sure is fun, in a chucking-red-meat-to-the-sharks kinda way, but is a wee bit circle-jerky, no?

Accusing a lawyer of lying to a tribunal is actually kinda serious.

Absolutely it is. Which is one reason New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which would control this case in the United States and would have resulted in summary judgment for the defense, is such an important decision.

We’ve made a value judgment that the importance of political debate is such that errors in discussing public figures and public servants have to be of high magnitude (malice) to support a libel judgment. You haven’t. Your point is absolutely valid, under Canadian law. The Popehat post contrasts the two systems, and comes down in favor of the American rule because its author sincerely believes that libel suits are frequently misused, in Canada and yes, in the United States, to suppress legitimate criticism of the powerful.

That’s the entire point of the post. I’m sorry our analysis didn’t hit the high level to which you’re accustomed, but we try.

Anyway, keep on with that high level analysis you got going there.