Defamation and blogs

Glenn Reynolds is a professor of law in Knoxville, Tennessee but he's better known as the blogger Instapundit. Here's an interesting essay he wrote about why so few bloggers have been sued in defamation.

Of course, he writes from the American perspective, and their defamation law is more tilted towards defendants (including bloggers) than ours. But his biggest argument is the same: most bloggers analyze and comment on facts, they don't do primary factual reporting. And, in Canadian law too, if your facts are accurate you have a wide berth to engage in commentary. Even fringe or extremist views can be protected as "fair comment" in Canada, if the underlying facts are accurate.

I have had some bloggers ask that I post a summary of defamation law like this one. I do so because I think defamation law is so fascinating -- a delicate balance between the right of someone to protect his reputation, the right of critics to express themselves, and the right of the public to know things in their interest. You can see that three-way balancing act in that primer.

But I am always loathe to publish such summary, for fear that bloggers might be tempted to do a little home-made defamation law, Lionel Hutz-style, rather than get real legal advice. It is my observation that the biggest defamation law errors made by Canadian bloggers is not that they defame people too easily, but that they do the opposite -- they are too quick to concede that they have defamed someone, and apologize too easily.