3 ms·
I think the article incorrectly summarizes the judge's order. The order makes clear that it was a lawyer telling the plaintiff that the _US state_ barred the ac
by cldellow 3y ago
I think the article incorrectly summarizes the judge's order. The order makes clear that it was a lawyer telling the plaintiff that the _US state_ barred the action.
> [56] As for the possibility of suing the author of the Defamatory Post for defamation, the Plaintiff was advised
by a lawyer in Town B that he was time-barred because, under [State A] law, the action must be brought within
one year of its appearance, regardless of when the victim of the defamation sees the publication.
- thfuran 3y agoI don't think [State A] not being Canada does much to make that law more sensible.
- cldellow 3y agoOh, yeah, I think it's a bad law. But whereas I'd find it baffling for Canada to have such a law, I'm somehow not at all surprised that there are US states that are OK with that: "peace, order, and good government" vs "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
- thfuran 3y agoUS does tend to be on the fairly extreme end of protecting speech.