Talk:Canadian defamation law
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Broken sentence edit
They cannot be held liable for opinion, inference, hyperlinking without explicit agreement with the content, reportage when this is based on honest research and journalistic ethics.
This sentence makes no sense but I don't know enough about the subject to make the appropriate adjustments.
S7indicate3 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Bias edit
This article appears to be highly biased. It's not a discussion of Canadian defamation law, so much as a critique. Not sure how to flag it as such, but suggest it be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.6.10 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Isn't truth a defense against defamation? edit
"Broadly, Canadians can be held liable by English-Canadian courts for comments on public affairs, about public figures, which are factually true, and which are broadly believed." is one of the sentences. Elsewhere, defamation is only defamation if untrue, not "factually true". Is this a typo? Or am I missing something?? 24.53.242.39 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)