1. A huge legal defeat for @Twitter, surprisingly at the hands of Bill Clinton ally @Frank_Giustra. A Canadian court has ruled that Giustra is permitted to sue Twitter itself for defamation — something U.S. courts have not allowed. bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/….
2. Twitter argued the lawsuit should be heard in the U.S., where it would have the protection of the First Amendment & s. 230 of the Communications Decency Act — which the court noted would make the lawsuit impossible. The court said that was a good reason to do it in Canada.
3. This line didn’t get a lot of treatment in the ruling but I couldn’t help but laugh: Twitter claims it “does not mediate or review” tweets. I’d pass on the good news to @realdonaldtrump but he’s been mediated and reviewed and is unavailable.
4. Giustra is a Clinton Foundation billionaire — he’s normally the sort of guy who loves Silicon Valley oligarchs. But he obviously was personally hurt by tweets that defamed him. He has unlimited resources and a good law firm. Twitter won’t be able to roll over him.
5. Section 230 is supposed to protect the internet from lawsuits for things they didn’t themselves publish. Like protecting phone companies from what people talk about on a phone call. Twitter is an active editor, but they use that law. Guess what: that law isn’t in Canada.
6. This ruling will probably be appealed by Twitter, but it looks pretty solid to me. This may be the first time Twitter actually mounts a legal defence for defamation — and they won’t have s. 230 or the First Amendment to help them. In Canada, they are absolutely publishers.
7. Obviously this applies to every social media company from YouTube to Facebook to Wikipedia. U.S. courts have made them immune to legal consequences for defamation. A Canadian court just said: you’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto. And to think it’s at the hands of a top Democrat.
8. My experience with Canadian defamation law says Giustra is going to win, on the substance. Twitter will be held liable for the comments published on its app, since they didn’t delete them after he asked. Maybe he’ll get $1M. But the precedent is worth a thousand times that.
1. This is quite the standard to set. If accepting a $131 online donation from a racist -- who hid his full name; that was immediately returned by the MP when he found out -- is grounds to sack an MP, every single donation is a potential firing offence.
2. O'Toole has been looking to purge Sloan from caucus from the beginning. That's undemocratic, but he should have had the courage to do so. This is so obviously an excuse to sack him without due process or reasonable cause. But worse than anything, it sets the new standard.
3. Right now, the Liberal war room is going through public databases looking for any donor they think they can make sound "offensive". They'll find dozens, all unknown to the Tories. And they'll dump them when they need to wobble O'Toole, or cover for a Trudeau gaffe.
Just a reminder: Trudeau's senior Quebec cabinet minister, a convicted criminal named Steven Guilbeault, has been fighting AGAINST the Keystone XL pipeline since 2013: twitter.com/search?q=from%…
1. I think this will do it. I think you've finally convinced the Liberals and the Media Party to like you. I hear @rosiebarton and the CBC will now drop her lawsuit against you.
This is the seventh day in a row you have danced to their tune. Do you not have one of your own?
2. This doesn't really say anything, though. It's all boilerplate. It's defensive. Does it move a single vote? Why have you been silent on the key issues of our era -- censorship, lockdowns, cancel culture, carbon taxes, UN/WHO misconduct? Because the CBC disapproves?
3. You will always be in a controversy, because you are a politician in an adversarial system. You cannot wish that away. What you can do is choose better battles -- ones where you're on the offensive and the Liberals are on the defensive. Why not try that?
1. About Erin O’Toole — some conspiracy theorists wonder if we really had an interview with him. It’s a weird question, since you can read the interview here: rebelnews.com/exclusive_erin… The whole interaction was done over email, so I’ll share some screenshots.
2. As you know, we had the scoop of the year with our TheChinaFiles.com story. We broke the news, it was reported around the world, from the @globeandmail to @TuckerCarlson. Huge story, right on brand for @erinotoole who raised it in question period.
3. O’Toole had a press conference on the story (my scoop!) I dialed in but oddly enough I wasn’t chosen to ask a question. The CBC got two and so did CP, even though they never actually asked about the documents. That’s odd. So I sent a DM to O’Toole who follows me on Twitter.
Weird. He just did a whole email interview with me. I thought it was pretty good. He doesn’t really explain what changed other than the obvious: he folds under pressure. Liberals have his number now. I guess all that “cancel culture” stuff was just to win the leadership. #Scheer2
If you are a Conservative leader, but you do whatever the Liberals and the CBC tell you to do, you probably don’t have the stuff to withstand an election. Too bad — we need a guy with guts. I would have expected more from a military man.
In politics, appeasing your opponents doesn’t win them over. You just give them unearned moral authority; you give them a veto over you. Ask Rosemary Barton how Andrew Scheer’s appeasement worked on her. But more important: it demoralizes the party base, who love Rebel News.
I’m sorry. This video is the tipping point for me. For 48 years I have been pro-police, almost fanatically so. I cannot say that anymore. I know there are still good cops out there. Some are my friends. But as the violent enforcers of the lockdown I no longer support them.