Has it been established whether a blog site like Kate's is liable for the content of the comments of others? Is the commenter the only party liable for a specific comment?

Er, not just Kate, Cap'n.

That's what the world needs - socially empowered Insurance Co.'s telling the blogosphere what's "acceptable" free speech. Good stocking stuffer idea.

Maybe the American government should take out policies on their Declaration of Independance and Bill of Rights before the upcoming November Elections where they'll be electing legions of leftoid social engineers to wreck havoc on a free nation. Don't worry, the Insurance Co.'s will save us from ourselves...for a fee.

"That said, I would think that a lot of insurers would be wary about who they'd issue the blogging insurance to. If I'm a really careful blogger, what do I need the insurance for?"

Doesn't matter if you're "careful" - your post could be 100% accurate and "offend" someone. Resulting in a mega lawsuit.

Martin B

There is already insurance on the Constitution and BOR.

It's called the Second Amendment.

Geez! Haven't these idiots ever heard of "sticks and stones..."

Tell ya what: If I ever say anything you don't like, you can say something back to me that I don't like! Then we'll be even!

Anybody who thinks $100 grand is going to cover one of these lawsuits is dreaming in Technicolor. We're talking between $250,000 to $500,000 here, my friends. Per suit.

Better use of your money would be to spend it lobbying the hell out of your new CPC MP, to impress upon him or her that free speech isn't negotiable. Its the floor, not the ceiling.

You wanna live in North Korea? No? Get busy, kids.

Why would you need blogging insurance when companies like AIG need an 85 Billion dollar bailout?

The probability of a payout would be vanishingly small.

Lets ask Warren Buffet and them decent folks down at Geico whether they have a Freedom of Speech product available in Canada? Y'all come up North ya hear?! I hear the US is coming up with some new fangled Fairness Doctrine to ensure the Bill of Rights is overthrown.

We could construct ever larger HRCs for this specific purpose, and with all the lawsuits Ezra Levant is attracting he will be their biggest customer!

We could set up entire Potemkin villages full of HRCs to impress Her Majesty the Queen, with how free our speech has become.

For more on Freedom of Speech in an American context I recommend:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/444/case.html

Brandenburg v Ohio

But then the HRCs are using their offices to pose as neo-Nazis, according to Ezra's production of transcripts. So the HRCs now have taken the ridiculous position that to catch a neo-Nazi you have to behave like one on the government dime.

Obviously, our speech is getting freer and freer with each passing day, except for the bills your lawyer and decisions the HRCs hand down for 'protecting your rights'.

If the HRCs didn't behave like such two bit shysters they might have some credibility.

Furthermore, why would a two bit shyster act like a neo-Nazi, it doesn't make any sense; but it does make a whole lot of dollars.

How about Parliament disabling their enabling legislation.

FIRE.THEM.ALL.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von
Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

$100,000 isn't much,in the scheme of things.
Would have to be a very small payout with the defendant footing the 1st $2,500.Not too many defamation lawsuits would run that low factoring in legal costs etc.
What would the premiums escalate to after the 1st court case...2nd case etc?
Ezra's premiums would be off the radar...hmmm, he might have to sell his Hummer.

Why would Kate need insurance when she speaks the truth?

Hans

I agree. I can't afford "free" speech.

"Why would Kate need insurance when she speaks the truth?"

Because truth is irrelevant in case one is dragged up before a kangaroo court (aka Human Rights Commission), only feelings count.

if you want to have free speech, get a gun.

Hard Right, I agree completely.

What we really need to do here in Canada is import the first and second ammendments of the US constituion and make them part of the Canadian constitution. The second ammendment guarantees that the first ammendment will work.

Would that include insurance protection from the Gestapo at the CHRC? According to those fascists, "the truth is no defence".

John B;

"Why would Kate need insurance when she speaks the truth?"
Because truth is irrelevant in case one is dragged up before a kangaroo court (aka Human Rights Commission), only feelings count.

I think you missed the sarcasm....that was basically what I was getting at:)