Hockey Widow wrote:Brian I think you did the right thing. This board is a privilege that you allow us to be members of and protecting it and yourself had to be your first choice. It's a lesson for all of us. It sure sounds like Burke wants to prove a point and take a stand. No one can really fault him for that. Whether we agree or disagree with his approach it is his right to pursue this in a way he feels he needs to.
As for Aaron, we all know he is not a malicious type or a troll and certainly not one you would expect to be caught up in this. Hopefully Burke and his lawyers will see he is not the person you need or want to make an example out of. Coming after him will do nothing to stop the real trolls.
Its like getting a guy who illegally downloaded 10 songs when the guys who downloaded thousands get off without a scratch.
I think what I find disturbing is that Burke and his lawyers don't seem to care if they harm someone like Aaron all the while trying to persuade people that his reputation has been harmed. It's the bluster and gall that gets me. Harmed? Really? Angry sure, but harmed by this.
I don't think Burke is fair game either simply because he is in the public eye. Being in the public eye doesn't mean you give up your rights to privacy and your right not to be defamed. I get that. But the punishment has to fit the crime and here I just don't see where the harm has been. I dunno, I guess as this moves forward we will hear exactly how Mr. Burke feels his reputation has been harmed.
Certainly those that frequent this board already know enough about Burke and I doubt anyone here that may have read it here felt anything more or less about the man. But again I don't remember reading it here but I do trust Aaron's explanation.
Sorry got to disagree with you on the public thing, choosing a high profile career that depends on notoriety, intentionally puts yourself in the line of fire:
The following is not Canadian law but it illustrates the idea that makes me feel no sympathy for Mr Burke and his decision to tilt at this windmill absolutely reeks of an extremely fat fucking head.
If your reading this Mr Burke your crusade against hockey fans discussing why you were fired so surprisingly is probably exactly the kind of thing that MLSE meant when they said not a corporate fit...
Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 ).
Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word—for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan..