This article from the Toronto Star details how a judge in Nova Scotia, Canada awarded damages to two men defamed by an American blogger as well as issuing an injunction against him.
Is there any way these guys can collect? Is there any way they can force him to adhere to the conditions of the injunction, i.e. to stop slandering them? Or, are such things unenforceable across the border?
FWIW, I’d love to see the look on that asshole’s face if he did have to cough up!
Thanks!
Maybe. The judgment can be enrolled for enforcement in an appropriate court in his home state, served on him, and he will have an opportunity to respond with any defense he may have against enforcement. That local court would then determine whether any defense raised should prevent enforcement of the judgment. Here, I suspect that he will argue, among other things, that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. Could be an interesting case…
I agree with Oakminster’s “maybe.” Some Canadian provinces have enforcement agreements with some US states–for example, an Alberta judgment can be enforced in Montana, and vice versa; without much more than an endorsement from a court in the foreign jurisdiction, which under the agreement, may be no more than a rubber stamp. (See the Reciprocating Jurisdictions Regulation, Alberta Regulation 344/85, link here.)
But as you might guess from the Regulation, which lists only three American states with which Alberta has reciprocity, any such agreements are done on a province-by-province and state-by-state basis. It is impossible to make a blanket statement that would be correct in all situations.
There’s also the consideration of the SPEECH Act, which makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts unless those judgments are compliant with the U.S. First Amendment. From reading the article the blogger used "homophobic and hateful language,” and while that certainly makes him an asshole it’s still protected under the First Amendment.
Did you read the article closely?
He didn’t just use homophobic and hateful language. He apparently asserted in his blog that the two men “were part of [a criminal corruption] conspiracy,” despite the fact that there is no evidence for this. That sounds like a factual assertion that, depending on exactly what the guy said, might not be protected under the First Amendment.
On a side note, i think the SPEECH Act is a good thing, but why do legislators always have to come up with such retarded fucking acronyms for their bills?
Indeed. I understand about the supremacy of the First Amendment and neither expect or desire it to be softened for this (or any other) case. On the other hand, though, making up and spouting libelous shit is not, and should not be, protected.