Talk:Canadian defamation law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]