Kinsella and Warman are lawyers by profession, but they try to avoid real lawsuits -- better to win by the mere threat of one.As a lawyer himself... he knows a little about the bluster and bluff of the serial litigant.
Compare their high school braggadocio towards little bloggers, with this rather meek demand letter sent to the Post in response to a column I had written about him. It was properly ignored; Warman didn't dare sue a monied defendant with real lawyers, and Kinsella chose his paycheque over speaking up for his principles.
I get defamation threats all the time, like this one, just this week from Syed Soharwardy. (Here is my reply.)**********
That reply is not just me being lippy; it's knowing the difference between empty, blustering, Kinsella-ish threats made as a political tactic, and a real legal problem. (I'm pleased to say that, in nearly four years of publishing, the Western Standard was never once served with a defamation lawsuit, despite receiving 50 or so Kinsella specials.
RELATED: Mike Brock on Vitamin K...
What Kinsella either does not understand, does not want to, or simply prefers to misrepresent, is that people like myself believe that hate is best confronted in a free and open society.**********
FROM MIKE'S COMMENTS:
On the weighty matter of state-enforced censorship to prevent "hurt feelings"...
I've seen the civility issue come up before, as when I've posted something in my usual, er, robust manner.*
Inevitably someone objects that I am doing XYZ cause "more harm than good" and that the "average Canadian is turned off" by mouthy/rude/outspoken/sarcastic/whatever commentary.
To date, none of these critics has accepted my challenge to send me the name, address etc of these turned off average Canadians, or the names and addresses of actual people who haven't voted GOP because 'Ann Coulter is so obnoxious'.