Over the years, whenever this discussion comes up, there is some statement somewhere that goes something like this:
Quote:
|
Duddy lost the case based on US law.
|
There is one problem. To the majority of us, that means that the facts were actually reviewed, the merits of the case were weighed, and a decision was made.
But that was not the case. Instead, due to bankruptcy, the defendant was denied the ability to make their case. The LRC presented only its position without any rebuttal, testimony, evidence that would stand against it. Then the judge essentially made a ruling based on the default of the defendant. They didn't speak or present evidence, so they lost.
This does not make the evidence of the LRC bad, or insist that Duddy could have made his case in a full trial of the facts. Just that the effect of the ruling was to give victory to the LRC because of the inability of Duddy & co to prosecute their case.
The problem is not that Duddy was erroneously found to have libeled the LRC. It is that the ruling does not establish that any court has actually ruled on all evidence. The LRC went around waving their victory as evidence that the content of The God Men was libelous. But the ruling did not really say that. It actually said that for legal purposes, that particular book is treated as libelous. To the extent that money could be garnered to pay any award, they had to pay. And since they failed to prosecute their case, they were under restriction to simply resume publishing and selling the book.
But the actual status of the content of the book was not decided.
It is a technicality. Just like any number of procedural issues that can result in summary judgment for or against (or dismissal of a case) without actually weighing the facts and ruling on the merits.
Don't ask me for legal advice. I am not a lawyer. But common sense tells you that there is a significant difference between taking your facts and evidence to trial and losing and being declared to have lost because you didn't get to present your facts and evidence. Legally, you lose either way. But in the latter case, facts and evidence that would have won are ignored and you lose anyway just because you didn't present.
So my basic comment is that the trial of Duddy and his book does not establish anything as libelous in fact. Only for purposes of the law. The words of the book were not found to be libelous. They were declared so without consideration. And that was all that was needed, legally, to get rid of the book.