Does being the former leader of the Heritage Front count as being a neo-Nazi? Or are you and the other speech warriors now trying to rehabilitate the Heritage Front through the back door as a merely conservative organzation?

I agree, though, that if this gets to trial, it will be interesting. But given that the defendants seem to have only two legal arguments—the post wasn’t defamatory or that, if it was defamatory, it was true—I don’t like their chances.

More evidence? That would imply that there is any, which I frankly don’t see. Yes, it’s possible to imagine scenarios that could explain the facts—maybe Warman had two computers, one configured slightly differently from the other; maybe Warman had a system crash and had to re-install; etc., etc. But once you’re in this territory, you are writing crime novels, not dealing with the facts that we have. The only reason anyone thought that Warman had posted the Cools message was that they were led to believe that the ‘ballistics’ were a match. They’re not.

(I doubt this will ever come to trial.)

I think you have shown that the IP identity between an earlier acknowledged Warman post and the the Cools post is not depositive. However, that does not prove that Warman did not write the post, rather it demonstrates that more evidence is needed to make the connection. Some of that evidence has been gathered, more is needed.

We know that it was an established “investigative” technique for the CHRC investigators to post provocative things to nasty sites to see who’d bite. We have some evidence that this technique was used by Warman. We have Warman’s own words acknowledging that he did indeed post under aliases to various nasty sites.

Is that enough to win the libel action? I honestly don’t know. It will certainly speak to damages.

In a perfect world it would be lovely to be able to prove absolutely that Warman made the Cools post; in the real world the question comes down to convincing a judge that it is more likely than not that he did and that the Canuck-6 took reasonable care in examining the evidence they had before making the claims they did.

I suspect it will be an interesting trial.

If you read Klatt’s testimony, it’s clear that the user agent data was not a match.

I think it’s perfectly appropriate to debate whether Warman’s methods were appropriate. But in my judgement, one would have to be in tin-foil hat territory to assign him the Cools posting any longer.

Frankly, I have no idea what or what isn’t Marc Lemire, other than a well-motivated defendant at a HRCT, but this “They’re Nazis” thing is getting a bit tiresome.

Like Richard Warman’s denial, on being asked if he posted the Anne Cools message, the man has denied being a Nazi or a neo-Nazi, yet from what I understand the postings of Richard Warman are more pro-Hitler than anything Marc Lemire has ever written.

You are now straying into the realm of the willfully ignorant. Lemire’s history dates back about two decades, and has been compiled extensively by folks like B’nai Brith, the Stephen Roth Insitute, and websites such as Nizkor. Please, please don’t drag the Conservative side of this debate into Ron Paul territory, okay?

So does WK want the HRC to put CCTV inside toilet cubicles in case anyone draws a swastika amidst all the crudely-drawn pictures of genitals?

Aren’t these largely the same crowd who are worrying that Harper will let GW Bush spy on their library borrowings under the PATRIOT Act?