And what a revealing read it is! Paragraph 49 is particularly juicy, as is the hilarious “Lack of Damages Due to Lack of Reputation” (132 onward), but you’ll enjoy the whole thing.
There are several ways to fight a defamation claim, and I’m using many of them. Truth, fair comment, etc. are all defences. I’ve also pointed out that Warman has let hundreds of criticisms similar to mine go unchecked on the Internet and even in mainstream publications like Maclean’s, to focus on his prefered targets for “maximum disruption” — me and other leading conservative bloggers.
But I’ve also looked at Warman’s reputation and said, essentially: you’re suing me because I reported that you wrote an anti-Black comment on a neo-Nazi website? But you’ve already admitted, under oath, to writing hundreds of anti-Black, anti-Semitic and anti-gay comments on neo-Nazi websites!
I’ve also pointed out that Warman has issued or threatened literally dozens of defamation lawsuits over the years — including some since he sued me and my co-defendants. Again, how can you go to court claiming that your reputation was damaged, when you’ve written — in your own hand! — that your reputation has been devastated again and again and again, both before and since, by others?
The answer, of course, is that the lawsuit isn’t logical, or serious. It’s a nuisance suit. I believe he thought the defendants would each crumble — the National Post because they already apologized to him, and me and the other bloggers because we’re not wealthy.
I don’t think Warman ever counted on the blogosphere — and not just the conservative blogosphere, but everyone who cares about freedom of speech — chipping in to help us with the costs of our defence.