…and wants yours.

I’m going to cast aside any pretence of detachment here, and just have my Schadenfreude. Frankly, folks, the latest libel judgement against this wretch—and wait for the costs award—has never been more richly deserved. As the judge noted in her scathing ruling, Levant showed “a reckless disregard for the truth” (who knew?) and was motivated by malice. Let’s underline that: Levant went after a young law student and did his best to nip his career in the bud, by making stuff up.

It’s not like Levant is new at this. In 2010 he lost another big one, to a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Giacomo Vigna. I note a few relevant phrases only, but the judgement as a whole is a treat to read.

[137] … In this case, the audience for Levant’s blogs in unknown but publications on the internet can have a worldwide audience…

[140] …He also continued to republish the same inaccurate statements after he was given notice they were considered defamatory and he was asked to stop.

[141] Having considered all of the above factors, including…that Levant continued to make defamatory statements about Vigna for a larger political aim of denormalizing and discrediting Human Rights Commissions generally, …he did not follow responsible journalistic practices or act diligently by checking with a reliable source…

What aggravates all this to the red zone is the man’s utter hypocrisy. For someone who whines about “lawfare,” Levant himself litigates at the drop of a hat. Indeed, in 2010 he threatened me personally with a lawsuit for an honest error about a ruling by the Law Society of Alberta. I retracted this immediately upon learning of it. That’s what grown-ups do. But please check the Update at that link, where his lawyer escalates his demands and claims that overstruck words are continuing my alleged defamation. And compare that to paragraph 156 of the judgement he just lost: “The defendant relies on an ‘Internet practice’ he described, involving overstriking the incorrect text rather than removing it.”

Good grief.

Now, no surprise, this hard-done-by creature has put out his begging bowl yet again. I would have thought that the pool of rubes and suckers who respond to these plaintive calls had been pretty well drained at this point, but, as they say, there’s one born every minute. Those who think that “reckless disregard for the truth” is the same thing as “freedom of speech,” I suspect, are just about to get hosed again.