In-Chambers Opinion
Volaworand v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy | 1911.IO

In its finding of probable cause, the Court determined that there was not sufficient evidence to the assertion that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy (henceforth "NHC") defamed Volaworand. In so deciding, the Court both considered the definition of defamation under the Criminal Code and the facts of the case as presented by Volaworand.

Defamation, as defined in Article 1, Section 10 of the Criminal Code, relies on two primary elements: the claim must be "false or grossly misleading" with a "reckless disregard" for factual accuracy, and the purpose of the claim must be to "damage" the affected party's standing. It is therefore not enough merely to lie or misrepresent facts, the falsehoods must be malicious and to such degree that they would in some way damage the defamed party.

The Court did not find probable cause that NHC's claims were grossly misleading, or that damage was caused to Volaworand's reputation. Telegrams sent pursuant to legitimate government or moderation functions would hardly qualify as spam, but that is ultimately a matter of opinion and circumstance, which every member is allowed to hold and share. There is also little evidence that the claim was made maliciously or with an intent to damage Volaworand's reputation; though again, this does not preclude the possibility that there may have been ill intent, merely not to the level necessary for the crime of defamation.

In its deliberation, therefore, the Court concluded that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy's claim that Volaworand engaged in telegram spam did not rise to the level of defamation, even if the claim itself was potentially untrue, on account of the fact that the requirements for the crime were not sufficiently met based on the evidence available.