The defences against the charge of defamation are manifold, including no intention to defame, justification, statement of truth of the matter or known facts, fair comment and not “degraded in the eyes of the community”.
One question arises about Cambridge Analytica (Cambridge), is, if it had information that would exonerate a defendant in a defamation case, should the operators of Cambridge reveal it.
Another question would be, if the defendant can compel Cambridge to show what it has. But this is not all. It would be a very curious thing and a dangerous conjunction, if not also criminal, were the plaintiff himself a part of Cambridge; or, worse again, if the information withheld would expose the plaintiff in wrongdoing complained of by the defendant.
How will that be regulated? To say, therefore, that there is no more privacy is really to add your own capitulation to a corruption. And to surrender everything into the hands of Cambridge is alien to everything we are. There does need to be a think-tank involved with Cambridge for it to perform along rational lines, whether local or foreign or mixed.
Who is the think-tank? When did this think-tank come into being? Did it have anything to do with the dismantling of the policies and successes of former Prime Minister Patrick Manning?
Can it possibly bring back what we have lost? How is it constituted?
via email