From Newsgroup: nz.general

This is a really bizarre case (for NZ, anyway, canrCOt speak for other countries ...) <https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361001580/billionaire-jim-grenon-must-pay-costs-tvnz-after-funding-wholly-unsuccessful-defamation-case>.
One of these far-right guys gets investigated by the Electoral
Commission for distributing some dodgy pamphlet prior to the last
General Election. TVNZ runs an item on him, asking researcher Sanjana
Hattotuwa for a professional opinion on the views being expressed,
which he gives.

So the right-winger gets upset and tries to sue both the network and
the researcher for defamation. And during the trial, it turns out
thererCOs this billionaire secretly not only funding the whole
proceedings, but also basically running them. On top of the flimsy
pretext for the lawsuit, the judge sees this as an abuse of the court
process, finds in favour of both TVNZ and Hattotuwa, and further
orders that the filthy-rich benefactor not only pay the plaintiffrCOs
court costs, but those of the respondents as well.

So the right-wingers are in favour of rCLfreedom of speechrCY, but not
when others use it to express opinions they donrCOt like? The judge says

rCLMr GrenonrCOs own evidence is that he supported Mr BatchelorrCOs
claim because doing so was consistent with his own strongly held
views on free speech in an open democracy and to ensure access to
justice occurs, as well as to ensure judicial scrutiny of unfair
accusations is undertaken. I consider Mr GrenonrCOs ability to fund
litigation in this context is a clear benefit to him.rCY

Freedom of speech isnrCOt a one-way street, kiddo. If you want to deal
it, you have to be able to take it, as well. rCLDo unto others as you
would have them do unto yourCY seems a pretty good rule to follow in
this case, as in so many others, donrCOt you think?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2