The Ontario Superior Court has set a new framework for defamation with political bloggers. In a new ruling it says that the context of blogger debates might make it possible to exchange libels without penalty.

The court said the context of the platform, with lots of freewheeling comments in the mix, might mitigate what would otherwise be considered a libel. If someone were expecting a rejoinder, for instance, the first remarks might not be problematic. The case recognized the different dynamic of an Internet debate.

It is more than likely the case will be appealed, but the ruling sets a different tone for the standards of political blogging on message boards in Ontario, Canada's largest jurisdiction and often a precedent-setting place for communications and media. This case is bound to be watched as it moves up in the justice system.

The sleeping giant within the cost of gathering news is the legal expense to help journalists publish with minimal risk and to defend with minimal damage. Few constituencies are more stressed than the United Kingdom, where the legal framework is challenging for journalism.

The Guardian reports today on the British Broadcasting Corporation's bills --- nearly 700,000 pounds in recent years --- simply on legal advice to deal with public complaints about its work.

Particular challenge exists to its Middle East coverage and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent defending its programming. The BBC had to hire external experts to deal with the details of complicated complaints.

"Senior journalists grumble that the constant stream of complaints and legal challenges ties up staff in mounting a defence, often of individual news items or even single quotes; while at the same time complainants are frustrated by the slowness with which complaints are resolved," the article notes.

Internal concerns at BBC suggest the process of dealing with public complaints is cumbersome and open to abuse. The public broadcaster is examining new procedures to mitigate the problem.