As Kevin Bonham says, Karl in his (spot on) evaluation that The Examiner has “lost the right to call itself a newspaper” was obviously talking about moral not legal right. He wasn’t suggesting that the courts should step in and prevent the Ex from rolling the presses and hawking their rag around the streets. They still retain the customary guarantee of free speech - in their case, to print offensive drivel which is calculated to inflame people’s passions against selected groups the paper doesn’t like.  But baseless allegations of the sort made by Ms Reynolds and her calculated high-impact contributor Mr P. A. Lennon WOULD have been defamatory and subject to court action had they named names (of so-called “trained anti-mill operatives”). That they were clever, calculating (and gutless) enough to avoid accusing anyone in particular only makes their moral turpitude worse.

Read more, Comment here