Thanks, Antonin. Yes, the court does say “reversed,” but the end of the opinion makes it clear that the court is not directing entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant on the SPEECH Act issue, but rather remanding for further proceedings consistent with the SPEECH Act:

To the extent that a certified and authenticated Canadian judgment is filed and registration sought, the Circuit Court shall impose the procedures as set out above.
In sum, this case is reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court is ordered to set aside the registration granted and quash the execution issued.

That is, the court is not holding, as I read it, that the judgment is not entitled to recognition. It’s giving the plaintiff a chance to submit a suitably authenticated judgment and then directing the lower court to apply the SPEECH Act. The point I am making is that it doesn’t seem to me to be a foregone conclusion that under the SPEECH Act, the Canadian judgment should not be recognized.

By the way, I like the new look of your blog!

I have replied to your comment on my post. In addition to the post link provided, you may also wish to read my earlier post: “Sticks and Stones; Libel Tourism and Free Speech.”

Antonin I. Pribetic