Just to keep this whole discussion on topic, I had a look at the Ezra Levant topic and noted this paragraph.

There is a whole lot of weirdness going on up North related to the Canada's Human Rights Commissions and Article 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt". A controversy involving Richard Warman, ex-employee and complainant in almost 50% of all Canada's article 13 federal human rights cases. Warman being one of "the hounds" of war who launched a surprise pie attack on his avowed enemy, morphing alien lizard conspiracy theorist David Icke, whom he went to sue for $1,000,000 in the belief that by "morphing alien lizards", Icke meant Jews (... like Ezra Levant).

Now, putting aside that there may just be other agendas at play, and that this might just be a wind up, as all this impacts on people's real lives ... relating to the Wikipedia,

is it truly notable 'to be in the process of being sued' and 'is the size of the claim notable, considering that the case might as well be lost as won'?

Is it not meaningless and on a par with 'reporting future events' as which is 'against The Rulz'?

Is it morally or ethically correct to drag up or is it just kids writing about stuff they have absolutely no real understanding of?

I mean, any idiot can start any legal action they can afford, and a few they cannot afford, and ask for a huge sum ... that is North American law. What is the big deal? I cannot imagine it has or will ring any bells for the Encyclopedia Britannia yet.

In the old days, when someone started a nuisance case against one, no one else would know about it and it would just evaporate after it failed. Now it gets top billing on Google and stays forever.

Richard Warman's other targets for legal threats have involved student newspapers (which did not bow down) and public librarians.