A small correction, should Staniford be found guilty, the issue affecting Chris and any other person who disseminates Staniford's defamations would be secondary liability otherwise known as indirect infringement, not vicarious liability. Whether the material is otherwise available or not, I suspect that secondary liability would arise because the material was directly provided by Staniford and more importantly, includes his "editorial" comments, and I use that description very loosely.
I doubt that any of you reactionaries have either the inclination or the wherewithal to source the material on your own. I have to say that in all my years of watching these discussions, I have yet to see any anti-farm information that didn't originate in the drainpipes that flow from Saniford's or Morton's or any of the other activist websites. I have also yet to see any reactionary rationally summarize their objections in their own words. It is inevitably a steady flow of cut and paste of other people's comments, and it is almost inevitably followed by a duck and cover by the cut and paster when asked to explain their personal thoughts on the matter. There is a rare exception to that rule and it involves people who simply make up their own facts in response; know what I mean, Vern?