What is being sought:
1) A declaration that in refusing to air the ad the stations had breached Mr Tomlinson's constitutional rights to freedom of speech as well as freedom to disseminate information, opinions or ideas through any media.
2) An order for Television Jamaica TVJ, PBCJ and CVM TV to air the ad in exchange for the standard fee and also damages.
She also claimed that previous tolerance typed programs resulted in acts of violence to persons involved so that form of expression would not be justified. She continued that Mr Tomlinson does not have the right to use TVJ's property to carry his message as the charter does not give him the right to say he can use their facilities, she used a freedom of expression example that persons have a right to freedom of speech but that the individual does not have a right to make a speech in someone's front yard.
Mrs Gibson Henlin says that case law from other countries with similar constitutions support her contention that the charter of rights does not permit a private citizen to sue another private entity as is being done in this case.
She faced intense questions on this issue from Justice Brian Sykes stating that the charter does not compel the conclusion that some kind of government action is needed before one private citizen can sue another.
They day concluded with lead counsel for CVM TV Mr Hugh Small commencing his arguments. His short introduction dealt with Mr Tomlinson's rights but that the court cannot offer Mr Tomlinson relief as if in doing so not also breach CVM TV's rights as well. Mr Tomlinson therefore cannot assert his rights to the extent that it infringes on his client CVM.