From: "Phil Allison"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad,sci.electronics.misc
References: <3E08564F.F1FFF559@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: What's going on in Australia?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <4N5O9.9525$jM5.27136@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:19:36 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.139.141.137
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:07:44 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:auacrv$ojr$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
>
> "onestone" wrote in message
> news:3E08564F.F1FFF559@bigpond.net.au...
> > Jim Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 02:58:36 GMT,
> > > "Richard Henry" ,
> > > In Newsgroup: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,
> > > Article: ,
> > > Entitled: "Re: What's going on in Australia?",
> > > Wrote the following:
> > >
> > > |
> > > |"Phil Allison" wrote in message
> > > |news:NBON9.9069$jM5.25963@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > |>
> > > |> "Jim Thompson" wrote in message
> > > |> news:c90f0vc828au5rtcguq115hl54m4bjlshr@4ax.com...
> > > |>
> > > |> > Apparently some Aussie scammer ("...a schemer given to stock
scams,
> > > |> > money laundering and fraud") is suing Dow Jones for defamation:
> > > |>
> > > |>
> > > |> ** That is the claim made in the defamatory article about
> Joseph
> > > |> Gutnik.
> > > |> It is not a proven fact. Mr Gutnik is suing Dow Jones
> over
> > > |that
> > > |> claim.
> > > |> It would be wise to wait for the outcome before
deciding
> he is
> > > |a
> > > |> guilty man.
> > > |>
> > > |> Only jerks go around repeating defamations of people.
> > > |>
> > > |
> > > |Where you live, is calling someone a "jerk" defamatory?
> > > |
> > > |
> > > |
> > >
> > > In the USA, for a "public figure" to be defamed, you must prove
> > > malice. Thus we have basically no libel or slander cases claimed by
> > > "public figures".
> >
> >
> > I don't know about malice, and have only seen one Australian news report
> > on the subject, but accusing someone, who is a highly successful and
> > generally respected businessman in this country,
>
> The list of previously highly successful and generally respected
Australian
> businessmen who now reside in her Majesty's prisons is quite long and
highly
> entertaining.
** The most famous in Australia was Alan Bond - a "ten pound pom" ( ie
assisted passage immigrant)
> > of being a schemer
> > given to stock scams, money laundering and fraud, on TV, or in the print
> > media would result in legal action in most countries, especially the
> > litigation mad USA. Dow Jones were being typically gutless thinking they
> > could hide behind the internet to make these claims. If the claims have
> > substance they should have published it, if they don't they deserve to
> > be financially gutted, either way to make the claims on the internet is
> > cowardly. I thought that even in the US cowardice was frowned upon.
>
> I can't quite see this - Dow Jones has a duty to inform its customers, and
> they can inform them over the internet. It is publishing the information
in
> the legal sense, and they can be sued for libel just as readily as if they
> published in the print media, and more easily than if they published on
TV.
>
> So how is internet piblication "cowardly"?
** Because it originated outside of Australia. Hence the need for the
High Court ruling so Mr Gutnik could start his action in Victoria - where he
lives and was defamed.
> No doubt Dow Jones has evidence to back up their claims
** There is plenty of doubt.
- they are a long-established and reputable organisation - and if the
evidence isn't
> flawed they should have a decent public interest defence
** "Public interest" is not required by law in Victoria in a defamation
case.
Truth is a sufficient defence as it is in most of the world.
.................... Phil