The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Phil Allison"
References: <3E08564F.F1FFF559@bigpond.net.au> <4N5O9.9525$jM5.email@example.com>
Subject: Re: What's going on in Australia?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 23:17:59 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 23:08:25 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
> "Phil Allison" wrote in message
> > > So how is internet piblication "cowardly"?
> > ** Because it originated outside of Australia. Hence the need for
> > High Court ruling so Mr Gutnik could start his action in Victoria -
> > lives and was defamed.
> Funny. My impression was that we all live on Earth. From what has been
> posted it looks as if Mr. Gutnick could have sued in New Jersey, where
> Dow-Jones seem to have their headquarters, but he chose to try and sue in
** He needs to sue in Victoria since that is where he lives and and
operates from. It is also the jurisdiction in which he was most seriously
defamed and he ought to get the benefit of local laws. He also needs to
show the extent of damage caused to his good name - that may mean him
calling lots of friends and colleagues as witnesses.
> You might say that Dow-Jones was taking a cowardly advantage of the
> differences between the Australian and American legal systems, but that
> seems to be stretching things to me.
** It is almost certain they made the decision to publish on that
> > > 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
> > ** "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
> Not under the U.K.legal system it isn't.
** The UK legal system normally requires no "public benefit" to be
established if substantial truth is shown.
There is a legal maxim "the greater the truth, the greater the libel"
** Certainly. But truth alone *is* a sufficient defence in nearly
and IIRR a convicted murderer, who had
> served his sentence and had been living quietly in the community for
> was able to successfully sue someone who libelled him by publicising the
> facts of his conviction without good cause.
** Can you give the details? This might happen in NSW or Qld under
their state Defamation Acts.
> If the "facts" adduced by Dow Jones can be shown to be true,
** Then Mr Gutnik and his legal team are insane to sue. Those "facts"
would be enough to put him in jail. But that is a big "if" of yours.
If however, Dow Jones published rumour and gossip that they
cannot establish as fact in the Victorian Supreme Court, Mr Gutnik can
expect a full retraction and a large settlement.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup